Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

The main requirements towards producing interesting music in any genre!

We can argue for days, weeks or eternity about, good or bad genre of music. Personal taste seldom alters although taste can and does change with age and experience but imho, there are a couple of things truly critical when creating music as a listening experience regardless of genre.

1. Dynamic range (as wide a variation as possible).
2. Timbre (changing over time).
3. ?

What do you think? Have you listened to performances of others that you 'should' be using as reference when producing your own work?
It's not just about the form and theory as that necessitates the listener imagining the same sound you're hearing in your head. If you start with a score then put every mark in there needed to tell the performer be they human or software application exactly what your intentions are. I really do not enjoy telling anyone their piece sounds crap just to get the reply 'but this is only a rough guide and I hope to have real players use it'. No it isn't because you've published it for the world to listen. It is an example of your lack of skill.

Yes I know, I'm BAD but please give us all your thoughts.

Views: 1634

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dang Bob, if you must hop on the band wagon and dis me, at least take the time

to get the facts straight. I know what a hook is. I had asked others to elaborate and

define the hook, as they saw it with regards to 1 song. Louie Louie.

My intention was to draw out responses that would thus address the idea of the

requirements that Ray had originally asked about.

and, believe it or not, sometimes intention needs to be masked to evoke honest responses.

The process of a discussion or debate has to be greater than opinion vs. opinion.

Inevitably, that seems to end up in the swamp of name calling. RS
 
Bob Porter said:

Yes, dynamics. And lots of them. Of course they have to fit what you are writing. And what instrument you are writing for.

Think IN-A-GADDA-DA-VIDA. Lots of dynamics, even in an old rock song. Though we can't say much more because Roger doesn't know what a hook is.

4. Know a lot about the instrument you are writing for. Even then, it's tough.

You can't just plop notes on a page and expect the player to make it work. The music needs to fit the instrument. 

You see Bob, we had him wrong all along.

roger stancill said:

Dang Bob, if you must hop on the band wagon and dis me, at least take the time

to get the facts straight. I know what a hook is. I had asked others to elaborate and

define the hook, as they saw it with regards to 1 song. Louie Louie.

My intention was to draw out responses that would thus address the idea of the

requirements that Ray had originally asked about.

and, believe it or not, sometimes intention needs to be masked to evoke honest responses.

The process of a discussion or debate has to be greater than opinion vs. opinion.

Inevitably, that seems to end up in the swamp of name calling. RS

The main requirements in my book are:

1 Familiarity with music

2 Familiarity with the genre in question (its technical and aesthetic parameters)

(those two go without even saying)

3 Familiarity with era, locality, social and economic factors of any particular society within which and for which this music is produced, and in general unless one is prepared to steep oneself as much as possible in all cultural affairs, music, poetry, plastic arts, love & sex, philosophy, politics, etc, etc, the results are going to be disappointing in most cases and only temporarily successful if at all, i.e., non classical, but perissable in a relatively short time interval (one or two generations in current evolutionary speeds, but much shorter in many instances), so a macro-historical view of the arts is also necessary in this sense-probably a life saver.

4 plenty of talent for the job

5 plenty of good luck also

PS So, learning as you go along through life, and reviewing your work and your beliefs/axioms, is also necessary and goes without saying.

Roger,

No you didn't. You asked ME to tell you what the hook was.

" believe it or not, sometimes intention needs to be masked to evoke honest responses." No. No. No. Damn, Roger.

You need to be upfront and honest about what you are talking about. Masking just leads to your usual baloney. Say what you mean and mean what you say. You complain that people don't "get it". If people have to "get it" you aren't speaking in terms anyone can understand. This is my problem with you, Roger, you use vague, cutesy terminology that only confounds things. No one cares if I think people should write for harpsichord. Why should they care what you think about it. And it's more the way you said it rather than what you said. Words are powerful things. You knew the response you would get, and you did it anyway. 

Hellfire, this discussion has reached the height of sophistication....that's if you understand sophisticated to mean juvenile claptrap.

Louie Louie is NOT interesting music. It may have been cultural phenomena, but interesting music it never was. I saw the Kingsmen live. Nice guys (one of them started Sunn Amps), but they kind of pretty much sucked. If one wants to make interesting music, this tune should only be referenced as what NOT to do. True, I sort of dug it as a 15 year old (or whatever hell age I was at the time), but never once in my studies, practice, writing, playing and recording career did I ever use it as a touchstone. Bad example in a discussion of 'Interesting Music.'

Interesting cultural phenomena? Possibly. Interesting music? Never.


Bob Porter said:

Roger,

Is the Kingsmen's version a great recording? Hardly. Are they a great band? Nope. Is this a great song? Not at all. Is this recording an icon of rock 'n roll. You bet. You are familiar with it. That's all that matters. How many other thousands of rock songs have come and gone that no one cares about? All of them better in every way. 

Paul Revere and the Raiders recorded it a week later in the same studio, with the same technician. The writer of the song recorded it in '57. As well as a far more notable artist a few years later. All three of those versions are "better" in most every way. But few people even know about them. There have been hundreds of recordings since. All much better. Yet the Kingsmen version is the one people know. Why? Is it the garbled lyrics? The exuberant  performance? The Hook? I don't know. That's why I brought it up. If we are talking about how to make interesting music, this recording seems fly in the face of all we know. Or think we know.

I just want to check that you're not stating that as a fact, which happens around here more often that it should.

Boot Hamilton said:

Louie Louie is NOT interesting music. It may have been cultural phenomena, but interesting music it never was.

Well there, you caught me.

My statement would be true for only those who have sampled even a fraction the world has to offer. OTOH, I am quite confident that a two-year old will have endless interest in repeated hearings of Chopsticks. 

You caught me, all I do is listen to chopsticks. Which is fucking baller, by the way.

Boot Hamilton said:

Well there, you caught me.

My statement would be true for only those who have sampled even a fraction the world has to offer. OTOH, I am quite confident that a two-year old will have endless interest in repeated hearings of Chopsticks. 

Ah! Interesting?
No not the adjective I would use for most successful pop songs other than the interesting conundrum of understanding such success. Over the last 50 years of performing as a near total mercenary to public whim I just shrugged my shoulders and got on with it.
Taking one 'for the team.' Good man.

I'm afraid I've done a bit of that, myself. Not my proudest moment... but we're still here!

Boot, thank you for your forthright honesty.

I attempted to get an honest response about the true 'hook' with this song, but as usual,

it got muddied and the point lost. Granted, there was a hook, but it was not 'musical'. RS
 
Boot Hamilton said:

Louie Louie is NOT interesting music. It may have been cultural phenomena, but interesting music it never was. I saw the Kingsmen live. Nice guys (one of them started Sunn Amps), but they kind of pretty much sucked. If one wants to make interesting music, this tune should only be referenced as what NOT to do. True, I sort of dug it as a 15 year old (or whatever hell age I was at the time), but never once in my studies, practice, writing, playing and recording career did I ever use it as a touchstone. Bad example in a discussion of 'Interesting Music.'

Interesting cultural phenomena? Possibly. Interesting music? Never.


Bob Porter said:

Roger,

Is the Kingsmen's version a great recording? Hardly. Are they a great band? Nope. Is this a great song? Not at all. Is this recording an icon of rock 'n roll. You bet. You are familiar with it. That's all that matters. How many other thousands of rock songs have come and gone that no one cares about? All of them better in every way. 

Paul Revere and the Raiders recorded it a week later in the same studio, with the same technician. The writer of the song recorded it in '57. As well as a far more notable artist a few years later. All three of those versions are "better" in most every way. But few people even know about them. There have been hundreds of recordings since. All much better. Yet the Kingsmen version is the one people know. Why? Is it the garbled lyrics? The exuberant  performance? The Hook? I don't know. That's why I brought it up. If we are talking about how to make interesting music, this recording seems fly in the face of all we know. Or think we know.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Chris Merritt.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service