Indeed Rain, you are wise beyond your years. I was remarking to Danny a while back, how good it is to have you around to ask the right questions and start the right topics. Thanks for understanding Phil so sorry. I pooped. Mean ole devil. All and all a really great topic you started even with the derailments. Really enjoyed a great deal of the links from others and appreciate the genuine wisdom presented by so many. Your mastering thread is also starting out with great promise for learning. I will do my best to not turn it into a carnival. Merry Christmas brother

With regard to orchestral experiences I have constructed very complex orchestral music for documentaries and things and I know that lots of work goes into it starting with some great writing and then building the whole experience with synths etc. You can definately make a pretty decent representation for sure. But even if you play multiple things live and I did like snare, cymbals, bass drum etc you are imposing your own feel and timing on everything. See later why this may not be so good.

I don't know that composers would actually shun an orchestra in favour for a midi setup. Not all composers would necessarily have the ability to play everything in and play a multitude of instruments incredibly well. And mix and master it too! It is best to compose and hand it out to whole bunch of players and then hear the music that way.  We know that people like Hans Zimmer mock up incredible orchestral soundtracks for the directors to check out but in the end they do it live and record it.

Now recently I had the experience of rehearsing a whole performance with an orchestra and playing a concert. I was a bit reluctant at first and was almost dragged into it by my wife who played viola in the orchestra. It was the 1812 overture and I was asked to to the cannons and carillions at the end. I agreed and used samples through a big PA on the day. (Slightly smaller but effective PA during the rehearsals though!) The rehearsals were in a rather large but lovely sounding room. In the end I was asked to do a lot of other stuff such as, crash cymbals, field drum (rather large deep snare) brake drum, triangle, cabassa, wood block, tambourine etc. There were only a limited number of percussionists and we all as a group covered a lot of parts. Lots of sight reading involved and watching the conductor. It was challenging trying to read the chart and keeping and eye on him. What he does and what the percussionists do are rather important. Time signatures change all the time and watching him and translating that into the performance was incredible.

The moment they played the first sound I was almost flabbergasted! I thought OMG! I was standing right next to the bass drum and timps, I hit a clang sound, someone crashed the cymbal, all the brass sounded something like a dominant 7 #11 chord! The double basses made me nearly fall of my seat, the strings just sounded ridiculous, the orchestral bass drum sounded like 5 subs at once. We were doing the heavy dark section of the 1812. It was relentless, it cannot stop for second. It was like something huge rolling down a hill! Then it would stop into silence and you could hear a pin drop. The woodwinds would come in and do something beautiful etc.. Sometimes it sounded like 10 Jupiter 8's playing a brass and pad sound! The dynamics were amazing, going from nothing to a chest pounding roar in a split second.

I met all these nice people and made new friends. It was a joy to be with them. All of them are feeling the time in a slightly different way. The beat changes it's width and the tempo moves like something I cannot almost describe. Everyone's emotions on the day, everyone's feel and groove, 80 people injecting something magical into the music. It is a majestic experience. And don't forget how huge it is at the end of the 1812 with the orchestra going full blast, me blasting out huge cannons and carillions. I needed a couple of thousand watts to get over them. The conductor loved it. The rehearsals were great but the final one the day was magical and by far the best. Everyone stepped up 2 or 3 notches when it came to deliver the final thing. The audience clapped with a roar and came to its feet. The conductor liked me and we got on well. I have got access to them anytime I want now. Just write it out and get them to play it. I was in ore of the conductor. Talk about musical education. He knew everything and could read everything and hear everything.

I don't quite hear it that way at home when you do it all yourself. The software is great and it is great to hear the music too. That is what is amazing about it. Not the act so much of creating the final music itself. The fact you can hear it and change it etc is great.  If you learn the technique of writing it down and presenting it to a group of musicians then the music lives an another level. And talk about string quartets too. My wife plays in one and they rehearse here too sometimes. I am always amazed at how huge it sounds for just 4 people. Its when they all start reading the music and feeling it and playing it the music just comes alive.

I met James Horner once at a special mastarclass here in Australia. He said a C major chord sounds fantastic with an orchestra. You can write simpler he said, the orchestra just makes it all sound better. Ben go to a Tasmanian Symph concert. Especially if they are doing modern stuff. It will blow you mind how they play the most incredible music and still count their way through it all perfectly. Their conductor is particularly wild in his conducting!

All this is not putting down the idea of making music fully in a synth environment at all. That is another thing and is capable of doing things no orchestra can do either but if you are trying hard to create music that musicians can play then it is not bad to let them get on with it!

Anyway that is my take on the orchestral thing. And while we are on the subject of people getting together and doing things, Merry Christmas to all.

Yes Jeff, I enjoyed your story, I suppose I am turning into the nutted hermit, hunched over my machines trying to get them to sound like people, when instead perhaps I should go out into the world and listen, interact.

Back to the machine, I must admit though I know more about music theory.  And I have learnt this in just two day's of working with Notion 3.  I understand String Theory really well now, and how to write it out.

It's amazing how in trying to figure out how to make a violin sound like a violin, you learn because of the program, musical notation theory.

Ben

Offgoat I am not going to even bother, what part of my above statement suggests I am high!!!  I am at best a wordsmith and perhaps this is my greatest talent (ok boasting again) but I like to use words and I like to twist them and I like to come up with beautiful sounding phrases, or at least in my mind, they are.

Like: The neverwere king, of the wannabe army, this is an apt description of myself, ah self deprecating humor.

Ben

Jeff Evans


Snipped ... 

Anyway that is my take on the orchestral thing. And while we are on the subject of people getting together and doing things, Merry Christmas to all.

Such a wonderful story, Jeff! It's amazing what orchestras can do. What's your feeling on enhancement? I do know how it can make everything wonderful or not so much if all the techniques concerning the enhancing is done correctly.


I see it on award shows (not the Oscars where they are in "the pit"), but a section (strings often) on stage playing along with the performer. As to if they playing, you can't tell since the track is most audible. I'm not sure what's going on there, but back to my question about orchestral enhancement.


Is it good or bad in general? (How is affects the live performance isn't the question)


I ask because I don't know if you've heard my piece or not, but it is an obvious enhancement. The arrangement is rhythm/percussion heavy to give it a modern feel, but it does have orchestral tendencies. (The instruments, when/how they used in context of the song)

It's one thing to talk about instruments inside a DAW complimenting each other, but to have that fit in with actual instruments (which may mean multiple copies of files for the arranger - me, but that's besides the point). I'm sure trying to get the enhancements to fit is not easy, but how "not easy", is it? It's got to be more than each group (live/back) at complimentary volume!

It's all a fantasy to me right now, but from your story, I can only imagine how wonderful my track would sound. (That's not ego talking. I really wanna do this, but one thing at a time, I guess!)

Again, thanks for sharing such a delightful story! 

I guess I didn't really answer TOS. I guess I try to be a little of both but I think of myself as more of a song writer than a composer. I guess I consider a composer a person that scores everything and can hear the notes in his head and get it down on paper without the use of an instrument to hash ideas out.....that's not me. I sang in the choir when I was a lad, I can read but not real fast. I also had a few courses in High School on theory and counterpoint and music history....but I was pretty stoned out then, it was the 80's. On occasion I work with a guy that scores everything and I read well enough to get the job done. For my stuff though I sit around and tinker until I find what I'm looking for, I don't think I could put my heart in it any other way. The DAW has sure made things easy for the way I like to do things. When I started with guitar tracks 2.0, I was amazed that I finally had a scratchpad for ideas never realizing at first that pro sounding results were also possible with the right equipment and right touch. I'm the first to acknowledge I have along way to go as far as audio quality. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you spacealf and all

For a fleeting moment there Rus W I thought this thread was going to come alive again!

the moment you stop educating yourself you start dying. That's proven fact, people who use their brains live longer. There is nothing more fascinating in this world then learning. When you stop your brain assume you're done and it's time to say goodbye and kick the coffin.

Hi everyone.
 
I've been following this thread with great interest (and some frustration)... I appreciate everone's input.
 
I've been a "studying" music for years and its always been a struggle. 
 
I see musicians fitting into a sort of timeline continuum of musical ability.
 
On one end of the spectrum (lets call it Right) you have those musicians who very early on came to an understanding of the different elements of music  (notes, rhythm, dynamics... etc) and did not really need any more education other than how to master their instrument of choice.  These types are able to "speak" the language of music without explaining it.
 
On the other side of the spectrum (left) are those that are not as naturally able to speak the language.  These people need logical explanations and struggle a bit more (or a lot). 
 For these people the "theory" of music is a necessary and logical approach to the study of music (understanding of the language). 
 
Sometimes the 2nd type of aspiring musician gets stuck in theory and never gets out... hence Danny's observation of the theory bound musician. Sure it happens, but in my mind, it is not caused by the study of theory, it is just that the true musical connection has not been made yet.
 
 
On the other hand, suppose you have the first  kind of musician who wants to have his/her music played in an orchestral environment.  Could he/she compose (or recompose) the musical language to fit the orchestra without a knowledge of theory?  Maybe...  but in my opinion it would be much easier to accomplish if he/she understood as many aspects of the language as possible.
 
In my mind different people need different methods to learn the musical language. (When I say "language" I do not mean theory, I mean the ability to create and  communicate a musical idea). 
 
Now unfortunately, I happen to fall toward the left side of the continuum.  I have yet been able to consistantly make music.  Fortunately, the "theory" of music has kept me interested enough to continue along the spectrum.
 
I just started reading a great book by Victor Wooten (see link below) that kind of inspired me to reply to this thread.  I think that it also very closely relates to the argument of "real" instruments vs. sampled instruments going on in another thread.
Does the instrument/non instrument properly communicate the musical idea?  If so, who cares?
 
Thanks for reading my response...  I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts especially in this forum.
 
Ken
 
 
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Lesson-Spiritual-Search-Through/dp/0425220931/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326663302&sr=1-1
 
 

offnote


the moment you stop educating yourself you start dying. That's proven fact, people who use their brains live longer. There is nothing more fascinating in this world then learning. When you stop your brain assume you're done and it's time to say goodbye and kick the coffin.

+1



I'll turn 40 next summer and I'm becoming more and more aware that I don't have infinite time ahead of me, that there's a lot of things I'll never have the time to learn. Incidentally, one of my regrets (so to speak) is that I'm not likely to be able to learn as much as I'd want in terms of musical theory. Mastering is another. 


I'm at peace w/ that, but, you know... I wish I had the time.

Thanks Danny!

Rus - I agree with most of what you said.
I just want to make sure that my point was being understood.

I'm not theory bound because I know the theory (or understand some).

I'm  theory bound because I haven't figured out how to communicate a musical idea and have used theory as an inspiration to keep moving forward.

Ken

<rus>
Theory bound performers (not necessarily non-sight readers) focus too much on the rules without realizing that they can be broken or at least not thought about when performing and/or composing. This is what the more engrossed performer does and he or she does it without thinking.  </rus>

kgarello


Thanks Danny!

Rus - I agree with most of what you said.
I just want to make sure that my point was being understood.

I'm not theory bound because I know the theory (or understand some).

I'm  theory bound because I haven't figured out how to communicate a musical idea and have used theory as an inspiration to keep moving forward.

Ken

<rus>
Theory bound performers (not necessarily non-sight readers) focus too much on the rules without realizing that they can be broken or at least not thought about when performing and/or composing. This is what the more engrossed performer does and he or she does it without thinking.  </rus>

Okay, I just realized I stepped on what you meant. I do know what you mean, I just worded it wrong.

How's the theory used in practice to communicate an idea?

Well, there's alot to this.

First and foremost it isn't a matter of showing someone up! (which I hope you didn't think I was) Often times, I find myself also speaking on someone's level. Trying to find the right words is hard, but worth the effort.

But to answer this question:

Let's say you're a composer/arranger (myself for instance) and you hear a particular piece. You hear what it's saying by paying attention to how it sounds (ie: what the instruments are doing, also which ones are used). Upon hearing, you gather information about its texture, mood, color, character while you're probably picking out the theory. (What key? What time signature? How's it progressing and why is it progressing as such?)

A little story:

One of my signature pieces is an arrangement of a very famous piece. Believe it or not, I got the idea from watching a cartoon. I heard a portion of the melody and said: "Hmm ... what can I do with this?" I then went on to listen to the entire piece. After having done that, I decided on what parts to use and how to structure it to fit the style I wanted. Upon listening I decided the dominant instrument (that my ear liked) in the original piece and used that building the harmony under the melody. I then decided what other signature instrument could I use and how I would use it to suit my arrangement. Afterwards, I just kept building around that. 

Then, another idea came. I went: "Sure! arranging what already there is nice, but how will I make it mine?" Light-bulb goes off! I added a piece nowhere in the original. Turns out it's my favorite part of the entire arrangement! I'm still working on the composition and then onto the production part later; however, the arrangement is for the most part finished.

Now, the original conveys a particular idea given all those things I listed above, but the arrangement conveys a different idea because something about those same attributes noted in the original changed! How they changed, I know how because I did the arrangement. That question is for the listeners to answer. (I even changed the title, so folks will know it's different!)

If you're just starting out, go by what sounds good. 

Take a C major chord. You ear should say: "Hey, I like that!" and it will because major chords sound wonderfully bright! Now, augment it (raise the fifth); that chord sounds much brighter. You ear should scream: "I love that!!"

Take C minor chord: "I don't like that chord! It's that third! Sounds dark! (and I'm scared of the dark!)" or really make it wimp out by lowering the fifth! (diminished).

In these two very basic examples, you've conveyed two different ideas to your ears and will do so when other ears hear it!

The further along you go, you start to get more colorful and generally more color generates more response!

Sevenths and greater are very lush in color, but alterations can also affect this. Then, when you throw in inversions, you start to get what is called tension.

Any 7th or above inverted causes this. If you play two notes right next to each other, you get dissonance (this also means tension), With 7ths, tension occurs when the Major 7th of the scale is sitting on top of the root. This is very apprehensive to the ear; therefore, it becomes tight. So, a resolution or release of some kind needs to occur (consonance) Nervous chords (Dissonance) really help color the music. It's much darker; however, they're good because they cause you to anticipate what's coming next which means a resolution (consonance) doesn't always immediately follow, but that is where it's headed. 

I've only talked about how this works with only harmony, but this works with the melody as well!  

I'll give you a non-musical example:

If you start your story where everything is okay, generally people like it and they think it's going to be good from beginning to end. However, you say something that causes the audience to go: "Oh, no! What happened?" asking any and all kinds of questions. Either you immediately truncate your story skipping to the good part and the audience breathes a sigh of relief. Then after the story is over, the audience is left with a few questions (which they may or may not ask you) whether or not you finish with a cliffhanger and tell you if they liked it or not explaining why (if they choose to)

Music works the same way!

You're progressing through a piece of music (story) where all the tones (good parts) to the ears listening are acceptable. However, you play some tones (not so-good parts) that the ears don't like. They are hoping you get back to the tones they do like. However, you can also have a cliffhanger; however, if your tones (chords/melodic progressions) were pretty consistent from beginning to end (good part, good part, bad part, bad part ...) the ears know where you will go next (good part) before you even make your move. (You can still fool them, too!)

So, you do need theory to communicate musical ideas, but to get there, don't think in terms of theory. Think in terms of presenting a story to an audience - even if it's just you because you still have an audience! Your ears! Decide what you want to tell them and how! You'll be amazed at their response! If they like it, you will! If they don't, you won't! 

Composers, after it comes from the imagination, rely on these friends wholeheartedly - regardless of how much their eyes have seen or knowledge they've gained!

You have to determine what a piece says to you before you (and your ears) can determine what that same piece will say to someone else (and his or hers). Also, you don't have to tell someone how you got from point A to B (unless you want to) because your ears know and the other ears that the "story" (music) is presented to. It only matter if they like it. If they do, you will, too!

How to use music to speak to others? Utilize it so that it speaks to you! After all, you (your ears) control what it says and how!

I just ran into this while studying intervals. 
 
I recorded a C major chord on guitar then looped it for a measure. I ran up the scale one scale degree per repeat.  The Maj7 sounded fine when it was above the highest root in the chord, but when I approached from just below the lowest root, it sounded terrible.
 
 
Thanks for your insight.
 
Ken
 
 
<rus w>
Sevenths and greater are very lush in color, but alterations can also affect this. Then, when you throw in inversions, you start to get what is called tension.

Any 7th or above inverted causes this. If you play two notes right next to each other, you get dissonance (this also means tension), With 7ths, tension occurs when the Major 7th of the scale is sitting on top of the root. This is very apprehensive to the ear; therefore, it becomes tight. So, a resolution or release of some kind needs to occur (consonance) Nervous chords (Dissonance) really help color the music. It's much darker; however, they're good because they cause you to anticipate what's coming next which means a resolution (consonance) doesn't always immediately follow, but that is where it's headed. 

I've only talked about how this works with only harmony, but this works with the melody as well!  

I'll give you a non-musical example:

If you start your story where everything is okay, generally people like it and they think it's going to be good from beginning to end. However, you say something that causes the audience to go: "Oh, no! What happened?" asking any and all kinds of questions. Either you immediately truncate your story skipping to the good part and the audience breathes a sigh of relief. Then after the story is over, the audience is left with a few questions (which they may or may not ask you) whether or not you finish with a cliffhanger and tell you if they liked it or not explaining why (if they choose to)

Music works the same way!

You're progressing through a piece of music (story) where all the tones (good parts) to the ears listening are acceptable. However, you play some tones (not so-good parts) that the ears don't like. They are hoping you get back to the tones they do like. However, you can also have a cliffhanger; however, if your tones (chords/melodic progressions) were pretty consistent from beginning to end (good part, good part, bad part, bad part ...) the ears know where you will go next (good part) before you even make your move. (You can still fool them, too!)

So, you do need theory to communicate musical ideas, but to get there, don't think in terms of theory. Think in terms of presenting a story to an audience - even if it's just you because you still have an audience! Your ears! Decide what you want to tell them and how! You'll be amazed at their response! If they like it, you will! If they don't, you won't! 

Composers, after it comes from the imagination, rely on these friends wholeheartedly - regardless of how much their eyes have seen or knowledge they've gained!

You have to determine what a piece says to you before you (and your ears) can determine what that same piece will say to someone else (and his or hers). Also, you don't have to tell someone how you got from point A to B (unless you want to) because your ears know and the other ears that the "story" (music) is presented to. It only matter if they like it. If they do, you will, too!

How to use music to speak to others? Utilize it so that it speaks to you! After all, you (your ears) control what it says and how!

Hahahah!  Thats beautiful Ken and Rus

... I hope to get a bit better ... I'm now the chief musician at a humble country chapel and desperately want audience assimilation and joyful noise ... without getting too far out in left field ... LOL

At least now I practice everyday, even with my runny nose, singing and fluttering over the piano keys.

Forgive my grammar, a little red-neck is necessary for my credibility.

Do any of you think I should exhort my fellow churchers to tote tambs or shakers ... while singing the hymns of old?

@ Phillip:

 Grammar? Dis be the internets! Grammar not be allowed.

Or as Yoda would say:

Internet is this. Grammar allowed not!

You just sucked the life out of a Foxworthy joke. We all know how they start ... LOL

I'm gonna leave that bolded part alone!


@ Ken:

I understood you. I didn't mean you (specifically) - that was a general statement. I'm used to the Maj7 as a 6/5 - I know what it looks like and how it sounds  - it's just that my ears don't like it; yet, they'll go nuts hearing the 4/2 or 4/3 - especially the latter!

Btw, higher extensions are essentially 7ths. That CMaj9 is really an Em7 with an C in the bass! It's not the same thing.

What I mean is:

If you were to play that on a piano (in root position), it'd look like this: Octave C in the left hand; E,G,B,D in the right. However, what is your right hand really playing? An Em7 as mentioned above. Regardless of the quality, if you hands are touching four notes an equal distance a apart, you will hear sevenths. This is true for 11ths and 13ths as in practice, once you get past the ninth, notes are often omitted (the third and fifth).

This is because the tones clash with one another - even if they are evenly spread out. but they most certainly do when they're inverted in some way.

C13 = C, E, G, B, D, F, A

Bring the top notes (DFA) down an octave. Even before you do that, you've probably notice that this chord contains the entire musical scale. Now, drop the top three notes down an octave if you don't believe me.

C, (D), E, (F), G, (A), B! My ears don't like it and I'm just looking at it! Notice the formula we get here:

9 = 2
11 = 4
13 = 6

Same with altered chords:

b5 = #11; [in C: G(b) = F(#)]

#5 = b13 [In C: G(#) = A(b)]

#9 = #2/b3 [In C: D(#) = E(b)] 

b9 = b2/#1 [In C: D(b) = C(#)]

You may not care about this stuff now, but it helps to know it - especially if you decide to use your eyes to compose as well (and we need them, too!)
So, to make this particular chord pleasant - and pleasant to the hands as well - C13 will often look/sound and be played like this:

C + B, D, F, A. Yes, that can be called other names (Bm7b5/C = B half diminished) which is useful if one can't go that far up the scale yet. However, if you're someone who thinks in terms of harmonies/progressions/cadences and how all of that works, you'll opt for the extensions. And they aren't bad - especially since you end up with a nice triangle shape. The downside is naming all the smaller ones.

CM13 = C, E, G, B, D, F, A
Em11 =   E, G, B, D, F, A
G9 =            G, B, D, F, A
Bm7b5 =          B, D, F, A
Dm =                    D, F, A

But there's more: Let's invert them:

C, E, G, B, D, F, A = CM13
E, G, B, D, F, A, C = Em13b9
G, B, D, F, A, C, E = G13
B, D, F, A, C, E, G = Bm13b5b9
D, F, A, C, E, G, B = D13
F, A, C, E, G, B, D = FM13#11    
A, C, E, G, B, D, F = Am9sus(b13)

Looking at both diagrams, twelve different names can be applied when naming thirteenths (24 if you include their enharmonic equivalents). Don't ask me to work my way down! Took me ages for just that one family! haha! (Btw, does the second diagram look strange? I can come up with about 5 things!)