[Synth/Dance] Fever (mp3)

[uncloned]

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.

[Oliwerko]

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  

[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.

I would be glad to answer some questions - or at least attempt to answer them, if you run into something curious in a module.

[Oliwerko]

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  

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).

[psishock]

omg it's the basshunter, everybody run, ruuuuuun!!


: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 . Put your own soul in your own music (creativity), don't follow these famous dudes.

[uncloned]

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.

[Oliwerko]

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.

[uncloned]

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.

[Oliwerko]

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).

[Harbinger]

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:

[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.

Rhythmic 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

When 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

[Oliwerko]

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.

[Harbinger]

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.

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!

Sorry to ramble. :lol:

[uncloned]

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.

[uncloned]

PS sorry for hijacking your thread  :oops: