slyman604 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 "ok if there is a rock band that comes up with a killer song and do NOT know shit about it before starting,tell who they are." Maybe dream theater could could write out everything before hand, i honestly cant think of any other rock band that WOULDNT make a song by just improvising until something solid formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negrosex Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 the hard part was having something in my mind and managing to get it to sound exactly that way when playing. I don't have this problem, and i don't think most musicians do. After making music for many years you will know how your melody looks in the sequencer or how to play it on a piano without fiddling arround much. And if it's a certain sound your after it wouldn't be that hard to create it on your synths, sometimes it takes time to get it to sound exactly like you want but if you know your stuff you will get it it right eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Who said anyone doesnt know jack shit? I dont think you even read my post before you posted your reply... 205346[/snapback] i dont even think that you understood my post before replying.i did not say that you should have an image of the song in your brain,i said you need to have an image of the melodies you want to create and the song's spine.Anyway i really wanted to reply to that rock band matter I know SHIT about the gear that I ownHaHa.We are talking about music not gear.If you think that gear is music then..... Do you make music?!I think you dont need to make music to know about music but anyway yes i used to make music with my ex-roomate.Of course it was extremely amateur and just for fun but,i used to work with Fruity Loops for 4 years and now im working with Orion and Cubase.But i never had the time and money to buy gear so im not the music expert (who is? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindrift Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 For me trying to work after a vision of the track in my head would be extremly limiting to creativity. It's not comparable to composing classic music because it's so much about the sounds. And I think thats how electronic music should be in my taste. If it's to much about just composing nice melodic leads it sound boring to me. I would not call it fiddling around, but being open for the flow and inspiration rather. Just like when using photoshop I feel that the best stuff come by chance, but knowing your stuff will make it easier to do what I perceive as a channeling of energies that is greater than my ego or mind. Inspiration and flow is no 1 for me, not intellect and theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest djnemo Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 i dont even think that you understood my post before replying.i did not say that you should have an image of the song in your brain,i said you need to have an image of the melodies you want to create and the song's spine.Anyway i really wanted to reply to that rock band matter HaHa.We are talking about music not gear.If you think that gear is music then..... I think you dont need to make music to know about music but anyway yes i used to make music with my ex-roomate.Of course it was extremely amateur and just for fun but,i used to work with Fruity Loops for 4 years and now im working with Orion and Cubase.But i never had the time and money to buy gear so im not the music expert (who is? ) 205411[/snapback] Sorry about my typo, should have been shitloads Anyways, points taken. I do think that you should make music to comment on how to make music. But maybe not... I dont know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Maybe dream theater could could write out everything before hand, i honestly cant think of any other rock band that WOULDNT make a song by just improvising until something solid formed. 205399[/snapback] Hey thats exactly what i wanted to say.Some rocks bands are trying and trying and trying to have something nice for their final sound and Dream Theater suddently release an album and its a fuckin bomb.So it really counts that they "could write out everything before hand".And i know these guys,i've been listening to Dream Theater some years ago and they really can do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 Very well put, and I think that 99% of the artists work like that. again, I don't mean any disrespect to you Nemo, but when I read a statement like that an instant reply comes to my mind: "That's probably why 99% of electronic music sounds like crap these days..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 yea dream theater does that kind of stuff.. but they also make music from nothing like their liquid tension expriment albums are just 2 weeks of jamming in studio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest djnemo Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 again, I don't mean any disrespect to you Nemo, but when I read a statement like that an instant reply comes to my mind: "That's probably why 99% of electronic music sounds like crap these days..." 205427[/snapback] But Lemmi, you have to also understand that its always been like that. It is probably not the way of making music that makes it sound like "crap" its the artists that are changing in style and technique that makes it sound like that. Bear in mind that we didnt have all these fancy plugins and synths back in the good old days, which kind of limited us to only use what we had and could afford hardware wise. And most of us agree that sometimes less can be more/better. I dont know, but it seems that there is a lot of experimenting going on, and sometimes there are very good results. Take Son Kite or Ticon for instance, they made something really nice by experimenting, though Son Kite has a musical mastermind also in the group. That does not mean that any group with such a genius is good though, I know of tons of groups with people that can play tons of instruments, and know a lot about scoring etc, but they just sound pure crap, because everything is so damn thought through. And Lemmi, I do not take it personal I know where I stand musically, and if someone does not like the way I work or my results, thats nothing I can do something about I am just trying to explain that its been like this forever (in electronic music) and will most probably be like that for a long time. How do you think that Acid was discovered? It was discovered by playing/experimenting around with a synth that was supposed to replace the bassguitarr. Now, how bizarre isnt that?! And I know you like those 303 lines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 yea dream theater does that kind of stuff.. but they also make music from nothing like their liquid tension expriment albums are just 2 weeks of jamming in studio 205429[/snapback] Both Dream Theater and Liquid Tension Experiment are great though, especially LTE2, awesome stuff. Pretty much the only non electronic stuff I like. Not sure why exactly it just sounds so much better than the usual rock music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negrosex Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 again, I don't mean any disrespect to you Nemo, but when I read a statement like that an instant reply comes to my mind: "That's probably why 99% of electronic music sounds like crap these days..." 205427[/snapback] Well, nothing has changed really. This is how people have always made music. Im pretty sure most classical composers dont have everything in their head before they write it down. Being able to write a song without listening to it and having an entire song in your head are two completly different things. I think this is how a classical composer will write a piece if all they had was a pen and a piece of paper: 1. Write the main melody (that they might or might not have in their head beforehand) using the scales and progressions they have learned on their music theory classes. Creating and releasing tension as they go along (this is what a melody is about). 2. Making some harmonies for another instrument, using strict rules on wich notes can play at the same time. This is like a pussle, you are suposed to make another melody that fits with the first one and preferably creats and releases tension in the same places as the first one. 3. Repeat step 2 until you have made an unforgettable piece of music. A masterpiece ! 4. Ad some percussion, huge drums on the spots where tension is released. 5. Youre done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindrift Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I mean really, speak to any rock or jazz musician about how good music comes about. Someone that can't improvise well is not good at performing with their instument really. And I do think that trance comes closer to rock and jazz than classical music. To say that 99% of trance musicians have the wrong apprach to making music and thats why their music don't appeal to you comes accross as slightly arrogant. Make your own music according to compsitons you have in your head to prove that they have the wrong approach and take the world by storm then. Or point out one producer that works that way and owes his greatness to that. I do not think they excist, and if they do say that they compose the head in their head beforehand I belieive they are lying. There is a very good reason why everyone I know writing trance music does it the way they do rather than the way a classical composer does. Classic music is about presets. Sure you could think a score if you only used a bunch of presets with sounds you know good together already. Personally I think trance made in that way would sound completly uninteresting in my ears anyway. Improvisation and experimentation is not "fiddling around" and opposed to creativity....it IS creativity in this type of music and most others as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 It's not comparable to composing classic music because it's so much about the sounds. 205413[/snapback] Totally agree with that. Furthermore, not everyone has the sense of melody a Mozart had for instance... That's probably why so many people in the scene equal melody with "cheesiness". the hard part was having something in my mind and managing to get it to sound exactly that way when playing. 205377[/snapback] Very interesting remark. I don't make music (not yet, hehe), but for me inspiration is something coming from the outside. That was the alleged role of the muses in ancient times, speaking directly to the artists' soul. So, what if our modern muses are trapped in computers ? I mean, why would your mind, necessarily defined and thus limited by your biological and sociological background, be more inventive than your fingers turning knobs ? Why restrain you ? Imagine you were born in a world where there are only two colors : blue and red. When an adult you decide to become an artist, namely a painter. You have great ideas of pictures coming in your mind, but of course they are only made out of blue and red. And then you learn there is this extraordinary machine which could give you access to colors you couldn't even dream about : green, yellow... Wouldn't it be worth turning some knobs on this machine to see what these extraterrestrial colors are ? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 It would be interesting to know how the process goes for really GOOD artists like Juno Reactor, Chi-A.D., Pleiadians, etc. I tend to agree that if the process of creating is "fiddlind around" then that's most likely how it will also sound when finished. aka 99% of today's psy, aka not worth listening. But like I said, it's the result that matters in the end. If a monkey hacking a typewriter comes up with Shakespeare then I'm willing to take it for what it is, not how it was made. It just isn't very likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 If a monkey hacking a typewriter comes up with Shakespeare then I'm willing to take it for what it is, not how it was made. 205437[/snapback] The implied interrogation being (the most classic question in art philosophy I guess) : does a piece of art have a life of its own, or is it only what the artist wanted it to be ? If it has a life of its own, as many people argue, then the way it was created doesn't matter in the least, as long as it speaks to someone's soul. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindrift Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Was Jimmy Hendrix like a monkey on a typewriter or playing around and letting the inspiration flow? Or did he carefully imagine how he's solos should sound beforehand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 To say that 99% of trance musicians have the wrong apprach to making music and thats why their music don't appeal to you comes accross as slightly arrogant. I know Well, when I say this stuff I have a little idea in the back of my head. A few years ago I read RA Wilson - Prometheus Rising which was explaining Leary's 8 circuit-brain theory... of course, later on in life I realized it was a bunch of bull but there is one concept that stuck to my mind: the one where RA Wilson explains that music composers like Beethoven were so great because they somehow managed to transpose feelings "captured" by the 5th circuit into 3rd circuit logic. To explain this a bit: the main argument was that when we are having a 5th circuit experience it is often described as a mystical experience. Everything is beautifull but at the same time undescribable to others. The theory was that Beethoven could "transcibe" the "unexplainable" mystical experience into sound and music which everyone could hear and enjoy. Now for me (of course this is only a theory, it is possible and actually probable that I'm way off here, that's why I hesitated to write it from the start) what made old trance so great is that artists would have a psychedellic experience and then "translate" it into the beautiful genre called trance and since it was a mystical experience, music made 10 - 15 years ago still "talks to us" whereas the stuff made by "fiddling" a few months ago seems old and unfashioned... am I making any sense here or should I lay off the acid for a while? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiph T. Elephant Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Everyone fiddles. Someone might fiddle at first and then build the track around that (possibly even take out the initial fiddlings). Someone might have some sort of an idea at first and then fiddle in the middle... but they all fiddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Was Jimmy Hendrix like a monkey on a typewriter or playing around and letting the inspiration flow? Or did he carefully imagine how he's solos should sound beforehand? 205439[/snapback] The example was extreme, real world isn't. Yet I'd say that the scene today is filled with "artists" who have the technical skills to work their equipment but no real talent to create MUSIC. I suppose real talents can both compose and improvise and make either method sound good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negrosex Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I know Well, when I say this stuff I have a little idea in the back of my head. A few years ago I read RA Wilson - Prometheus Rising which was explaining Leary's 8 circuit-brain theory... of course, later on in life I realized it was a bunch of bull but there is one concept that stuck to my mind: the one where RA Wilson explains that music composers like Beethoven were so great because they somehow managed to transpose feelings "captured" by the 5th circuit into 3rd circuit logic. To explain this a bit: the main argument was that when we are having a 5th circuit experience it is often described as a mystical experience. Everything is beautifull but at the same time undescribable to others. The theory was that Beethoven could "transcibe" the "unexplainable" mystical experience into sound and music which everyone could hear and enjoy. Now for me (of course this is only a theory, it is possible and actually probable that I'm way off here, that's why I hesitated to write it from the start) what made old trance so great is that artists would have a psychedellic experience and then "translate" it into the beautiful genre called trance and since it was a mystical experience, music made 10 - 15 years ago still "talks to us" whereas the stuff made by "fiddling" a few months ago seems old and unfashioned... am I making any sense here or should I lay off the acid for a while? 205441[/snapback] If an artist has a very stong feeling or have been through some kind of experience, then it will inspire and affect the ideas they come up with. At least that's how it works for me. But it will not translate into a whole song in my head, maby just some sounds and ideas. Then as i go along more and more ideas will come, they will be affected by the music itself but also offcource by the feelings, memories and all that's in your head. And if someone would come up with a whole song in their head. How do you figure they would do it? Would the song just suddenly be there complete from start to finish? Or would it sort of play in their head, like a record you have never heard before? I think if someone would come up with an entire song in their head they would build it piece by pice, start with a few sounds and than build more and more arround it. It just seems like the most natural way to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindrift Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I think you are right in some way Lemmi. Thats in a way what I am after in a trance track. To hear the inspiartion of a really psychedelic experience manifistated in a piece of music. But I still think the idea of writing it in your head first is totally unapplicable. Sure an experience can give you a vision, but that vision is not more than a feeling or energy you want to translate into music. The process of translating it is not a intellectual process, you do sit and fiddle around to try to nail down that feeling. And along with the fiddling you can come accross things that sound really great. Even if you are great at visualizing every sound beforehand the flow of things and the misstakes that happen on the way can make it even greater than your vision. If you do reject every thing that comes up with out you foreseeing it I think you still would be severly limiting your self creativly. Maybe there is a couple of classical composers that just let the composition flow from their head down to paper but otherwise music is really created by "fiddling around". Some fiddle around on a guitar, on paper or even in their head. But they still fiddle around, just like trance producers do on their synths and always have done. The reason some old stuff sound more inspired IMO is that there was more inspiration around a decade ago, and that goes for any musical genre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlockalien Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 funny how this feeling you get in a track, lemmi, is also very subjective.... I mean, I get that quite a lot with many chill out releases, and a few prog releases too... But I get none of that with oldschool stuff, and I really tried listening to it.... (some people will hate me for saying this hehe)... when I get that feeling it's incredible, I can really feel the music, get practically high without drugs, get all sorts of goosebumps and smiles in my face... its what I look for in music =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 I mean, I get that quite a lot with many chill out releases, and a few prog releases too... But I get none of that with oldschool stuff, and I really tried listening to it.... (some people will hate me for saying this hehe)... when I get that feeling it's incredible, I can really feel the music, get practically high without drugs, get all sorts of goosebumps and smiles in my face... hmmm... I may be splitting hairs on this one, but aren't you having it the other way around? I mean, various happenings can trigger a psychedellic experience, I have experienced that a few times: driving home at night after having done a lot of sport and listening to psy. Indeed, in those moments I feel like it's the first time I've actually LISTENED to the track (I had a wonderful such experience with some Tegma a while ago...). HOWEVER, for me, when I listen to oldschool psy (and trance for that matter) the music just seems to speak to me and that is WHATEVER the state I'm in!! Of course, if I'm in a more "sensitive" state I'll apreaciate it even more but even when "normal" the music seems to be telling me a story... With progressive (to give an example) I can find it AWESOME when high but dull when not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlockalien Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 nah man.. I mean, I see what you try to mean... but for sure not.. Certain (mostly) chill out and (some) prog releases simply talk to me, no matter where, what Im doing, what I just done, etc... and it's for sure something very similar, if not the same, that we feel when we hear these tracks... and like I said, I dont feel anything with the tracks or style you seem to like, and you probably wouldnt feel the same as I do with the tracks that get to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 yeah that's odd... Of course, it was only a theory. You could always do the "reverse theory" and say that when "fiddling" an artist "taps" into some energy wave from another dimension and transforms that into music. That somehow, the "5th circuit material" is entering his head as he makes it, the artist then acting like some sort of antenna, a realtime link between 2 different planes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.