trimph1


That seem to be my falldown...I'm always second guessing myself...

Just don't do that trimph. As long as you got a good performance, let it go man. If you find yourself questioning something 3 times, make a change. If you're just totally undecided, let it fly or do two versions and ask a few people to pick which they like best or something...or just flip a coin. As long as you're content with your work, that's all that matters. Notice I used the word "content" because well, most of us are never totally happy with anything and if we get anal enough, we'd put out one song per year. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

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. 

@ Danny:

ITA - Being different for the sake of it; however, that's how it often comes across. As I said before, sometimes you have to fit in before you standout. Or fit in to stand out.
Too many times, we see what is the similar about something so rigidly, we hardly notice the differences.

I asked someone if Blossoms should have lyrics whereas Waltz didn't; however, someone noted that Waltz kept messing with them, so much that they hardly noticed what wasn't familiar.

I noted a few in the above post of mine, but listeners pick out what they want - even if it's noted what they should pick out. Yet, you want them to notice everything - despite some things sticking out more than others. I mean, more than just from a production standpoint, but certain from that standpoint as well.

Having said this, not everybody should suddenly shift to being arrangers, but I think that may become the "new" definition of being original because it's isn't what you have, but how you use it. (How to make that sound less dirty.)

For instance, I took that simple melody, but never altered it, but I did do that with the harmony which also has a melodic structure. And this in fact, changed even the melody despite not having touched it.

"Use what you know (the melody) to figure out what you don't (the harmony)." Arrangers live by this motto (or it should be one anyway) And it goes for so many other areas in music and outside of it.

And since when is doing this "fake"? It's not doing this that makes whatever's done - not "real."

Someone who plays by ear isn't any more or less real than a sight-reader. Less Rigid, Formal-By-the-Sheet Music, yes, but real - no!

It's all comes down to perception which comparing can hinder, so it's best not to do that or you've already lost your identity. Sight-readers are who they are as are ear players. Yet, they can make the most wonderful of music when playing together.

(Btw, I hope you can recognize me in 10 secs as well.)


@ Triumph:

Don't second guess yourself because there's that rule if it sounds good it is good. It may be a contextual issue that cause people to second guess themselves.

From a composition pov (as well as production), understand how things work and why they work the way they do greatly reduces second guessing yourself. Trying to figure out a progression ... what's sounds good works very well, but know why it sounds good. (This likes to go here and that there which makes it flow like I want it) ups the certainty that what you use will work. MWV from song to song, but there's a particular way progressions work and this doesn't vary if only very little.

To me, music is her own person.

We started on a minor chord and she went to the parallel major on her own! I had nothing to do it - nor did I question her (because she's smarter than I) However, I did know how she got there because I know what she likes and doesn't like to do. (She argues, but love each other very much) 

No offense to anyone who is married (and I'm not) but there's your life lesson.

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

+1  Thanks for validating the historical use of innovation.

1) varispeed (vs. melodyne) for pitch correction of the past

2) Pitch shifting for Ozzie (always wondered how inhumanly possible it is to sing so wildly high).  I wonder if Frankie Valli had 'aid(e)' with his his youthful falsettos (4 Seasons).

3) Keith Richards spontaneity: a "Conduit" ... like ... subconscious driven musical invokations ... flowing with a 'life-throb' or something

As Danny pointed out (and Ben here and elsewhere) ... its not about the conscious motif so much. 

Personally I hate country and christian music and have never purchased into that stuff.  There's something extremely stereotypical (hypocritical?) about both country and CCM that makes me want to vomit.

My models have always been the oldies, classic rock, punk, and hip-hop (the last 40 years or so)

Embracing old and new paradigms following new innovations ... as well as the subconscious ...

^ To be fair, there's something stereotypical about all genres of music.

There are tons of ii-V-Is, altered harmonies and scaling that makes Spiderman look bad, so it must be jazz.

Every song that ends VI-I must be a hymn of some kind.

Every blues tune consist of only I-IV-Vs (dominant sevenths)

Rap and Hiphop at its core screams "Ostinato" when hearing the beat.

Here's one regarding singers:

Other than opera when you use vibrato and the melisma technique, you're "showing how good your chops are or "showing off" (AT is the artificial version of this)

Classical Music is for the "upscale listener" and well-verse performer (look at the sheet music) I heard about 8 Tchaikovsky pieces last night. No way am I upscale. In fact, someone sarcastically stated that Blossoms is for a cerebral audience which I took as a "back-handed" compliment. lol)

Even right down to the instruments themselves and who plays them. I saw harp in your sig, but you can guess the many stereotypes regarding that instrument.

If course, its stereotypes have been broken as well. (It's not just for classical music nor has it been for a great while)

Rus W


^ To be fair, there's something stereotypical about all genres of music.

There are tons of ii-V-Is, altered harmonies and scaling that makes Spiderman look bad, so it must be jazz.

Every song that ends VI-I must be a hymn of some kind.

Every blues tune consist of only I-IV-Vs (dominant sevenths)

Rap and Hiphop at its core screams "Ostinato" when hearing the beat.

Here's one regarding singers:

Other than opera when you use vibrato and the melisma technique, you're "showing how good your chops are or "showing off" (AT is the artificial version of this)

Classical Music is for the "upscale listener" and well-verse performer (look at the sheet music) I heard about 8 Tchaikovsky pieces last night. No way am I upscale. In fact, someone sarcastically stated that Blossoms is for a cerebral audience which I took as a "back-handed" compliment. lol)

Even right down to the instruments themselves and who plays them. I saw harp in your sig, but you can guess the many stereotypes regarding that instrument.

If course, its stereotypes have been broken as well. (It's not just for classical music nor has it been for a great while)

Actually rus the time I liken to a renasaince all the greats were breaking te rules, yes they used stereotypes but if you were truly great ala the Beatles or even queen something new emerged, think Eleanor rigby on the surface it's a peice for string quartets, I'd have work out the exact form but then you add te lyrics singing and story wham it's no longer classical music, it's no longer pop music.  What is it?


Same with bohemian rhapsody, we can recognise the piano ballad, the opera, the heavy metal but all three together inte same song, again what genre do we classify this.  What form do we call this.


I could go on the moody blues days of future past:symphonic rock but what is symphonic rock, king crimson 21st century schizoid man.  They take the familiar and you can hear the familiar but because they add and twist the familiar, something new emerges.


This is the great missing ingredient in music today, this is why I suggested 4 sills that you needed to be innovative because you have to do it all yourself these days, you need it.  To be a magician but the big problem is you can have all of these skills these days but it won't do you any good because people have stopped listening.  They want fries with their music.


I like to think of myself as an innovator, I know I do some **** but I also know I create little pockets of majik.  Case in point, you talk about te blues, well I took the premise of the blues:the blues scale, and played one 5/4 riff throughout the 3 min plus song.  Just layering the track until it builds into an orgy of sound.  Could you recognise it as the blues hell yea, it was a blurs riff but it wasn't the blues because I did not use the atypical blues progression. It was also good enough to be used on tv twice.


Peace

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?

Actually rus I think being different for the sake of being different as long as you are aware of the things I've already mentioned is the key in breaking blandness and predictability.

It is those of us who go no when everyone goes yes, it's those of us who stubborn and obstaninate, it's those of us who dare to dream and live outside the box when the world is trying to shove a round peg into a square whole that make the difference.

The problem is the world has never been so scared of difference in such a long time. Somehow a religious paradigm and ferver is gripping society not unlike the dark to middle ages.

And I'm not talking about religion as such, I'm talking about conformity as religion and this is perpetuated by media.

If you look at the messages being beamed into the young, a paranoid apathy is brainwashing the youth with the dogma of you must fit in, or else.

Or else you won't have a job, your music won't be heard, you won't have a loving union.  Any of the things we need to survive in modern society, any thing that you can think of that we call society.  

It is those of us that ask why? Who have always help grow the society we live in, where are these people now?

We complain about the blandness of music, art whatever but we have cooked the golden gooses by being fearful of difference.

Sorry Philip I might have ranted a bit.

Ben

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