Breaking Musical Stereotypes? ... Overcoming blandness and fakeness

I once heard that good rock vocals only come from two places.  The human need for sex, and the human cry of suffering.

Isn't that subjective though? If that weren't true then:

"One man's trash is another man's treasure" wouldn't exist.

Also, the idea of "nose-to-the grindstone" taking to mean you're passionate about something is also stereotypical in nature. Yes, it shows your dedication  and passion, but why try to "measure up?"

You hear this when talking production all the time. Sure, you want your production to sound as good or better than the pros, but again, you are limiting yourself by comparing and that is disheartening because you should be you - not someone else.

This is why I feel bad for arrangers because they always get their tracks compared - not saying it's a bad thing; however, some get arranging and covering something confused.

The critique I got about Blossoms on another forum while great, the fact that my version was compared to the original (and I didn't even use half of it), was nice, but at the same time not-so-much because it was/is different and I always make it a point to point that out although the music should tell you that itself. (No way will you outdo Tchaik. Thanks although I was never trying to)

I wanted to make it mine - not better than his! Huge difference!

That's from the arranging/composition standpoint. Some are better at forming ideas from what's established and writing around it, then starting from scratch.

That's ironic part, though because rarely if ever does a musician play a song exactly like it is written and get criticized for doing so because it sounds better. He or she isn't trying to show up the original piece. (The orchestra is probably the only exception, but they're a stereotypical group, too. Not so much anymore, but they were)

But who's to say that just because one clicked a mouse as opposed to one who pressed down a key has any less passion for his/her craft though the method of making music is different?

Tchaik didn't have what I do now, but imagine if he did, I wouldn't call him less passionate then when he didn't have it nor does it make me more passionate than he because I have it.

The same emotions can be felt - no matter where the music comes from or what the music is.

Someone gave a critique about the Waltz and how he perhaps felt when he wrote it which probably dictated why he wrote it the way he did. Now, right off, I won't go that deep, but who's to say the same emotions aren't there - despite being a different color. There really is a different story being told within Blossoms here and where the story is being told is in a different place, too.

For me, using the Waltz-Blossoms comparison, his story was told in the melody moreso than the harmony although the harmony supported it. With Blossoms, it's in the harmony. As far as the verse chorus - the melody (actual and/or implied) stayed the same, but the harmony is what changed the piece and yes, I attached a beat, but the harmony is the main catalyst for the mood/tone/character change.

There's the bridge which has its own "melody," but it still connects the chorus and verse; yet, it's also the most obvious thing that denotes this song being different from a "what'd I use" perspective. The bridge is not at all like Waltz except it doesn't leave the central key. (The original as to pass though another chord that's clearly different to get there) Both have a dark tone; however, Blossoms tone overall isn't bright, so there's not a jarring shift

Waltz's Bridge: Bm----> G Major -----> D Major (From D Major to b minor with no setup; then G so suddenly to setup D) I take that back, the V is used to get to D; however, G major was maintained longer than expected. If longer than a phrase, it's not tonicization and it lulls your ear to think it's a new key.

Blossoms Bridge: Gm chord, but A---->.D. I never left D. (D--->Gm chord (still in D) = setup is the A)

He never left the key either, but the tonal center does change when you hear the progression. The way Blossoms progresses, you know you're still in D Major - especially given the iv-V-I and V-iv-V-I in the bridge. In fact, he uses tonicization near the end of the song to get to D. (How jazz/latin do it very often with the ii-V-I before playing the actual I; yet, with the circular way keys/chord progressions work, it's not difficult to find the tonal center. Autumn Leaves and Girl From Ipanema are extraordinary examples)

Of course, there's the theme. I decided to make the harp the thematic instrument here. It's interesting because I think I wrote the strings (chords) first and also did this for the bridge; yet, it sounds like I wrote the harp first because everyone else is following it. (And yes, it's also treated very differently)

Though the bridge (half of it) appears first, I actually wrote that section (all of it) last due to asking myself "How can I make this piece different"?

I had to figure out the progression and how it functions within itself (the bridge), but how it will function/relate to the rest of the song. Ironically, it's progression is very similar to how the verse and chorus progress.

Of course, the rhythm is different - being in Common Time.

Then the bass line! Let's just say I had too much fun with this! But it also helped shape the character.

Different =/= better in this context because it's still subjective. However something as simple as adding color tones to a chord or playing a scale between chords or their roots sounds "better" in the sense of "How you got there" as opposed to "getting there ASAP!"

So, yeah, it's a combination of alot of things whether you're arranging or composing from scratch; however, blandness and fakeness are only applied when comparing one thing to another.

It's be nice to stand out, but sometimes you have to attempt to fit in first!  Alas, don't try to measure yourself to others or you won't be able to do either. Food for thought! 

It isn't necessary for me to be like Tchaikovsky to like "ballet" music or like Eminem to write a hiphop tune. It may help influence what and/or how something is written, but these are still my pieces - despite there influence on them. Artists tell people this all the time - especially when the question is posed to them and audiences here those influences; however, the artist maintains his or her uniqueness.

Honestly, if someone were to ask me that question, I wouldn't know what to say - because it's as if they're expecting me to sound that way. When if their ears or good, they can tell by listening. The music should tell the story, not the artist. Not slighting singer/songwriters, but they would say the same thing. They just help get it across by how it's sung/played. (Waltz/Blossoms again. Two totally different tales though "similar" songs. This goes for any and all arrangements)

droddey


I look at a band like The Jellyfish, who I think are immensely creative. Their BellyButton and Spilt Milk albums are incredibly examples of creative use of the studio. But, ultimately, are they doing anything that the Beatles didn't do or wouldn't have done 50 years ago if they'd have had a 24 track tape deck? It's hard to say that they are.

Was always a big fan of Jellyfish. They had an awesome sound and incredible artistry. Their songs, however expertly performed and put together, always seemed to be about doing something cool musically rather than being cool musically, if you catch my drift. I still listen to them and have nostalgic affection for those tunes, but as I have gotten a wee bit older I now understand why they never made it big. All art, little heart.


As for Philip's OP, we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. There is nothing new under the sun. There is no missing chord. There is only our individual askew views of the world.

Great discussion here!

I do feel that sometimes we do tend to do a lot of second guessing with ourselves and that, maybe, we do need to shut down the 'inner critic' to keep playing what is in our heads. At least, for me, that is what I am up against....

One other thing you have that not a lot of people have....is an instant identity. This to me is one of the most important aspects one can have as an original artist. The ability to be known in seconds. We can tell a Philip song in under 10 seconds most times because you have your own sound and identity. This is the key to being a successful artist in my opinion...even if that success doesn't bring forth money and fame. :)

 
Exactly!!!
 
If you think about artists that have their own unique voice/ sound; Tom Petty, Johnny Cash, Rush, Willy Nelson, John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Stevie Nicks, EVH,  just to name a few, they are instantly recognizable and seem to have staying power over a great length of time.  It is all the artist's and groups that sound alike, that seem to flash and fade away.  Uniqueness is good.  So many guitar players start out playing and learning licks and solo's note for note; wihich is not a bad way to initially learn certain styles, but it is when they find their OWN voice that they become recognizable.  Its just in you, follow your heart. 

Hey Philip, sorry I am late to the party. Been busy but have been following this discussion. I need to go over the responses more though.

Look you either have it or you don't. Now this may not necessary lead to success but at the end of the day, the statement runs true.

Now do you need to cultivate it, YES! It’s all well and good to have it, but if you do not cultivate it you will go nowhere fast. And sorry this is where some education comes in. It doesn't matter if it's formal or informal but if you don't understand 4 important things in music these days all the talent in the world will not help you. Now this is what you need as basic skills today and not twenty years ago.

Firstly you need to have basic music theory and it does only have to be basic. This has to be coupled with the ability to play at least one instrument. If you don't have these two basic skills and all you are doing is "arranging" beats (notice the word arrange) don't call yourself a musician. You are not; at best you’re an arranger.

The third skill you need is context, cultural and historical. You see at this moment in history we have a fairly eclectic music scene, depending on where you come from in the world. Here is Oz, we have a folk-indie scene. So if you play this sort of music, then chances are your going to get a gig.

The overall dominant musical form at the moment seems to be light weight oversexulized pop, good looking people with reasonably good producers behind them. If you want to make money then you go into this genre.

I also mentioned historical context and this is really lacking from producers today. Case in point there is a question about the Iron Man effect on this forum, I knew instantly that it's a Ring Modulator because a)I know the sound and I have read about it. b) I can also surmise that there is a pitch shifter; probably as well because Ozzy always had his vocals processed witha pitch shifter, I think it was up, it was to give his voice that higher sort of demonic sound. I'd have to look it up but I can say %100 that these two effects were used.

If you look through the answers that were given nobody could say that it was a Ring Modulator with %100 certainty. I can because I know historical production techniques.

"Producers" and I say that really lightly Philip don't have connection with the past, Jeff Evans said I was living in the past once because I hold on to production techniques from the past and try and translate them into the digital world. This is when I got narky.

You know what screw Melodyne, if you can't sing in the key of the track do what The Beatles did and use varispeed, now this effect would sound new because it has been lost in the annals of time. Melodyne sounds boring because everyone is doing it.

Once you have an idea of historical production you can really experiment, for instance, the audio snap palate is not just a correction tool, I've used it in the same way as varispeed and slowed tracks down and you get a really cool effect but it's not the same as varispeed because it doesn't change the pitch of the track. You can see though that already I am thinking outside of the box and because I know of varispeed i had the nous to experiment with audio snap to see what happened.

Another thing you could try is instead of once again using the VVocal just a pitch correction tool it can be used to artificially double track vocals to help thicken them, this is done by slightly shifting the time of one of the vocal tracks. In the old days this would have been done using tape. the VVvocal is also awesome for fake three part harmonies.

The forth attribute that you need to make music these days is audio engineering skills.

Now what I have described to you is the new musician, the digital musician and I have got the four attributes from a book called The Digital Musician.

What I have talked about here though is all technical and nothing to do with the art, as Roger Waters said in Pink Floyd "Live at Pompeii" "You can't give a synthesizer to you know anyone and they become us" in other words he was saying you cant go up to some one on the street and give them an instrument or in the case of the conversation and opinion I have just wrote, you can't just give somebody the equipment or the formulas and they become Pink Floyd.

You see Philip the biggest skill an artist can have is to act as a conduit or as I like to put, the artist is a satellite. Keith Richards once said on how he wrote Jumping Jack Flash, he was just playing his guitar, riffing along and then wham he was playing Jumping Jack Flash.

This is what I call having it, you switch off and then from the ether something comes, then this is where the technical skill comes in.

Does this mean you don't have motif's, themes and stories. Absolutely not, Pink Floyd had sound effects all throughout their music and it would not have been Pink Floyd music without, those sound effects.

The Beatles was innovation, every album you expected something different and right up to the end they did this, with the exception of Let It Be but then The Beatles new it was time to call it quits.

For me I use something I like to call the sonic ping and it represents life, or the heartbeat. I also use sound effects to take the listener to the place I want to take them or a journey or it’s about the story.

But as I say the most important thing for any real artist is that ability to be a conduit, that’s why my music is so eclectic (sorry I know everyone hate me and my ego around here) but I don't know where an idea for a song or piece is going to come from, I don't know where the piece is going to take me. This is the best part; it's a journey for you as well as the listener. It's like giving birth.

Ok I hope you get what I am saying Philip and I and I haven't gone off on one of my wild tangents again.

Peace Ben

I didn't say that's how I think, but that is what stereotypes are.

ii-V-Is exist everywhere - not only jazz. Extensions and alterations also go beyond jazz; it's just easy to call them "jazzy chords" since that's where they're frequently used.

VI-Is don't exist in only hymns; it's just where you find them frequently.

I-iv-ii(IV)-Vs - goes beyond today's Pop/Top40, but where do you find them most often and they weren't born yesterday. (!)

Stereotyping is generally seen as a bad thing when it's not. Of course, this is subjective.

Still don't be different just for the hell of it, you know?

Rus W


Still don't be different just for the hell of it, you know?

That's my feeling as well, Rus. I think when people TRY to be different "for the sake of" it sounds forced. Kinda like the guy that goes out of his way to really try to win over a woman. If he would just be himself without trying so hard or attempting to be something he's not for the sake of "winning" her over, he'd probably win her over faster because women can see right through. Play games with them, they'll allow it for a little bit but then they'll teach you how to REALLY play the game.
 
I'm just a fan of "do what you do....it will create, evolve, grow, break out or stay the same all on its own". It's like that band The Darnkess. Believe it or not, they are 100 times better than people think they are. Like mega good. I've heard demo's that the labels all rejected....why...I have no idea.
 
One day, they were in their practice room all depressed. So depressed, they started singing parodies of their own songs to be funny. The singer started simulating Tiny Tim....everyone laughed so hard and had so much fun, they took it out of the practice room. It caught on...the next thing you know, from not being so serious, they launched an incredible career. Yet, the songs no one will EVER hear will appeal more to musicians and are incredibly good songs without Tiny Tim on lead vocals. That guy can actually sing very well when he's not putting on that front. 

In this situation, they weren't really trying to be different at all. They were having fun at their own expense, came up with a marketing plan, exploited it and there they are. I still think it's sad that they didn't get notoriety for being themselves and doing what they truly believed in...but hey, whatever works. One day you're down in the dumps busting on yourself, the next day you're selling out arenas by not taking things so seriously. Go figure! LOL!
 
At the end of the day for me, those that are different due to their nature/make-up or whatever that do not purposely TRY to be different, are the one's that get it right. Those that make decisions for the sake of being different always seem to just sound bad and throw things in "just because". Ok, it's still art, but to me, it's a bad decision most times...and it sounds like it in the songs where people do this. Ever listen to something and then ask the artist why they did something and they reply "just to be different"?
 
That "different" when you ask about it, is usually something that ruined the song 8 out of 10 times, ya know? Coming into your own as an artist takes time. Achieving an identity takes time. Writing a lot can help while trying different things. However, the decisions that get made on some of these "different" things isn't always the correct choice in my opinion. If we look back at all the innovators...as I said before, none of them set out to be different nor did they know they would inspire millions. They just did what they did and people either loved it or hated it. "Different for the sake of" is just not a decision I feel is a good one being an artist. You BECOME different on your own...."different" chooses you, we don't choose it. Just my take though...but I totally agree with all that you said. :)
 
-Danny