Hello there again,
Last few weeks I've been putting some big effort to make this one sound nice, and this is what I ended up with.
I have taken very big care for every detail, for every slightest volume change and structural factors.
I am now ready to be taken down by some serious issues you will reveal to me that surround this song, and I'm hungry to hear them. So please, try and give me some pointers what I've done wrong and what I've done well; I am grateful for any feedback.
Here is the song:
http://download.modplug.com/uploads/files/125339522904%20-%20Fever.mp3
Thanks for help in advance :wink:
Better than 'KRM', I think.
This is quite a classical approach, which makes it somewhat predictable here and there.
The bass line of the three repeating notes going up is too monotonous.
But maybe it's supposed to be like that in this genre, I dunno.
Otherwise you could change one of these notes to its quint or octave, up or down, once in a while.
And this short transposition at the end of the song is a poor attempt to vary something. Better not.
But the instruments are well balanced in volume and the panorama.
Thanks for listening, Sam.
Yeah, I kind of sticked to the ordinary layout, but nevertheless it's a success in this phase of learning.
I've had issues with the bassline from the beginning. I've tried to change the notes up or down, but either way the sample just sounded a bit weird. So I just altered the volume so it wouldn't be so loud, but...yeah, it's monotonous, but I just couldn't give up that cool sample.
I'm glad to hear that the volume is balanced, it was some hard work and I wasn't able to judge anymore after few hours of work :D
And by that transposition you mean the whole melody from 4:17; or just the 5:09 one where the last "trumpet" melody merges with the fast one?
I meant the transposition of the bass line from 4:09
Oh, yeah. That sounded a bit weird to me too, but in the end I decided to keep it there. Well, I know for next time.
What do you think about the duration/ideas ratio?
I always have major dilemmas considering how much time is good for some amount of ideas, and this was not an exception. Is it OK playing time-wise ?
I suppose you don't mean : the more duration, the more ideas it contains.. :)
In the beginning there's often the tendency to make things too long for one's own listening pleasure.
Also because in tracking it's very easy to duplicate patterns.
No, it's that I'm afraid that the duration is excessive compared to the amount of ideas it possesses.
This is a problem I keep bumping into, asking "Isn't it too boring, too long without change?" or "This is pretty fast-changing, should I make it a bit more repetitive to keep it stabile?"
Exactly like you said - it's very easy. The problem is - when it's needed and when it's not. Actually, I changed this track quite drastically. Now there is each melody repeated twice (i.e. the long synth lead repeats the same thing twice, then the high-pitched short "ping" lead does the same). Originally, it was only two patterns for each, not four like now. But everyone told me to double it, and I myself considered it more stabile.
Notes as i'm listening:
Volume needs to be diminished by about 30%, perhaps with a compressor.
If a chiptuner decided to branch off into EDM, this would be his piece. VERY basic timbres and rhythms, simplistic melodic progression, spartan song design (though the layer progression is decent). Overall it sounds uninspired, but i think that's because everything is kept from being overly complex. Or perhaps the composer could use a refresher course on music theory, especially the chapters on melody and voice-leading, then a pamphlet on modern Trance techniques, like filtering and sonic progression.
For a rookie, it's okay. For an experienced tracker, it's amateurish.
This tune has two big problems, which can be fixed more or less easily:
- It is horribly distorted. No need to use a compressor as Harbinger suggest, just simply turn down that mixing volume!
- The usage of samples. This becomes very obvious in the first minute of the tune. It sounds very static and you use the same synth hit all the time, with no variation in volume or aftertouch. This could easily remedied by using VSTis or at least a couple of different synth samples of the same instrument.
Apart from that, it sounds pretty oldskool and has a nice vibe.
Thanks for responses.
Quote from: "Harbinger"
Or perhaps the composer could use a refresher course on music theory, especially the chapters on melody and voice-leading, then a pamphlet on modern Trance techniques, like filtering and sonic progression.
Well, I don't really know anything about these things (which is a bit weird after having music theory classes for 7 years :lol: ). What would you recommend doing?
I'm taking it step-by-step, I'm still a beginner (this is approx. my 12th song), and leave filtering and similar stuff after I learn the basics.
Same with the usage of samples. I'm focusing on the structure and melodies, I'll move on to VSTs when I'm more "prepared".
Oh, and also, Harbinger - if I understood correctly - the simplicity of the melodies used is a bad aspect of the song? It didn't seem too bad to me.
Quote from: "Oliwerko"Well, I don't really know anything about these things (which is a bit weird after having music theory classes for 7 years :lol: ). What would you recommend doing?
I'm taking it step-by-step, I'm still a beginner (this is approx. my 12th song), and leave filtering and similar stuff after I learn the basics.
Same with the usage of samples. I'm focusing on the structure and melodies, I'll move on to VSTs when I'm more "prepared".
A class is one of the last places one should learn Music Theory. Just get a textbook on it, and read bits and pieces of it, applying what you know to your compositions. When you see how voice-leading helps melodic progression, and how inverted chord progressions help define a listener's musical expectation, it will become clear when YOU apply it for yourself in something you created. That's when it really makes sense.
Hi,
Dance is not something I usally like so I stayed away at first.
When you mentioned having theory classes I became curious.
The following is IMHO:
It is noticeable how dry most of the the synth parts are. Some reverb would go a long way.
A good application of classical theory could breathe new life into a genre such as this - some polyphony in the lead instruments would be great. I heard some harmonization in the middle register - this is good - I suggest doing that in the higher register as well.
The bass is a sort of cantus firmus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantus_firmus
I have to agree with Sam in that the direct modulation of piece doesn't work so well - I think that is because it doesn't happen enough to establish a pattern - it just sort of hangs out there as a one time experiment and seems lonely. I'd either get rid of it like Sam suggested or do it more. However, most music of this type doesn't modulate so... approach this with some caution and ingenuity.
Harbinger - Anything in particular you would recommend? Any particular book, or better - an internet source (if I'm not overexpecting :? )
I really want to learn more, but the thing is I don't know where to do so.
uncloned - Thanks for listening and valued feedback.
Yeah, the dryness of the whole piece is something that I overlooked somehow. I don't know why.
I also don't really know what you mean by the middle register harmonization, for as I said, I do it all by ear and feelings (wheter being a classical instrument musician counts or not).
And yes, the modulation was a mistake and the easiest fix would be removing it.
I really thank you very much for this help, I really learn a lot from it.
some reading I recommend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28music%29
how much theory background do you have?
I believe Harbinger has a music degree - and so do I - there were some other folks that were active a year ago or so that were classically trained / educated as well.
Not that having a music degree makes you any better because you can't learn creativity - the training provides a common language that when used makes things go faster.
Well, I don't know if that's a "degree" in our language (I guess not), I have had flute classes for 6 years and then clarinet for 2 years, including 7 years of musical theory/history. But then the theory classes taught me pretty much nothing.
We call the basic 7 years the "elementary musical school" here, and if you want more, you then have to study on a musical high school, which is pretty rare here. So I have the "basic" 7-year "degree", so to say, and a little bit more.
As for now, I have pretty extensive experience in playing the flute, I have played in a folk ensemble for at least 5 years, so I know the basics.
But as you said, I don't know how much this helps when tracking. I guess there are both people that are musically educated and people who do it just by ear.
if you have the means to record your flute playing I might have a song for you to collaborate with if you'd be interested.
It sounds like you've had an introduction to common practice music theory.
If you are interested in more information there are some good sources on the web.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Music_Theory
And I can highly recommend: Twentieth Century Harmony, creative aspects and practice by Vincent Persichetti for a survey of the "uncommon practice" of the past 100 years or so. I bought this book on Amazon.com for ~$30 USD.
Well, I haven't played for some time already (and don't see any free time for a week ahead at least :( ), and I don't have anything to record the flute with, sorry.
Thanks for the resurce recommendations.
The whole thing is that I don't really know what I'm missing, what I know and what I don't (e.g. what I do need to be able to compose correctly). Studying what to study is hard :D
I recommend you look at the tracker code for music modules of songs you like.
surf the releases here for modules and also at http://modarchive.org/
using modplug tracker is a good choice because it loads many types of modules.
I would be glad to answer some questions - or at least attempt to answer them, if you run into something curious in a module.
Quote from: "uncloned"I recommend you look at the tracker code for music modules of songs you like.
surf the releases here for modules and also at http://modarchive.org/
using modplug tracker is a good choice because it loads many types of modules.
That's what I'm doing for over a year now 8)
Thanks for your kind help, I remember having some interesting mods I would like to ask about, I'll look into it and contact you via PM then.
I was a bit surprised how Harbinger mentioned the music theory, as I was the opinion that it helps little when it comes to composing. Voice leading? Sonic progression? What?
Maybe I should stress the point that I have made under 20 songs so far. Isn't pure unexperience playing a big role in my case? I don't know, I have the feeling that with every song, I make a progress. With KRM, I learned a bit more about basic reverbs and panning and polyphony for example.
It's weird, I pretty much like Fever for it's crude, dull synth sound (maybe that's the reason I didn't add any reverbs). Harbinger mentioned that it's VERY simple and therefore sounds uninspired. Even I sometimes think "wow, this is so simple" when I hear a modern dance track (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyYXirCAHP0&feature=fvst just to give an example of simplicity).
omg it's the basshunter, everybody run, ruuuuuun!!
(http://i37.tinypic.com/2e31vdh.jpg)
:lol: um well, the case is not that hopeless yet, but you need to find a different source of inspiration if you want to improve. Basshunter and similar commercially famous dudes wont spark your creativity, but bashing them, suggesting that dead-boring structures are ok, because they make soul-less copycat musics. Well, they are not :D. Put your own soul in your own music (creativity), don't follow these famous dudes.
Quote
I was a bit surprised how Harbinger mentioned the music theory, as I was the opinion that it helps little when it comes to composing. Voice leading? Sonic progression? What?
Voice leading - that can in general be thought of as hearing the direction a melody wants to go in. Such as using the keyboard (piano or PC) play a C major scale and stop at the high B : that is
CDEFGAB
Doesn't your mind want to hear that high C?
The B is "leading" to the C and that B creates tension. In just the C major scale there are all kinds of tendencies one can exploit.
C F G - then most often one wants to hear the low C - those notes are the roots (roughly the bottom notes) of the chords in a Blues or Rock progression. Again - that G has the tendency to return to the "home note" C.
Those to me are the voice leading tendencies. Perhaps Harbinger meant something different - I'm sure he will say.
Sonic progression
Listen to the background for the tune I posted "Artificial Spotlights" - or better follow the link to solo's original.
Note how the textures change with time - how he wrote contrasting sections that still belong to the piece but provide interest. That is sonic progression.
------------
All of these techniques take time to listen, hear, and then use. But one can start to explore them even as a beginner.
Hahaha, psishock, that was a brilliant response :lol:
I didn't by any means want to say that I like, or that I think that the song (or perhaps basshunter as a whole) is something I would like to follow, hell no. And as you may have already heard, I'm far from that for now. :wink:
uncloned - uh-huh! It's a bit clearer to me now. So I need to study THESE things! I didn't really know where to look, what to look for. It's interesting how composing is really far from playing, even if it doesn't look so at the first glance.
Oli - it depends what kind of playing you are talking about.
Following a written score or closely a known song - yes I agree with you.
If improvising - like Jazz - then composing and playing can be very close.
Sam_Zen talks about "instant composing" which is a higher type of improvisation where form is also improvised making a complete composition on the fly.
Well, I was used pretty much to that ordinary following of a written score,
but, in the folk ensemble, we were very often forced to play by ear, it probably was some degree of improvisation (one band playing a song unknown or at least half-unknown to the other band, which had to catch on).
Sorry to leave you with so little response.... :(
Perhaps i should write up a thesis on applying Music Theory to tracking. One doesn't need to know what "voice-leading" or the Circle of Fifths to make good electronic music -- those are just old-school terms to help with skills, not talents or aesthetics.
One thing i've learned since leaving college and doing all kinds of composing -- on piano, on synthesizers, on acoustic guitar, sequencing, and now tracking, is that modern music (which hasn't been really analyzed and delineated for young artists today) relies on what can be boiled down to "progressions" as i call them. These progressions are really old concepts that have been "logicalized" for the computer age. They are:
Rhythmic Progression
Bass Progression
Chord Progression
Melodic or Harmonic Progression
Sonic or Timbral Progression
"Interactionary" Progression
ALL (yes, uncloned, all) "music" has at least one of these progressions. The best composers are those that can use all of them to make aesthetically pleasing art (altho that's quite subjective based on culture and the sensibilities of the individual hearing it).
All in all, don't worry about TRYING to apply what you know necessarily. All of the music theory i've learned i keep in the background of my thoughts when i'm developing an inspiration. When you think about it anyway, music theory is a RESULT of all good music that's been created, not a CAUSE of it. :wink:
actually there is an ambient drone artist that was on IUMA in the late 90's called Chris Gross that had several pieces that did not progress. The textures were so thick and multilayered that you discovered more as you listened. And I'd like to point out that 4'33'' didn't progress as well.
QuoteRhythmic Progression
Bass Progression = melodic progression
Chord Progression = harmonic progression
Melodic or Harmonic Progression
Sonic or Timbral Progression
"Interactionary" Progression
what on earth is interactionary progression?
=> in short music (in general) plays with variation over time - what ever that variation may be.
Now you last statement I can almost agree with
QuoteWhen you think about it anyway, music theory is a RESULT of all good music that's been created, not a CAUSE of it.
There have been people (Schoenberg off the top of my head) that formulated the theory first and then worked within the framework. (Happened in art many times too - cubism, pointillism)
However when it comes to "common practice" harmonic usage - theory can only try to explain the past and cannot predict the future, by definition.
i
Quote from: "Harbinger"music theory is a RESULT of all good music that's been created, not a CAUSE of it. :wink:
Very well said!
The thing that just bugs me is that I do everything by ear. I don't know if I know enough or not, that's weird. I don't really know if I have any knowledge, anything that I keep in background or not.
I guess I have to look at the theory more deeply (all that progression stuff is a one big question mark to me), starting with not doing everything by ear.
Anyway, I think it's only going to get better, for some time I've had a struggle with only composing a "full" song (that means sticking to some conventional structure and sound spectrum), and I'm making progress faster than I initially thought. So I hope that after being more "at home" in trackers and their basis, I'll have more space to think about theory.
Just not knowing if I know anything or not is irritating.
Quote from: "uncloned"actually there is an ambient drone artist that was on IUMA in the late 90's called Chris Gross that had several pieces that did not progress. The textures were so thick and multilayered that you discovered more as you listened. And I'd like to point out that 4'33'' didn't progress as well.
The only way
music doesn't progress is if it is not changing, or if the progressions are random and not ordered. (When i use the term "progression" there is an implied design or order.) If the aural texture changes, it can be classified as timbral progression (nowadays with ambient and drone music, we must broaden it to "sonic progression"). If
nothing changes then it's just a flat sound, like listening to an electric fan. I would hardly call that music.
Quote from: "uncloned"
what on earth is interactionary progression?
This is the progression between "parts" -- that is, the bass plays then the piccolo, then the drum, then all together. This was of utmost importance in Baroque and later in jazz. Which is why these styles are considered "classical". Furthermore, many times a piece would be one part of a bigger piece of music -- i would classify this as "interactionary" (sorry i had to make up a word), as often one section may not be enough to portray a vision or flesh out an idea. Think Petrushka or Eine Kleine Nachmusik.
By the way i would differentiate between bass progression, chord progression, and melodic progression because they are distinctly different types of progression, each part of what you might call a "study". Bass progression in modern music is often overlooked, because most trackers and sequencers think all they hafta do is hit the root note, and that defines the chord. But there is an art to the bassline, and how it's done can define a genre of music as much as the rhythm line. The two extremes of bass progressions are ostinato and funk.
Chord progression has a different approach too, as emotion and atmosphere are often defined by what chords go in what sequence. What's more, six-fours, i've learned, dilute the "feeling" of a chord. Inversions (or the lack of them) are important in making the listener feel your inspiration and the emotion behind it, whether something is seen as positive, or negative, or neither.
And melodic progression, which also includes harmonies (voice-leading), can help the listener see what you see. The Impressionists like Debussy and Faure were masters at this art: with melodic progression they could take you to a place. In a lot of modern pop, melody and harmony can make or break the likability of a song.
That's the end of today's lesson, class. Go on about your business! :P
Sorry to ramble. :lol:
I think I disagree with your definition of music - because time is *always* moving during a performance even if nothing welse changes - and... there is *always* a change at the start and finish. Also, randomness is never 100% nor is it 0% - it is continuum and always present in music to one degree or another. (one case to consider is if you use cSound and specify everything by math if randomness hits 0%.... I think no, it approaches zero asymptotically because if nothing else there is the thermal noise of the computer components to consider because at some stage the music exits the digital realm and becomes analog. http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/RES/NOISE.HTM )
as for your classifications of progressions
It is a personal thing I guess - I see it as a hydra with many choices to use to express myself and don't draw the same lines as you do. I see it as notes, rhythm, timbre, possibly words depending... and I think that coves it all.
PS sorry for hijacking your thread :oops:
*whispers*
something tells me he learned a little from our discussion, so it's all good! :wink:
Exactly. 8)
good!!
music theory.... its like learning how to read a book but it doesn't give you the gift of being an author.
the biggest use of theory for me today is to know a lot more choices that are available than say before college.
On the other hand - writing music "by the book" results, IMHO, in tables and chairs and not art. Sure, you can use a I-IV-V rock progression like everyone else... but its damn hard to make it your own or make it sound like something new. Some people can - and that's a creative gift and not a theory book. I've seen people get confused on that point.
Hiya
I was so impressed on the quality of this song that I had to register just to comment on this. Amazing, this would fit _perfectly_ as background music for some sort of a platform game.
For my conscience not to judge me, I had to come and ask you this question: would it be OK if I'd use this piece of music for a non-commercial game of some kind? I'm a(n amateur) programmer with a lack of musical creativity so I never could create something like this by myself.
Thanks!
-VesQ
EDIT: Oh ofcourse, private message would've been better... well, I just felt like posting this here so everyone could read it, since it was some kind of a review at the same time.
Hello there,
Just for convenience in the future - please use the private message system so the thread does not get bumped and the others don't have to read private matters.
I have to say that I'm flattered :lol:
Seriously, I'm glad you like it, and yes, feel free to use it wherever you want, just let me know so I can check it out then :wink: