FA+
Shop
Music constants
16 years ago
General
I have a simple question:
If you wanted to describe my music to someone else, how would you describe it?
I'd like to know what seems "constant" in my music, so I can choose whether I want to emphasize those constants -- or to subvert them.
If you wanted to describe my music to someone else, how would you describe it?
I'd like to know what seems "constant" in my music, so I can choose whether I want to emphasize those constants -- or to subvert them.
That's not going to change.
Do you have any advice on how to make my music not be so mushy?
But for "fake", I refer to the fact that you use a computer program to make it, instead of actually playing it yourself. Now there was a point in time where I wouldn't bash "fake" music, but I have acquired a distaste for music that was made using a computer program.
I might have acquired this through a combination of coming to appreciate
As far as repetitiveness goes, I really don't hear very much variety in it unless I am paying very very careful attention. (Even then, I rarely notice this unless you point it out to me.) I personally find these miniscule changes to be too unnoticeable to be particularly interesting. (I should also mention the fact that whenever I try to compose such music, it comes out sounding boring, annoying, and awful! [I should upload an unfinished attempt to add tone to that "Drum-Fuck" assignment you had me do, so I can give you an example of such a thing.])
But I have more to bitch about the "fakeness" of your music. You seem to have a tendency to explain to people about your music; you tell them what your music is, rather than having them figure it out for themselves.
I don't mean to bash on anyone, but I couldn't help but to notice a certain "fakeness" of the first two comments on this journal. You are almost constantly telling me that you are an "experimenter", that you experiment with things, and then figure out what works. I would assume that you tell this to most people who listen to your things. I couldn't help but to notice that the first two comments are in complete agreement with this, suspiciously so. Do they really mean that, or are they just absent-mindedly repeating what you told them? I myself have fallen in this trap numerous times; I find myself arguing with people, and then I realize that I am taking the side of a viewpoint that isn't really mine, but rather something that someone else told me.
When you have to over-analyze things intellectually, you are ridding something of its "purity". Words represent ideas; the words themselves are meaningless bullshit that carry the pure essence of things, and transport them.
To explain what I mean by this exactly, I shall explain why I despise poetry, poetry classes, and "official" education so much. Basically, it's all a load of pretentious bullshit.
But to get into more detail, I shall give an example....
"Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?"
Ah Dr. Seuss, one of the few poets that don't hate (along with T.S. Eliot and William Blake). Now most people now perfectly well what those lines me; the story is about some guy harassing some other guy to eat green eggs and ham, and he gives a huge shitload of various situations that he is hoping would make him feel differently about eating such things.
But an official poetry teacher will feed you a pack of over-analytical bullshit. He will tell you something like, "What does the author mean by 'in a box', as well as 'with a fox'?" He's trying to get you to look for a hidden meaning; perhaps he might tell you something like, "By 'box', the author is referring to 'thinking inside the box'; he's trying to tell Sam-I-am that maybe he would have a better appreciation of green eggs and ham if he was more rigidly conformist in his thinking. And as far as 'with a fox' is concerned, that refers to a clever person. So the guy that is harassing Sam is trying to convince him that he might like green eggs and ham if he was A. narrow-minded, and B. eating them while in the presence of a clever person."
Of course, that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that a poetry teacher will try to tell you that that "green eggs and ham" refers to something completely different!
On using a computer program for my music: I'm not a strong enough musician to play the music I want to create. Though I'm slowly getting better, I have a long way to go.
On repetition: I guess that you mean I use the same rhythms throughout a piece (like Spring Bransle) and similar-but-different melodies over the rhythms. My next piece will have more variety.
Finally, I have no comment about
The music has kind of an "unsettled" feel to it. Not unsettling, unsettled. Meaning it just kinda moves along at its own pace- almost under its own will, if that makes sense.
I think it's a nice effect, the softly changing harmonies, the wandering melodies- some of these pieces are ESPECIALLY nice!
Though, do you sometimes write music that's a little more structured? I'm just curious because nice though it is, it makes me wonder if you have an idea of form in mind as you write. This isn't meant to be critical or put you down- when I write music form is THE hardest thing for me... I'm really not good at plotting out which melodies to use where, how to transform them and bring it to a nice conclusion. My music is kind of crazy and random, mostly lacking the relaxed feeel of much of your music, but having this problem with form myself, I wonder if that's also something you struggle with. Is it?
(again I don't mean for this to be a bashing post and I'm sorry if I failed to word it tactfully enough- I'm honestly just curious)
Second... *erp*
Wow.
I must have a LOT to learn about creating music... because I -thought- that I had been paying attention to form.
Can you recommend any good resources (books, sites, etc.) on what you mean by musical form?
Thank you for your comment.
Forgive me for being tactless and *gulps* ...incisive.
As I've said I really do enjoy your music and just the overall effect it has on me as a listener. Form is generally the last thing on my mind when I listen to a piece.
Hmm... as for what I mean by musical form I mean... melodically, do you have thematic material that you develop throughout the piece, breaking up the music into phrases that are recognizable when they return later on in the piece? Harmonically is there a concept of establishing a tonal center and deviating from it throughout the piece to build tension and then return to the original area to round off the piece? There are many theories and approaches to form.
As for books on melodic form and treatment of melodic motives, the best I know of is a college music theory book we used, Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music. This book delves into so very much of what has made western music what it is today. Some elements will be more useful to you than others, but this book will certainly provide you with ideas and information both. Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Harmonic-Practice-Tonal-Music-Second/dp/0393976661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239258253&sr=1-1
But more than any other book I would recommend "Classical Form" By William (I believe it's William) Caplin. Yes, as the title says this book is about form in the Classical period (Haydn, Mozart, Handel, some early Beethoven etc). But this book takes an innovative and yet profoundly practical approach to form through harmony- whereas most theory buffs analyze form based on melody, following the lead of Schenker. This book by Caplin turns that on its head a little and analyzes form based on harmony and cadence. It makes much more sense to me- Schenkerian analysis is so arbitrary in my mind. Anyway though this book focuses on the music of hundreds of years ago, that period is the most accessible and easy to analyze, making it an excellent tool for teaching form. Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Form-Functions-Instrumental-Beethoven/dp/019514399X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239258324&sr=1-1
Again, I'm terribly sorry and I never meant to say anything insulting about your music. I really do enjoy it a lot!
First and foremost, it doesn't matter if I have the most perfectly-designed form that any composer has written. If the form is not being communicated (consciously or unconsciously) to my listeners, then it's useless.
And you're not the first to comment on the seeming formlessness of my compositions.
Forgive me for being tactless and *gulps* ...incisive.
Errr -- if I sounded snappish, please forgive me. I didn't mean to sound like I wanted an apology. The only way that I learn is by listening to others' honest comments.
melodically, do you have thematic material that you develop throughout the piece, breaking up the music into phrases that are recognizable when they return later on in the piece?
Errrr... only within the other constraints of my music. As far as I can hear, nearly anything "works" as a melody. Since melodies are so unconstrained, I worry about the other parts of my music first.
Harmonically is there a concept of establishing a tonal center and deviating from it throughout the piece to build tension and then return to the original area to round off the piece?
Very strongly, yes. Emphatically and deeply, yes. Most of my songs are based around either chord progressions or something similar, and returning to the starting point. (However, I'm very fond of going away from and returning to the starting point by different routes.)
The most obvious example of my leaving and returning to the tonal center is Bach is Back. This piece stays within a diatonic framework, but it changes key signatures with every measure... and returns to the original key signature, pretty much by the same route that it went.
I learned a different way to organize my music than traditional scales (See Two-dimensional harmonies), and used that trick to make pieces that loop back to their original point without passing the original way. The best example of that is Spring Bransle: play the first few seconds and the last few seconds to hear that I'm returning to the same set of notes.
This book delves into so very much of what has made western music what it is today. Some elements will be more useful to you than others, but this book will certainly provide you with ideas and information both.
. . .
But this book takes an innovative and yet profoundly practical approach to form through harmony- whereas most theory buffs analyze form based on melody, following the lead of Schenker. This book by Caplin turns that on its head a little and analyzes form based on harmony and cadence. It makes much more sense to me- Schenkerian analysis is so arbitrary in my mind. Anyway though this book focuses on the music of hundreds of years ago, that period is the most accessible and easy to analyze, making it an excellent tool for teaching form.
These books look fantastic to me. Thank you so much!
Again, I'm terribly sorry and I never meant to say anything insulting about your music. I really do enjoy it a lot!
You did not insult my music. I deeply and greatly appreciate being told where I am not being clear in my music. Thank you.
(I'll reply to your other post when I've a bit more time- about to go practice)