offnote

jamesyoyo


No matter how you slice it, great songs are 10% inspiration, 10% innovation, and 80% perspiration. The 80% can be real easier if you have an education on how to hone the other 20%.

well, the problem is with that 20/80 ratio though. That 80% job can do 80% of people (or more)
and the remaining 20% just the elite.  Without them you have still nothing.

Unfortunately, Note, you got it 100% wrong. I was referring to the creative process a writer of a great song goes through, not how the work is parceled out to or who the audience it is intended for. Unless I just read it wrong...

Ben...gush I'm sorry for being straight but you're seem to be out of touch completely - has that one possibility ever entered your mind that you suck??? (as kc2ine nicely presented in his thread) and you should change your hobby before it's not too late and you are still young???  We are not living in 1800 anymore and when you're good you'll be noticed sooner or later, so look in the mirror and be honest...
 

p.s.
you're wrong classical music is not dead - have you heard about recently passed away Henryk Gorecki? His symphonies are one of the best music pieces in this century. you just have to go out more.

offnote


Ben...gush I'm sorry for being straight but you're seem to be out of touch completely - has that one possibility ever entered your mind that you suck??? (as kc2ine nicely presented in his thread) and you should change your hobby before it's not too late and you are still young???  We are not living in 1800 anymore and when you're good you'll be noticed sooner or later, so look in the mirror and be honest...


p.s.
you're wrong classical music is not dead - have you heard about recently passed away Henryk Gorecki? His symphonies are one of the best music pieces in this century. you just have to go out more.

So offnote, are you saying my music sucks, I would like to know???
 
Ben

I think everyone has posted some valid points here. In my opinion there really is no wrong answer. It depends on the person as well as what their goals are. I still do not think music school is a necessity as I have tried it many times myself and it just wasnt for me.

There are people that hear voices in their heads that do not know how to extract thoe voices nor do they know how to play them. This is where training can help a person because when you are involved in it to a great degree, voicings take on a name to you and they are easier to figure out.

Then there are people like me who have a good ear. I hear the same voices as those that are trained butI don't have a clue what they are called, yet I can figure them out and extract those ideas from my head and turn them into a song. I hear full parts...sometimes full orchestras just the way you listen to a CD and a song sticks in your head and keeps on playing back in your mind...this is how I hear new song ideas in my head. I've never had a problem extracting them out instrument at a time.

The music training I DID have didn't help me to deal with this. I learned to deal with it on my own. For me, I like the creative process of not knowing what I'm doing. I like being surprised to find out where I'll end up. I don't want to be restricted with anything...I want to close my eyes and take a stab somewhere and see if I can make it work in the song. This to me makes it a much pleasant experience and I'd really not want it any other way. I'm perfectly happy with the basic theory aspect and am also happy with my song writing as well as the stuff I play. I think it also has to do with how content a person is with themselves. I've been told "restricted? Danny you're nuts...there is no restriction, if anything you'll open new doors!" In some cases, yes, in most cases FOR ME no, it hasn't been that way at all. Basic theory is definitely important in my opinion but going too deep into it...I don't know, it's just not for me.

You guys keep bringing up jazz....what if we don't like jazz? I must confess, though I appreciate it and really respect all that goes into it, it's not for me. It's like you have to be a scientist to enjoy some of it and all the jazz guys will constantly make a stink that "you're just too dumb to understand it". That really gets old...so I'm too dumb to understand it...I admit it as well as admitting my diatonic, commercial ears just don't like that sound. That's not a bust on anyone that likes it or plays it...it's just not something I like and at times, let's face it, it doesn't sound very musical if you have an ear like mine. It's like scotch...you acquire a taste for it, or you don't. Other times, it's a great style. I like fusion quite a bit and really do respect all styles of music....but you have to seriously be into theory to "get" jazz or your ear has to accept it. I don't ever want to have to go to school or learn theory to "get" something.

I don't want to rely on anything but what I hear in my head. I used to love Dream Theater. But I felt their music has become a bunch of long wankage and everybody just takes a turn. I saw how they rehearse and write song. They put up formulas on a blackboard...what the heck is that? That's writing? To them it is...to me, they lost me as a fan because the music sounds just the way it looks on that board...like a freakin' math problem from a bunch of guys that went to Berklee. If that's music, I want no part of it...and trust me, I'm not jealous of them or anyone else.

There are as many unschooled musicians out there making buck as there are schooled musicians. Actually, if we could get real numbers on this, we may be quite astonished that the unschooled guys may be the majority of money makers. Here's the thing I look at....most of my hero's were not schooled. I'm talking innovators here that defined music when it was their turn. Sure, it all comes from classicl music and evolved etc....I know all that....but some of the greatest songs of MY time we created by guys that either knew nothing or basic theory. That's where I want to be....that's what I like. Would music school help me do that better? It didn't when I tried it and I found it boring and uninteresting. I've watched friends of mine who were great guitar players go to GIT and come back robotic guitar players that had 0 feel because they were so wrapped up in all the stuff they learned....it would take them another 10 years to figure out had to add their soul into it. That's not for me. I like technical music, but it also has to have some heart in it and not just be technical for the sake of being technical

If you want to be a music teacher or a session player....go to school. If you want to be a songwriter that makes money...practice song writing and write what your heart tells you. The majority of technical, well schooled player are just that....technical well schooled players....not many of them are great song writers. So decide which you want to do...learn a little basic theory and let your heart drive the bus from there. If you love to learn about music and all the stuff that goes with it...school is for you. It's sure not and  never has been for me though. I'm happy being a theoretical dope that can write decent songs and I thank God I've made a great living doing it. :)

-Danny

Danny Danzi

You guys keep bringing up jazz....what if we don't like jazz? I must confess, though I appreciate it and really respect all that goes into it, it's not for me. It's like you have to be a scientist to enjoy some of it and all the jazz guys will constantly make a stink that "you're just too dumb to understand it". That really gets old...so I'm too dumb to understand it...I admit it as well as admitting my diatonic, commercial ears just don't like that sound. That's not a bust on anyone that likes it or plays it...it's just not something I like and at times, let's face it, it doesn't sound very musical if you have an ear like mine. It's like scotch...you acquire a taste for it, or you don't. Other times, it's a great style. I like fusion quite a bit and really do respect all styles of music....but you have to seriously be into theory to "get" jazz or your ear has to accept it. I don't ever want to have to go to school or learn theory to "get" something.

well you got that right, todays jazz sucks big time and while I was a big fan of that music I quickly realized that what I loved was improvisational music not american jazz. People sometimes mix those two unfortunately. Original jazz was a great concept but today sounds like if somebody has no talent to compose nice melody he start playing jazz...as an excuse...
  

Is the bottom line of this thread whether or not to get educated? Um??
Really?

jamesyoyo


Ben:

After listening to you stuff on SoundCloud on my UltraSones, I will respectfully say this:
+ Your music shows good ideas, but not really a good sense of craftsmanship; there is not enough effort to engage the listener, too much self-indulgence and a "here's my stuff, take it or leave it, I don't care" attitude that very few can pull off successfully
+ Your music is decidedly a little weird, not that there is anything wrong with that, but to an average listener it is not impressively weird enough to make it outstanding
+ Levels are all over the place from tune to tune
+ There is little thematic or stylistic coherence from tune to tune: there is 70s throwback, house, industrial, synth, grunge, alt-rock, Beatles (!), and assorted uncategorizable stuff.
+ If these mixes are really aiming for lo-fi, they ain't there, but really in-between, which leave the listener confused with what vibe you are going for, which makes a lot of it sound amateur
+ Take it from a guy who can't sing: you can't either. Find a real vocalist if you want your stuff to be taken seriously 

Not meant to be too harsh, but I am just telling you how it is from my somewhat learned viewpoint.  All this crap complaining about the elites (seriously, who knew there were even any music elites in Tasmania?) is really just misdirection.

Take care.

Thanks James, at least your honest, now I need a 2nd opinion, if the 2nd opinion comes back I suck looks like I suck.

As Danny has said, the guys that I admire, were never formally trained, but have all become legends. Sometimes, I think the fun is in the discovery of not knowing exactly where you are going with something, but going, wow, I really like that once you get there. If I just had a formula for everything, it seems like some of the fun would be gone.

 
Actually it, having a formula makes it easier, the thing to remember is danny is right and I had many fights with lectures over this or over how danny prefers to work and I advocated what danny said.
 
I was literally expelled from one Uni for advocating what Danny has said, ok I was a little gruff and pushed one of the teacher's but I still said Danny's way was the best way.
 
The song know's what it needs and where it should go, or that is how it should be IMHO, I know that is very esotertic.
 
So what does this have to do with formula's well it makes workflow faster, knowing how to roll off reverb at certain frequencies to make is sound more real, or knowing how to dial slap back echo or even more importanly knowing compression settings.
 
I think you get my point, by knowing all this stuff, I can work much faster but I can also throw the rules out the window if I want, or I can reach for a sound really quickly that's in my head because I know how to dial it up.
 
Peace Ben

"How much do you artists (composers, performers, and singers) feel the 'study' of music helps/hinders you, your vibe, your art"

The above was the original question.   Here's my answer to that:

If your "art" is performance and sight reading music for a orchestra, you need to practice your instrument like crazy and learn to read music at a high level.  You need music theory.

If your "art" is writing pop/rock songs, you will still need a little study of music, enough that you know a I, IV, V progression and understand that concept of tonic and dominant on some level, even if you don't know those phrases.

If your "art" involves composing music for other musicians you need to study music theory as well as other instruments, their ranges, strengths etc...

    Imagine John Williams in front of the orchestra with his conductor stick...

JW-"ok violins I need you guys to play on the top string on the first fret..or you know, where the fret should be.  And you'll play like this "bum bum bumbumbum" and if you have a pick try that instead of those long bow things.

JW - ok horns, you go bbbrrrrruuuuuummmm" like that for like...I dont know 10 seconds or something.

JW- You in the back with the sticks, put them down there's only one conductor here!
Drumguy- "sir, I'm the percussionist"
..is that a coffee?
 - "no I play percussion instruments"
..does that mean drums?
"yes"
"..right got it, give me a fast ride cymbal and some double bass when the horns go bbbrrruuuummm" ...and just in case I misunderstood, I guess I'll take the coffee with cream and sugar"...

Thankfully some people put forth effort into the things they love. 

Jeff Evans


Let's say we have to compose something. It could be argued that there are two sources of inspiration. One is a natural form and just let's the idea generate or eminate from there, some mysterious place somewhere. (Subconscious mind actually, ideas come from there)

The other could be all your knowledge. Oh, we will compose in the key of D Major today and we have 7 scale chords available to us. Very restricting. Whereas the first place is limitless in its design.

It is possible however to use both. When I am writing I do not even think about theory. I either sit down at the piano and let ideas flow and see where they go etc. Lots of stuff happens by chance. If you let it then good things will often result. Another way for me is to let ideas flow into my mind and then I vocalise them into some sort of portable or studio recorder.

At the piano concept I have a stereo recording device going with a stereo mike sitting on the top. If its composing in front of the technolgy I can get ideas going and still let things take any direction or twist or turn etc..

Its after all the creative stuff I transfer the ideas into the DAW and then analyse it using the theory/ knowledge. That just locks it in so I know what key it might be in etc. All very useful. Also once you get into this mode you also have many other options available. eg I might have used 3 scale chords from two keys and created a melody using a certain rhythm. The thoery tells me there are 4 other scale chords. I might check them just to be sure and they will either not add anything to my original idea, so I don't use them. Or I might go, Oh, now there is a nice chord so I might expand the idea to incorporate it. Now my original idea has just got better. I might change the rhythm slightly because it may be approaching a known concept so one could try altering the original idea to be a bit closer to the known stronger concept. Wow all of a sudden the rhythm sounds better. Or a rhythm may be sounding too close to well known concepts (eg the standard rock beat!) I might try randomising a rhythm and see where the pieces land. Wow, a new abstract rhythm, I love it!. So now the composition takes a turn because of the new rhythm. Is that OK way to do it? Yes of course.

Ideas or creative flow first, use the knowledge second. Simple as that. If you don't have the knowledge you can still get the ideas down and use them. The ideas might be good or complex too. I did it for 5 years at the start before the knowledge came. But you miss out on all the later analysis/discovery and development stuff.

There is also nothing wrong with composing from a theory base. eg like take 3 scale chords from a key and put them into a progression and loop it. Then create a melody in an improvised fashion and just let melodic ideas flow. Anything wrong with that? Don't think so. In the end the listener may not know how and where the ideas came from.

In fact by the time you are at the stage of the music hitting the listener, then that all transcends how the ideas were even created in the first place. It is just right down to the ideas themselves and how good they are.

Some musicians even may not have ideas or a lot of knowledge and then I think you are restricted. Or you can lots of ideas and limited knowlede, way better and the one I would rather be stuck with. Or great ideas and lots of knowledge. Wow, use them both to maximum advantage. Killer, this one sounds great.

ITA! Like I said earlier though. this is how many act when it comes to math - then sound absolutely clueless when someone asks them. They may not be looking for a dissertation, but you do have to sound like you know what you are talking about!


Yeah, there are many that can pull songs out of thin air, but you need knowledge when it comes to structure - even if you don't think about it! Those who go by what sounds good are actually using something that is learned! Does this sounds good/bad? Something we call consonance and dissonance! (Pleasing/Displeasing to the ear in lamens terms though it's deeper than that) Again, it's not thought about, but when you get into structure, tone, and color (and they're learning about that, too). It's subjective as to what is good or bad music, but imagine if the artists (music people who may include them) - just threw something together? 


I do realize what's thrown together may sound good; however, out of the two options, most take the time to tweak it (composition and certainly production). While composition and production or two different things, I've seen oodles of posts where songs sound bad due to not-so-good production choices (something I'm experimenting with and certainly not good at); however, I don't think there is a person (here and other forums) who said where you can just slap on EQ, Compression and say mixing/mastering is done - put it out there! And you can get creative in that field, too, believe it or not - despite it being much more "restrictive" than composition will ever be!


I don't think anyone is saying that you need to spend half your life - learning this stuff as you can still come up with nothing, but I wouldn't dare say that music would be better if everybody just wrote, played an instrument or both without learning the proper techniques behind it! (Even though there are plenty of people who have and do)


It's unfair to say that knowing what you did, "limits" you; it doesn't as that is the critic rearing his or her ugly head whether it's you or someone else.


Something as simple as playing a song with modulation! Sure, one can master this by ear (if it's a chromatic one), but what if it's a leap? (m/M3 P4/5) One can "find" it, but by the time it's found, the song's over!


I went from C-F. Did you modulate (go up) or demodulate (go down) as even though both Fs "sound" the same (provided you changed everything correctly), the tone, timbre and character change, too. Again, the ear is a great tool; however, if you have knowledge about intervals, your ears don't need to be engaged for this - only your hands/fingers. Knowing this, doesn't mean you have to spit it out while playing unless you feel you need or want to.


I'm not in total opposition because I see where the "You can't do that" would hinder you! The rules regarding part-writing stressed me out; however, I don't part write; if I did, I would need to at least consider the guidelines (as confusing as they are to me still). In my compositions now, there are probably a ridiculous quantity of rules I have broken; however, I'm one who writes "outside the staff" (pun-intended). This does not mean that I've followed all the rules nor does it mean I've broken all of them either. Being aware means just that. I do not feel that I'm restricting myself.


To me, it's not understanding or being blatantly ignorant of the fact that there ARE limits - no matter how creative one thinks one is! It's disheartening, but true!


This instrument can only do so much; therefore, I'll write for how ever many I think will be needed to play this or that - even though I still need to be aware of the same limitations. Once that is done, IOW, thinking practically, then your song can be played (despite some "rule" saying it's not playable)

And by no means am I downing just playing and being happy with that; however, I don't wanna look like a DIH (Deer in Headlights) when someone starts asking "theoretical" questions! 

My sister will always be the plug and play type; however, with her training, she'll be able to color her own songs (she can still ask me to of course)

This was more for off-note; however, I just thought I'd say that I agree with you, Jeff!

BenMMusTech


So do I recomend getting a music education, yes, because even though I can't get work, all those little letters behind my name do get me respect and no not around here (ok sometimes and I have shot myself in the foot) but those little letters after your name get you respect in greater society and can open doors.
       

wrong, as you see in your own example in art world all those fancy letters around your name are meaningless.
In this world all that matters is ability to show what's you've got. That's all. I don' want your resume, if you're a musician
play me something if you're a painter paint for me. These are the only criteria people will judge your skills and creativity. 

Also a little bit modesty and self-criticism would help because telling around you have masters in this and that and you can play in every 
style etc etc is just childish and will make you look stupid later if your work won't stand your claims.

I've not read through this entire argument thread.  I've skimmed over bits and pieces.  most of it seems to be centered around Ben's statements about his credentials and his question regarding his music and especially his vocals.
 
I have not yet listened to Ben's music.  I will try to do that tonight (can't from work - it's blocked).  but I will say that since there have been at least more than one person stating that his vocals need improvement, that he should take those critiques to heart.  I am a living testimony to that.
 
several people, including Jamesyoyo, have told me when I first started posting songs here that my vox were in need of improvement (specifically james said that I only sounded good with someone else singing with me, even if it was myself! - I'll never forget that!). 
 
since then I have taken 3 years of voice lessons and I think I have improved a lot.  I think even james believes I have improved as well because he has even helped me and contributed on a song I did since then.  But I also think I still have work to do and I do not think that I am an "accomplished" singer.  but the bottom line is that the criticisms did not push me in the direction of giving up.  it pushed me in the direction of improving.
 
here is a quote from jamesyoyo from another thread that I think sums up the entire point:

jamesyoyo



Losers quit when they get defeated. Winners keep getting defeated until they figure out how to overcome it.

excellent and so very true!

"MakeShift"
I write, because I can't help not too. If I don't like my song, I don't record it. If I am the only one that likes the song, that is OK, at least it was another learning excercise in writing. I don't expect to ever have a song published or have any one even buy my music.... and that won't ever stop me from making music, or writing music.

At the end of the day when all is said and done... 

offnote

jamesyoyo



Losers quit when they get defeated. Winners keep getting defeated until they figure out how to overcome it.

 

so you basically advocates this...






How about knowing when to cut the losses and quit?

We're talking music and songwriting, not a military battle.  It does not have to be a full time job or a career; it can be done at any time, any where.

Jeff Evans

Jazz is incredible now and has undergone an amazing journey from the 1900's to now.

what a dull statement, how come then jazz has lost almost all audience??? the reason is always the same, because jazz today is boring and predictable as hell. This is not only mine opinion but millions of other listeners.