The Music Thread

This is a thread to discuss music. Anything about music. The industry, illegal downloading, right down to the very structure of music itself. Which is where I'm going to start this thread off. As a musician aspiring for a career, I tend to spend a lot of time writing music, or at the very least think about the music I feel I should be writing. I guess I've hit a huge block in that I'm very, VERY rarely satisfied with anything I write. I constantly criticize myself on my choice of chord progressions for example. I tend to lean towards writing in very common, "overused" progressions, and almost any time I attempt to stray from doing so, my music sounds too weird and avant-garde for me to feel like it's very good at all. I'm also very big on "hooks." I want my music to be memorable, to stay with people as something they look on fondly and play inside their heads to keep them happy, in the same way others' music has done for me. But, like I said, I feel very uncomfortable doing so, because I feel like I'm not good enough of a musician if I write with too much of a "pop" sensibility.

So the question is, what defines good music to you? What do you like to hear in music? What do you look for in songs you love? What aspects about the songs you listen to give you goose bumps? Are goose bumps even indicative at all of good music to you? You don't have to have a degree in music theory to post in this thread, either; as long as you have a valid opinion it's welcome here.

I like music.

It's sad to admit this, but crappy, generic music has it's place: advertising.
I'm interning at a production house right now, and they have a wall that's simply filled with stock CD's. CD's with generic, boring, short clips of music that they use for television commercials, or sometimes even tv shows. The people/person that writes this music gets royalties every time it's used, and every time it airs. So yeah, write your generic music, make 3 or 4 versions of it, a full version, a 60 second version, a 30 second version, and a end clip for sudden endings, or if the people working with it want to end it earlier. Do this for a bunch of tracks. Sell it as music for advertising (through an agency, of course, you can't just sell it on the street).

What I'm saying is, that kind of music has it's place.

The more avant-garde stuff has it's place too, you just have to find the market for it. Getting picked up by a label is an outdated, and now almost non-existent ideal.


To be successful in music today, you have to have numerous marketable skills, and be willing to think outside the box, maybe even create a market where there previously was none.

ex. Are you a composer who is just starting out, trying to get your pieces played?
Don't write orchestral music. It's bulky, and good luck finding 50+ musicians that want to play it.
Don't write piano music, there's enough of that. (Unless it's educational, that might work, you could sell it as an instructional publication)
Instead, write a piece for french horn, oboe, and tuba. That's a strange group, right? There's only 3 musicians you need to find, and it will gather interest because people will be like "What? French horn, oboe, and the tuba? What an odd pairing, I wonder what that sounds like." People already know what a piano piece sounds like. People already know what a orchestra piece sounds like.


But to actually answer your question, good music to me is what sounds good to me, and to hell with other people's opinions. Yeah, that's a dangerous thing for me to say, and contradicts what I said earlier, but the simple truth is that music is music. Some people may not like it, some people will.
But if you yourself aren't happy with your work, try working a different way. Try playing your music in instead of consciously transcribing it in some notation software. (Give Logic a try) Listen to music you normally wouldn't listen to, and try to find something you like about it. Review your music theory. I dunno, do SOMETHING. Just don't give up on it.

I expect to be working on the side, and not JUST composing when I'm done with college. I'll probably teach composition or theory at a private school, or in college (no certification needed), give instrument lessons, do transcription, publishing, maybe even a little design. I'll definitely work in a production house on commercials, but probably won't be using my own music on them because it's cheaper to use crappier music. I'll be utilizing the various technical skills and software/hardware know-how I've developed from going to school here at Duquesne.

I'll be writing on the side, every single day. Maybe I won't start getting commissions, or serious money from JUST composing until I'm 30, maybe not even until I'm 50, but the day WILL come if I keep at it, and keep writing, and continue to hone my compositional craft.

And I'll be enjoying myself the whole time.

I love you, arl. That was a great post. ;-; Though I have some questions that I've always had and that post reminded me of them. They'll be later.

So the question is, what defines good music to you? What do you like to hear in music? What do you look for in songs you love? What aspects about the songs you listen to give you goose bumps? Are goose bumps even indicative at all of good music to you? You don't have to have a degree in music theory to post in this thread, either; as long as you have a valid opinion it's welcome here.

For me, good music is just music I like, like what arl said. If it sounds good, I'll like it. Whenever a band I already know or something makes a new album, I try as hard as I can not to look at any ratings or reviews and review it for myself. Rather than try to find out "what's good" and listen to and enjoy those, I like to listen to the whole album and find out for myself.

Unique chord progressions are always nice to listen to because the same I-IV-V-vi crap is annoying and repetitive. Of course, the exception is when the melody's nice enough and the lyric's good enough to capture me.

OKAY, my question: Do you think it's better to create a theoretically good piece of music (based on a unique progression and adhering to the rules) or a piece of music that you mainly base off of what you're playing in your mind and want to get onto the "paper?"

I'm guessing that the answer I get will actually be neither of the two, but yeh.

My thoughts on illegal music.


If you have the money to buy cds then buy them. If you have the money but don't buy them, you're a dick.

If you haven't got the money then download them, because there's no other way for you to get music. So you can listen to music and enjoy it without paying. Or you can not listen to music without paying.

It's a simple rule.

There is no set way to write music. If I knew of a sure-fire method to writing great music, I'd write a damn book and be rich. The fact is, it's different for everybody; each person will have their own sources of inspiration, and their own methods for realizing their ideas and bringing them to life.

The one rule that you SHOULD always follow, however, is this:

NEVER write music to impress people.
ONLY write music that you love, and because you love to.



And my thoughts on illegal music; everybody does it, but stealing music from a band that's struggling, or isn't well-known is totally a dick move. Yeah, steal all the Radiohead albums you want, they don't need the money, and Thom Yorke is an insufferable t**t anyway (and I'm actually quoting someone, there), but don't download music from a band that isn't so well-known, and obviously doesn't have that much money.

I feel this way about basically ALL movies and TV shows, too. There's hundreds of people that get a cut of the money from movies, some rich, some poor. Yeah, screw Disney, but cut the guy who spends hours syncing the audio to video some slack, he probably NEEDS the money.

That's a new light to illegal downloading (that seems like it should have been blatantly obvious before, though ). That seems like a good take on things.

Also, if you write music that you love and because you love to, the music'll probably end up impressing people, anyways. People just tend to be alike too much.

Also, what do you think is the most important part of music? Either/both on the sheet or off of it. Of course, this is an opinionated question.

Everybody will have a different answer, but mine is incredibly simple; that it sounds pretty.

That's all I really think is important, but I'll tell you what I love. I LOVE it when people use 9th chords in their string sections, and have them repeating in short burst. The Legend of Mana soundtrack does it a lot. So does One Winged Angel. So does Rite of Spring, by Igor Stravinsky, though he's more dissonant. I love English Horns, they're exotic and gorgeous, and so beautifully melodic. I love a quiet, reverby piano, echoing off by itself. And lots of other things.

But yeah, as for what's important, people will say many different things. Some people are all about their music having a message, and it HAS to be political, or controversial. Honestly, I can't stand that, music should just be enjoyable, and I think serious messages like "this song is about how we are KILLING the rainforests, and that's why the music is BLACK and UGLY" just come across to me as pretentious, or pointless.
Some people are all about breaking the norms, and reinventing the way we perceive music. This I can understand, and actually do somewhat agree with, but it falls in line with the whole "always trying to impress people" thing. If you write the way you want to, you'll end up reinventing music in some way, anyway, wouldn't you think?

And there's many other reasons, but whatever, I just like my music to be pretty, and enjoyable. Sure, I'll try new things, be inventive, tie my music in with a story, and subsequently use dissonance if it's called for, but I still do it just because it sounds good to me, and I love doing it.

I used to play a lot of music on a lot of different instruments, but my absolute favorite time was when I was the singer/bassist for a 4-piece jazz band, and the same for a 3-piece rock band. I still write from time to time, and I'll be honest- theory is NOT my strong point. I play by ear, or, more accurately, by gut. I couldn't care less about the mathematical aspect of my music; to me it all comes down to feeling. If I feel the music, really feel it, then when I play or sing it will come out right.

One of my favourite singers, Sam Phillips, says that there are certain songs you can only write after certain understandings are reached. I think what she's referring to is age and life experience, and from my own experience I can tell you that my music was always better when there was a lot of emotion behind it. Emotions don't care about chord progression. They just want to be heard.   

I think what she's referring to is age and life experience, and from my own experience I can tell you that my music was always better when there was a lot of emotion behind it. Emotions don't care about chord progression. They just want to be heard.  

That's all I really think is important, but I'll tell you what I love. I LOVE it when people use 9th chords in their string sections, and have them repeating in short burst.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, EvilM00s. However, arl, I love you. If I know what kinds of sounds people like, I can experiment with it and try it out and see how it works for me. Yeah, it's kinda forcing myself to do something I wouldn't normally do, but isn't that where innovation, and not invention, comes in?

I'm going to try some sounds out now~

EDIT: Okai, idk what the hell I'm doing, lol

I still write from time to time, and I'll be honest- theory is NOT my strong point. I play by ear, or, more accurately, by gut. I couldn't care less about the mathematical aspect of my music; to me it all comes down to feeling.

I actually have something to say about this. Theory was never meant to be a set of real 'rules' that you HAVE to follow, though many people seem to interpret them that way. (Especially performers) To me, knowing all the music theory I do only helps me better express my emotions. It's like having more paint brushes in my brush kit, or more colors in my crayon box.

It does all come down to feeling, and you can certainly get by without knowing any theory at all, but I personally like to know about all the techniques that are open to me.

I actually have something to say about this. Theory was never meant to be a set of real 'rules' that you HAVE to follow, though many people seem to interpret them that way. (Especially performers) To me, knowing all the music theory I do only helps me better express my emotions. It's like having more paint brushes in my brush kit, or more colors in my crayon box.

Theory is basically like any other subject in school; it's the observation of patterns. How much of math, science, and English is actually created? All of it's based on what nature already provided and what people found out that they like.

Of course, like in English, knowing about parallel structure, integrated quotes, allusions, etc. allows you to expand your knowledge and repertoire of strategies to use. Sure, you could write a great speech or essay without knowing what an integrated quote is or what parallel structure is because sometimes you just do it naturally. That's what I feel like theory is.

So yeah, supporting arl here.

I didn't read any of this thread so I may be going off on a tangent here, but I really only listen to pop (rock) music. Namely, I listen to ELO, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, CCR and Silverchair (not their early stuff, for the most part) and anybody else I come across who fits into what I like (L.E.O. lately, for instance). On top of that, I really appreciate when artists write their own music rather than depend on an external songwriter, so a lot of pop music today doesn't float my boat. Also: auto-tune; pop music feels repetitive now, especially within hip-hop/rap (which always sucked anyway, imo); retarded lyricists who pretend they are deep when writing their lyrics.

To me, music is just about sounding good. I like catchy hooks and melodies a lot and, in my opinion, Jeff Lynne is the best at writing them. He is an awful, awful lyricist, but he knows where to put his words to make them sound good so I don't really care. I don't think you should be hung up on being unique if you have to really force it out... just make sure your song doesn't sound like any other at a basic level.

...

They say some days you're gonna win,
They say some days you're gonna lose.
I tell you I got news for you
Your losin' all the time you never win
If you believe that's how it's gonna be I'd better put you
down
Get off your tightrope up there come down on
The ground you gotta save me now,
You better turn around.
When I looked around, I was heading down.
Won't somebody throw me down a line.

Beautiful. ;-;

I always considered Beatles to be classical rock and kinda psychadelic rock later in their time. Oh well. I like them, too.

On top of that, I really appreciate when artists write their own music rather than depend on an external songwriter, so a lot of pop music today doesn't float my boat.

This.

To me, music is just about sounding good. I like catchy hooks and melodies a lot and, in my opinion, Jeff Lynne is the best at writing them. He is an awful, awful lyricist, but he knows where to put his words to make them sound good so I don't really care. I don't think you should be hung up on being unique if you have to really force it out... just make sure your song doesn't sound like any other at a basic level.

Ahahaha I feel like lots of people nowadays do that. Either you got the people trying to write deep stuff or you got the people who write things that are so dang catchy they stay in your head for a week, but when you really look at the lyrics, you have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

You should really read this thread, I made some pretty awesome posts.

Alright, I read all of your posts and realised you said what I was trying to say, only much better. You've got it all figured out, imo

It's because he's a tree.

I would say it is in spite of the fact that he's a tree; most trees I know have very little insight into music.

I dig what you said about having more paintbrushes, Arl. Good analogy.

@MA: I only know one tree, and he's pretty knowledgeable about music.

(lol this discussion is so weird)

Uh, any other questions?

http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,35245.0.html
This chord included (because there's only one chord in there ), how do you know what chords go well together? Are there any specific patterns or do you just throw down what you think sounds sexy?

38% of it is classical and jazz theory about chord progressions. This is most commonly taught using roman numerals.

C the key of C Major, there are 7 chords.
I : C Major
ii: D minor
iii. E minor
IV: F Major
V: G Major
vi: A minor
vii*: B diminished

And don't worry about 7ths, here, I'm just talking about triads.

In classical theory, it's all about cadences.
Authentic: V - I
Plagal: IV - I (Also known as the "Amen" cadence)
Half: I - V
Deceptive: V - vi (though technically a deceptive cadence is the "none of the above" option. Any cadence NOT going to I, IV, or V.)

Most, if not all of classical music is based solely around this. But these are just end caps.
A common classical progression is I - IV - V - I, and then repeat.
Another one is I - ii - V - I, and then repeat.
See those V - I's on the end? That's why they're called cadences. Cadence literally means "ending" or "falling."

This developed because, well, its natural. It just sounds ... right. G major always tends to lead back to C major, in the key of C. ESPECIALLY if it's a G7. It's because of the leading tone in the key. B is the leading tone, it's always the last note in the scale before the root, so in C major key, it's B. That B is the most important note in the G chord, because it LEADS up to the C in the C chord. It's just ... how it ends up working, smoothly.

Jazz theory gets a little more complicated, with it's bII - I, and bIV - I, and other strange as hell cadences, but they're more interesting.
I'll go into that some other time, if you want, I have to go to a meeting soon.

The other 62% of it? Experience. You ear knows what sounds good. Sometimes it's NOT what theory teaches us (or at least not classical or jazz theory, they can't cover EVERYTHING, they're really more about basics and foundations). But yeah, my advice? Screw around with it.

There IS a little bit of methodology you can put behind it, though.

Like that Cmaj9(#11)? What stands out most? The #11, the F#. Where does that F# wanna go? It's like a leading tone, you know? It kind of wants to resolve to G. So chose a chord with a G in it. Like, say, G major? Or be MORE creative, try A minor 7, because the G's in there but since it's the 7th it's a little more exotic.

This process is called voice leading, it's the tendency of notes within a chord to go in certain directions, and in most (but NOT all) cases, it sounds better when the most prominent voices are moving only slightly (a half step or a whole step in whatever direction), or even NOT at all, and are treated like pivot points.

So in the case of that Cmaj9(#11) I'd look at that F#, and base my next chord on whether I want it to move up, down, or stay the same, and choose a chord that has that note in it .. somewhere.



Eventually, this becomes pretty much second nature, and doesn't require that much thought.


And sometimes, I just play chords until something sounds nice.



lol okay I really have to go, bye

All that talk about theory reminds me of this band called Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. They made some really good music, very jazz-oriented, untill their fifth or sixth album, in which they took the theory to the extreme. They used the most screwed up time signatures they could devise with equally odd chord progressions. While theyperformed the music technically well, it didn't sound like much of anything cohesive and I think that's where they missed the point.

I'll be honest, there's nothing wrong with being a theory master; I really respect those who are, but there is a point at which one must remember that music needs to sound like something in order to express an idea. I think they lost sight of that.

Ahhh thanks for all your lessssonsss~!!! I should really find all of them and save them all somewhere when I find the time. ;-;

I lol'd at "Amen cadence" (because it's true, lol :3).

And the #11 for Fmaj9(#11) is B, isn't it? Think you meant C the first time.

And I remember you telling me about the pivot thing. It makes sense. Omg, so much I want to write, but idk what to say. ;-;

@M00s: Their music could have had their audience. There could have been people who enjoyed it for its technical aspects and respected it. But idk about that or the bands.