/musicprod/ - Music Production

Sounds like you're describing most natural born composers there, except we all got into it differently. My dad plays the piano and always preached classical music to me. If you're calling Mozart's music good (was a little unclear whether he fell under good or shitty), he was the mainstream pleb musician of his time. Anyway, I can't read music nearly fast enough to make use of it. I can, however, play almost anything by ear on the piano. I don't know exactly how I got into writing music, but I always paid extra close attention to movie soundtracks and tried to recreate some track from the score of LotR in FL Studio when I was maybe 9, and it was a lot of fun, so I bought FL (parents bought it for me*) and kept writing increasingly better music (of course starting at cringe like everyone else) almost every day using virtual instruments. I also took piano lessons but it wasn't for me. I applied for music and music theory in high school and came in last on the list (one person switched schools and a spot was opened) after about half a year of media studies, but half a year of that crap made me severely depressed (everyone was arrogant and vastly superior in actually playing their main instruments) so I was allowed to switch back without starting over because the school administration was cool enough to pretend like I never switched in the first place. As you can tell, I never liked rules, people having expectations of me or being valued as a musician based on how impressively I can play an instrument when it comes to music. So instead I'm now applying for computer engineering and working summer jobs to pay for a home studio that has been under construction for almost a year, in which I'm planning to record my album (that has been in the making for at least three years).

TL;DR:

I do not music theory.

admittedly predicting songs progressions is pretty easy, most songs are just cannon in D with words on it and slightly different rhythm, and if it's a love song there's a key change a set length into the song.

if you think songs are easily predictable you should listen to some king crimson and then some math-rock, and maybe throw in some 12-tone jazz.

I can only ever compose if I have an idea for something to compose ABOUT, like I have a structure for a song in mind, or a specific type of sound i want to use, or a specific mood I want to express.

I sometimes use music theory, but I sometimes pull things out of my ass. depends on what i'm aiming for.

>>409

In my experience, music theory just provides a basic understanding of what you're doing, not why you're doing it necessarily. The rest is mainly instincts when you've composed music for a few years and know exactly what to do to achieve the progression and melody you hear in your head.

>>416

I posted links to some music theory tutorials in one of the other thread, the most important of which are now in the sticky I think, and some of them do explain why you do things a certain way.

Some of the more important ones I think are why we use call and response, which has everything to do with building tension and expectation, which is then resolved, fulfilling a desire. A bit of proof of that, is that there was a song back in I *think* the 60's-70's, that ended a song with shave and a haircut, but they didn't include the last 2 notes, and it drove people absolutely mad, to the point that they ended up in a civil suit, and where ordered to change the song, and as a result created a new song that always followed it, which was the last 2 notes of shave and a haircut, and nothing else.

The amount of crazy that results from having expectation built in and drilled into us, and then not having said expectation filled, is hillarious to watch.

Imagine making a dubstep track that's nothing but build up and build up and build up and risers, and then the song ends right at the drop, like musical blue-balls.

Then there's why we use scales and never do half-step progressions always 1, 1 and a half, or more, 12 tone being the exception. And THAT has to do with the ability to follow along with a melody and sing along. there's actually weird neurology involved with not being able to sing or hum along accurately to a song which includes half-step changes. That is to say going from D to D# as part of a melody. It can be done for a wavering effect (like in flight of the bumblebee) but it is not typically done melodically, because the average person simply can't clearly follow the melody, and it becomes dissonant. you CAN still use those notes as part of a scale, but not typically in a row unless its 'rolling' between notes, like doing C to E by way of D and D# or even C# and D# (C to C# to D# to E, is half step step half step, and it sounds weird as shit)

Note intervals have to do with the individual frequencies canceling out rapidly and becoming dissonant (Just do C and C# at the same time), another way to look at that is making a reese synth, but making them SO detuned from eachother that its not a discernible note. in other words dissonance. Sometimes dissonance can be used thematically, because this is music, but it does provide a very specific and uncomfortable, unpleasantness, and you use that when you want to create unpleasantness in music. you use scales to avoid said unpleasantness.

I mean, I've never taken a music theory class, but I have learned this stuff. mostly from videos on youtube, but even then I've only ever watched a handfull on music theory. 80% of which I did in fact already post on this board.

(BTW don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of intentional dissonance, when it's used correctly)

>>378

I know the real composition theory works, I mean a composition out of real musical instruments such as drum kit, guitars and their kinds, piano etc. Though, my skill is kind of limited into these traditional ways which made me hardly able to write music creatively that requires fx stuff. This is why I have a lot of respect for those who can create trance music because they can make music thats sounds very unique.

Also,I think I'm really bad at generating ideas. It kills me every time especially I already wrote it half done.

>>451

Mild exageration. there wasnt' a civil suit, but there was enough complaints from DJ's

http://web.archive.org/web/20090527060656/http://onstagemag.com/ar/performance_happened_month_11/index.htm

>Responding to complaints from DJs that Les Paul and Mary Ford's “Magic Melody” was missing a couple of notes, Capitol Records released “Magic Melody, Part Two” on 9/17/1955. The record, billed as the shortest record ever released, contained only the two missing notes.…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shave_and_a_Haircut

https://youtu.be/bxqh8JK9FyY at 2:00 Just let it play, and then tell me that doesn't just fuck with you.

>>448

that's because you're probably writing in a major key, Try switching to, I dunno, E-Minor, or Dorian. and don't use major chords. I generally try to avoid the key of C like it's the plague for exactly this reason.

>>451

also to reply to the also, Yeah, there's a reason sad music sounds sad, and happy music sounds happy. you don't have to be told that music is sad to understand or learn it. This is why multiple isolated parts of the world developed similar sounds for happy and sad, just as an example. they used different keys, but the ways in which the songs progress have common themes.

if you want to get into weird metaphysical stuff, you could say it has to do with the chakras, Or you could say it's based more on instinct as a result of non-musical instincts, for instance loud low noises are typically going to induce some level of fear, or at the least a jolt of adrenaline because in nature, how few things are that loud and low? typically things like earthquakes, landslides, cave-ins, etc. basically things that no living thing wants to be near for damn good reason. from there there's how its in tune with the structure of the ear, brainwaves, and even heart-rate etc. even bloodpressure and content in terms of how sound travels through the body. The shape of the inner ear has absolutely everything to do with why musical scales are the way they are, and not a few cents off, although even then it has changed subtly

For instance we used to use A436, A438, A450, and a number of other tunings. If you don't know, that's the Frequency in Hz of middle-A. since about the 1940's however, the universal standard has become A440. Now there's a TON of conspiracy theories about this involving brainwashing people, but I don't buy it, I actually understand why they did it.

Marches and anthems sound more powerfull and Resonant in A440 than the at the time standard of A438. meanwhile C-Major sounds way more uplifting in A438, and I think thigns written in G sounded better in A436, but fuck if I remember, I only read about this shit ONCE over a year ago over on "that part of the internet".

It's honestly worth listening to a few examples of different tunings, if only for the experience.

Drum-beats also make people want to dance or not based on how they sync up with the persons heart-rate. so if you start wtih something 60 or 120 syncs up with a 60 bpm heartrate, which is a very low resting point, OR it can sync up to a 120 bpm which would be high, but not full crazy dancing. 130-140 is used for dance music because at half-tempo its above a resting tempo by a little bit, but the act of following THAT tempo is enough to double the heart-rate, which then matches the actual tempo.

when you go above a healthy heartrate like 160+ you're automatically halving it, to 80, which is resting for a lot of people, which is why you don't stand up and dance to dubstep, even if it is at 160bpm. and then you get to DNB in the 180's (90 at half) which you want to start moving to but then it moves faster than you can reasonably keep up with, and from there you get into breakcore and speedcore at which point you just sort of space out and listen to, nolonger able to dance to it. if you can dance to it you're probably doing 1/3 or 1/4 time.

All because of how fast your heart is beating, and the shape of your ear.

In theory if you know all the biological reasons behind these instincts, you can make some bizzar as fuck music, but 99% of what I've seen that takes advantage of this, has been horror-movie soundtracks. the other 1% is things like Ode to Joy, and anything else in C major, ESPECIALLY when played in A438.

Interesting shit. a lot of music theory for writing songs in a particular mood, is telling you how to write in those ways, without understanding why, because music theory was created before they knew WHY it worked a certain way, just that it did.

>>456

Yeah, I think I'm gonna stick to my theory that low frequency rumbling doesn't usually mean something good in nature (earthquake, volcano, huge predator…), so we have evolved an emotional response to them. Chakras are not a part of metaphysical philosophy to me. They're analogous to qualia to me, which has some sort of solid definition.

The 432 Hz tuning myth I believe to be just a myth. No documented case of anyone being able to tell the difference in a blind test exists. I believe it's either because of the purest form of placebo (you believe the myth so you convince yourself it is better) or (or a combination of both) the fact that songs tuned lower tend to sound warmer. This is because the perception of warmth relies on lower frequencies. You achieve the exact same effect by playing a song on the piano for an hour on end, then playing it again in a lower key. It's the contrast the pleases. You have to hear both in succession to even care.

>>453

Yes, that's annoying as fuck. If done correctly it can be just as satisfying or more, though. I don't think this song did it correctly, except the purpose of this ending was probably precisely to leave you unsatisfied.

>>448

You're stuck in a mood mentality I'm very familiar with. You feel like moe is the "default" mood of piano music. Removing yourself from that and creating something new and less generic sounding is a skill that needs to be trained.

>>463

I didn't say there's no difference. I said it's the contrast that pleases. You'd achieve the same satisfaction by simply tuning everything an arbitrary amount down. Higher frequencies are more prone to sounding detuned and harsh, especially when played by an unexperienced guitarist, for example. Lower tuning simply sounds warmer and more welcoming. This is true for almost any song until you reach a tuning so low that the cons outweigh the pros. Play a 432 Hz song, then tune it down an equal amount again and I bet you'll see what I'm talking about. It will sound more pleasing. It's not the magic of 432 Hz, it's simply the fact that it's lower, and in addition to masking imperfections in the performance, lower frequencies tend to be more excited and warm sounding.

I've had no proper music training (not even music classes through half of my elementary school years) and most of the compositional terminology goes right over my head.

I learned most of what I know from looking at MIDI files and trying to replicate music I enjoy, but I'm coming along fairly slowly.

I don't music theory,and i can't say that I compose too.

The music just plays in my mind and I try to remember later.If i knew a instrument i could compose in then…

TL;DR

I never remember my compositions.

>>762

Record the melodies with a piano/keyboard and a phone. You just need to learn how to play different three or two note chords, which is easy, or just a single bass note, while whistling the melody on top.