# The Songwriting Thread



## inaudio (Sep 8, 2013)

(The background for this thread can be read here, starting from the last post on the first page.)

Here's a new song I started working on:

https://soundcloud.com/biison/1-1

Basically, I just set aside a few hours this morning for noodling in my DAW to see if I could come up with something new. I started off by recording a very simple two-chord progression on top of a basic drum beat. After that I looped a section of what I had so far and started playing around with different bass sounds - I didn't give the groove too much thought. I probably spent half an hour desperately trying to come up with a melody of some sort. I took a little break and when I came back the first thing I played was pretty much the "melody" you hear in that clip. The drum and bass part that follows was just a little experiment, but I'm quite happy with the feel of it. Any feedback/criticism/ideas would be much appreciated!


----------



## Osorio (Sep 8, 2013)

I think it sounds nice enough, my main problem with it is that it doesn't go anywhere. If we are talking about songwriting and composition in a concrete manner, this sounds like the middle of something that could be really interesting, but isn't quite there yet.

I'm aware a lot of people write like this. Noodle around, get a good passage, then keep it. Mesh it around with something entirely different later on and hope for the best. This works, sure... But if you want to really improve your composition skills, you are better off trying to compose complete pieces, even if they are shorter or "shittier". It will develop your ability to work on a concrete idea instead of a collage of ideas that will more often than not sound disjointed if glued together.

For what it is, a two chord vamp, I liked it. But it is but a tiny piece of something that still doesn't exist.

_(by the way: added you on soundcloud)_


----------



## inaudio (Sep 8, 2013)

The way of writing you described is exactly how I write. I really need to try stepping back from working on details and focus on creating some kind of structure/plot first. Unfortunately I don't have a whole lot of time for music during the week, but I've set aside Sunday mornings for working on songwriting. The first goal I've set out for myself is to actually finish writing something from start to finish, no matter how terrible it is. I really feel that setting simple goals and having time properly set aside in my schedule for this will make a difference in the long run. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!


----------



## Osorio (Sep 8, 2013)

What you can do is try to think in more abstract terms first... "I want this part to be calm and slow", "I want to make something fast here", "I want this part LOUD, but not fast.", "I want to modulate here". 

If you can have a more or less concrete idea of what your song will have and what it won't, you are already half way across the gap. I find that it really helps to start with a really simple foundation, basic chords, basic voicing... And as you revise and create more parts and have more ideas, you can expand on it.


----------



## inaudio (Sep 15, 2013)

This morning I fleshed out some more rough ideas to "accompany" the snippet I posted last week. Now that I have a few themes and parts to aid my imagination I think I'm ready to start thinking about the initial structure/plot. One thing that I have decided is that the song will resolve at some point into the snippet that I posted last week - we'll see how it turns out. There's not a whole lot of work to show for this morning, but for the sake of documentation here's what I managed to scrap together:

https://soundcloud.com/biison/1-2

Next Sunday I'll try and create a spine for the piece.


----------



## Osorio (Sep 15, 2013)

You picked the wrong week to do Keyboard-ish pieces. I've been listening to Beethoven's Piano Sonatas the whole week and I guess my tastes for adventurous keyboard stuff have been sort of pushed upwards by a little bit comparing to last week. Alas...

I have pretty much the same "complains"... It's very static, and even though there is a "layering difference" in the form that latter parts have more voices, the dynamics are pretty much unchanged throughout, which is kind of a turn off for me... I'm looking forward to a more fleshed out work. The POTENTIAL for something interesting is definitely there.


----------



## inaudio (Sep 15, 2013)

It's a good thing that you've really emphasized dynamics, it's something I'll be strongly keeping in mind when I start working on the piece itself next week. Thanks for taking the time to actually comment on the work, even though there's really not been a whole lot to comment on - I'll try my best to have something more substantial to show for next week.


----------



## inaudio (Sep 22, 2013)

I managed to vaguely plan out how I want the structure of the song to go. Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to flesh out the entire thing this morning. Here's a very rough "sketch" of the first half of the song:

https://soundcloud.com/biison/1-3

It ends right where I've planned a quiet/soft break to start. The break will build up and then eventually resolve into the very first idea (1.1) I posted for the song. The song will be short at first, but I figured that it won't be too difficult to expand on the parts later on.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Sep 22, 2013)

Just wanted to say that I think the mixing is pretty good on Biison's tracks, I just feel like it needs a harmonic modulation or two in there, maybe more definitive melodic themes. At its current state I feel like it would sound very good in, say, a video game soundtrack.

Also, just to mix it up a little bit I thought I would contribute something to the thread. It's not finished or anything, but it looks like it's shaping up to be a cool tune. It's called 'Mach's Principle' and it features some good ol' slappity-slappin' on the guitar.


----------



## inaudio (Sep 22, 2013)

Looks like somebody has been playing around with the ol' Wooten technique! I don't normally listen to this type of music, but I've got to say that I enjoyed the muck out of the lead that kicked in around bar 60. I'm sorry that I don't really have anything more substantial to say about it, but I'd love to hear more of it once you progress with it! 

As for harmonic modulation - I looked it up and looks like I've got a bunch of reading to do, haha. Just out of interest could you elaborate more on how and in what form you think that it should be utilized in this case? And I do agree with you that the song really does lack a clear/strong melodic theme, I'll see what I can come up with. Oh, and the mixing - there really isn't any at this stage, it's all center-panned.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Sep 23, 2013)

Biison said:


> I don't normally listen to this type of music...



Haha yeah, usually I am a bit more eclectic with my songwriting -- but this one ended up kinda just sounding like metal.



Biison said:


> As for harmonic modulation - I looked it up and looks like I've got a bunch of reading to do, haha. Just out of interest could elaborate more on how and in what form you think that it should be utilized in this case? And I do agree with you that the song really does lack a clear/strong melodic theme, I'll see what I can come up with.



Sure. When I said "harmonic modulation" I basically just meant changing keys.

So, in the vein of some of the music you have written so far, that might look something like:

*Changing the key to a neighboring key in the circle of fifths (i.e., up a perfect 5th or down a perfect 5th) for a new section of the song. Ex.: AABA where 'A' is in the key of F# minor and 'B' is in the key of C# minor.

You can achieve this most easily using the most common form of modulation, which is called 'common chord'. It's pretty much what it sounds like. Any chord that two keys share can act as a pivot point for the modulation:
Ex.:


```
Cmaj - Em - Am - Dmaj (D7) - Gmaj

key of C: I - iii - vi
key of G:           ii - V(7) - I
```

You can even make some epic transitions by introducing a modulation, a new section, and a different dynamic all at the same time.

Yes. Upon another listen your music does need varying dynamic levels. Like in 1.2, you could mix that piano part softer, and then lead into a forte/fortissimo section and beef up the orchestration, to great effect.



Biison said:


> Oh, and the mixing - there really isn't any at this stage, it's all center-panned.



Haha. OK, you got me there. What I really meant by mixing was not actually post-processing. really I just thought the instruments themselves sound good and so does when they 'mix', so to speak. 


EDIT: The aesthetic of your 3 pieces reminds me of both The American Dollar and Tangled Thoughts of Leaving. This is a good thing.


----------



## inaudio (Sep 29, 2013)

First things first: AugmentedFourth - I forgot to thank you last week for the tips and feedback so I'll just do that now. Thank you.

https://soundcloud.com/biison/1-4

Today I got around to renewing some parts of 1.3 that I wasn't really happy with. I ran out of time before I was able to work on the follow-up, I'll try and get to that next week. I'm not sure if I was able to create any harmonic modulation but I feel like I was at least able to introduce a more evident melodic theme and vary the dynamics a bit. Feedback would be mucho-mucho appreciated as always!


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Oct 2, 2013)

Biison said:


> First things first: AugmentedFourth - I forgot to thank you last week for the tips and feedback so I'll just do that now. Thank you.
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/biison/1-4
> 
> Today I got around to renewing some parts of 1.3 that I wasn't really happy with. I ran out of time before I was able to work on the follow-up, I'll try and get to that next week. I'm not sure if I was able to create any harmonic modulation but I feel like I was at least able to introduce a more evident melodic theme and vary the dynamics a bit. Feedback would be mucho-mucho appreciated as always!



First off, sorry I didn't get around to this earlier, I just had time to give it a whirl, but now I think I can write a few things about it.

The beginning (first minute and a half or so) is alright, definitely serves as an 'intro' feel. Has some notably ambient characteristics to it, not sure if that was what you were going for, but it's very spacey (mostly in the use of held-out double stops and such).

Then, at around 1:39, there is a nice textural (and a little dynamic) change with the new bass and top voice entering. This is very good, but only sounds good at first because while you had it essentially right, I would complain of the drums, the harmonic progression, and the bassline. First, the drums need to change... like somewhere in the song. I realize that there are parts where there is no drums (which is good) and parts where it changes a bit, but the drums feel very static. On top of that, the 1:39 section feels quite alright to introduce some heavier drums. This would be a good mix-up.

Then, there is the prevailing harmonic progression.....

| C#-7 | % | Emaj7 | G#-7 |
Correct me if I'm wrong here.

While I obviously wouldn't say that this chord progression is unusable/unmusical or anything, I would however say that it isn't all that great. Especially for what is essentially the most hard-hitting (climax if you will) part of the song, it sounds weak -- especially with that bass droning under it.

Your bass is outlining one of the flaws of this general harmonic progression -- the root movement.

_Bass_ically (what an awful pun) in classical music they kind of set the standard for what sounds good in root movement and what doesn't. The "rules" are:

1)Movement down by fifth (or up by fourth, same deal) is all good in the hood.
2)Movement up by second (or down by seventh) is good.
3)Movement down by third (or up by sixth) is good.

There are exceptions that "allow" you to break "the rules":

1)The tonic can move to any chord.
2)Any chord can move to the tonic.
3)Any chord can move to a dominant.
4)Leading tone chord MUST move to the tonic.

Now, let's look at your progression again.

C#-7 -> Emaj7

This would be interpreted as i -> III.
So, the good news is that exception #1 lets this one slide by default, no matter what that second chord is. The bad news is, even though it's "legal", it sounds not so good in this context because it's at the climax of the song, and the progression itself is already only 4 bars long, so that first movement should sound strong, instead of like we are going somewhere in a different directio.....

Emaj7 -> G#-7
III -> v

Aww... another movement up by third. 
(Keep in mind that this isn't necessarily bad in all contexts, remember you always have artistic license!)

G#-7 -> C#-7
v -> i

Good movement. Sounds strong, because not only is it moving to the tonic (for which we know anything goes) but it also uses the strongest type of root movement: down by fifth. This makes it some kind of five-one movement (generally strongest and most common cadence). However, something that you might want to fiddle around with is turning your G#-7 into a G#7.

This means minor becomes harmonic minor for just a second, and the scale you would play in would be phrygian dominant
(1 b2 3 4 5 b6 b7)
on G#.
(G# A B# C# D# E F#)

This makes your "five" chord in a minor key into a dominant. (<-- link) I'm not actually sure if it will sound any good or not, but this will make the cadence sound more convincing (dominant-tonic relations) and it also at the same time solves a little bit of one of your other problems. It makes that III -> v movement into III -> V7 movement. This makes the movement up by third "acceptable" as per exception #3.

Anyways, probably the most _important_ tip I can give is,

Bass lines! Bass lines? Bass lines!

I mean, just jamming out sitting here at my computer with my bass over your song, it sounded a good deal better than what you had going on previously. Use your bass to introduce some syncopation (now that I think of it, rhythmic variety might be one other thing that I couldn't quite put my finger on that the song is lacking) as well as just generally some energy, movement, a separate melody, all of those things. Bass lines are underrated sometimes (esp. on this forum ).

There were no harmonic modulations here.
Not even close (no offense,) but the tonic is very heavily C# throughout. And minor, at that.

I appreciated the dynamic change at the end, with the soft solo piano. Definitely the most noticeable dynamic change throughout.

Also, I think you'll like this: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

EDIT: Forgot to write the part where I say that music is a subjective experience and therefore this is my opinion. ;-P


----------



## Osorio (Oct 3, 2013)

AugmentedFourth said:


> First off, sorry I didn't get around to this earlier, I just had time to give it a whirl, but now I think I can write a few things about it.



Fantastic post. Rep.



> Basically in classical music they kind of set the standard for what sounds good in root movement and what doesn't.



Er&#8230; Also worth remembering that most of these "rules" have been broken to hell and back, all of them with varying degrees of success. While studying classical composition may get you some higher notions of what chords to use and when, common practice period progression is sort of an acquired taste and doesn't really equate to sounding good in the modern days. I personally think the progression itself is "interesting" in that it is laid back when the purpose of it is to be laid back. Adding a lot of tension in a passage that doesn't require it doesn't make any sense. If anything, it detracts of the overall scheme, because that tension could be better employed else where.


I still have the same problems as earlier. It sounds very static, doesn't really go anywhere. Instead of trying to change your whole progression simply do this: When it gets to the about 1:39 mark, move everything to the dominant (7 half-steps up). or the subdominant (5 half-steps up), or hell, why not, go Beethoven and do it 4 half-steps for a Major 3rd or 3 half-steps for a Minor 3rd. Points for modulating "into" your own progressions (as AugmentedFourth spelled out, you are moving in thirds here), so do that and outline that triad. Modulate to E and than to G#. Pretty cool stuff. Usually you would return "home" for the closing, but since the piece is so short and feels introductory in many ways, you could leave it hanging for effect.
It would be cool is you could lead up to these modulations instead of making it direct, but you can edit the direct in, and if it sounds good to you, try to transition to it.




> However, something that you might want to fiddle around with is turning your G#m7 into a G#7. (&#8230 I'm not actually sure if it will sound any good or not, but this will make the cadence sound more convincing.



Again, stronger and more convincing are highly subjective not only to interpretation but to meaning and placement. I simply don't think this is the place to pull out all those tricks. Doesn't hurt to know them, but would a progression this strong suit such a laid back track? Something to think about.




> Anyways, probably the most _important_ tip I can give is: Bass lines! Bass lines? Bass lines!



Can't really argue with you there. What I can, and have been arguing about, is whether such motions would be necessary and an actual improvement in terms of the mood being created. Surely they would improve the song "objectively", make it more dynamic and varied, but a piece is defined just as much by what it doesn't have.


----------



## inaudio (Oct 19, 2013)

Sorry that I haven't been able to reply any sooner. The delay was mainly due to the combination of the following events:

1. Funeral of my old HDD.
2. Exam week.
3. Moving out.

Once again, thank you for all the information you guys are providing - I really, really appreciate it. I've made up my mind about taking the time to get a better grasp on basic music theory and I will be setting time aside for this in my schedule. And now I'll stop with the jibber-jabber.

https://soundcloud.com/biison/2-0

All the files related to the song I was previously working on were lost with the hard drive and I didn't feel inspired enough to start working on it again from scratch. This brings us onto our next project. Just like in the previous song there is still a lack in bass-lines/root-movement and I guess that the in terms of "harmony" the piece is still very one-dimensional. What I was able to improve on in my opinion was varying the dynamics of the piece. That's all that comes to my mind for now - eager to hear what you guys think!


----------



## Osorio (Oct 22, 2013)

I sort of disagree with you on dynamic range... I mean, it varies, but to me, it varies between sort of loud and sort of not so soft. Dynamic range exists between inaudible and almost ear-piercing pain. I'm not saying you should effectively go to these extremes, specially the latter, but it's interesting to be aware of them...

I was recently tasked with creating an etude with A LOT of stuff in it, one of the aspects was for it to have a wide dynamic range. That was particularly the aspect of the whole thing I was most proud of. It is in my soundcloud if you want to ear it ("Id 040").

In your piece: About 1:07, you get softer, but not nearly soft "enough" to make for an interesting dynamic contrast (in my opinion). Don't get me wrong, it's better than your previous work, but even in the aspect you are most proud of, like myself, we still have a lot to improve on.


----------



## inaudio (Oct 23, 2013)

Osorio said:


> ...


Dynamics was definitely the wrong word for trying to describe what I meant! What I should have said was that I thought that I was able to vary the rhythmic feel of the piece towards the end. 

I listened to your track on SoundCloud and it really does a wonderful job of showcasing dynamic variety at least to my noob-ish untrained ears. I had never really realized how much more lively it can make a piece of music - in comparison my track sounds really "uptight" if that makes any sense. It's funny how I've always felt like there's something missing in the music I've written, now I think I have a clue as to what that something might be.


----------



## Osorio (Oct 23, 2013)

Writing that piece showed me a lot of interesting things. The goal of it was to make a diverse piece, I still haven't heard back from my teacher on it, but I believe it is very probable that I got a lot more wrong than I got right. I know, thinking about it now, that I could have done a lot of stuff differently, but the experience of doing the piece with the sole purpose of variety was very interesting. To not be concerned (in a manner of speaking) with several other aspects of music was very liberating and it gave me a lot of perspective into some compositional techniques for development... It also highlighted several personal quirks and shortcomings, which I'm trying to either address or seeking ways to enhance in order to form my "personal voice".

In short, I would advise you to seek a similar path. Do some songs which are more about "form" and "variety" than they are about simply "sounding good" to your ears. These don't need to be long, or overproduced, just experiment with things. You can even take something old and tweak it if you would prefer.

Something else to think about is silence. I should probably stay quite about this (ba-dum-psh) because I can't do it well at all, but sound is just an event between two pauses. Silence can be used to great e[a]ffect.


----------



## inaudio (Nov 24, 2013)

I haven't worked on new music for the last month or so. I've had quite a lot on my plate, but I definitely could have tried harder to own my shiat and manage my time better - I'll make sure to get right back on that horse. The idea of writing shorter practice pieces with the focus on trying out different composing techniques seems to me like the way to go for now - thank you for the idea Osorio. The first thing I wanted to get a better grasp on was the circle of fifths and in particular how to use the "common chord" transition mentioned by AugmentedFourth. I didn't manage to get much more done than a very rough sketch of what I wanted to be going on in terms of harmony.

I decided to have three very simple "parts", mainly rooted in F# major and then transitioning into Db major. All parts consist of no more than two chords: 

I: F# major - Bb minor
II: B major - Bb minor
III: Ab major - F# major 

After that I mapped out a rough order of the parts:
I - II - I - III

And then I started fleshing out the parts themselves. I only got one part somewhat-properly fleshed out, here's a link to that snippet:

https://soundcloud.com/biison/3-0-snippet

And here's the link to a *very* rough sketch of the whole thing:

https://soundcloud.com/biison/3-0

This way of songwriting actually felt really fun! Once I got to working on the individual parts I already knew what I'd be going for and could focus solely on writing and experimenting different things. I'll definitely be spending some time testing the waters and trying to get a grasp on the technical side of writing. I feel that I currently don't possess the basic vocabulary to tell the stories I want to tell, but I'll working hard in order to change that. 

This was also the first time I got to properly test out my newly assembled portable writing solution - namely a Maschine Mikro and a Korg MicroKey. I'm really enjoying how tactile and streamlined music creation is with these tools + it all fits into my backpack! I'm visiting my parents this weekend and this is a low-quality picture of the rig set up in their guestroom:


----------



## Osorio (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm gonna drop all the criticism and just say that I found the third piece really fun. The dynamic is a little more varied, the harmony is still very static but it sort of works for this piece because the sections are not too long... I don't know, I just dig it.

Also: YES. Love portable writing stations. I've been contemplating getting one of those 2 octave MIDI keyboards for the sole purpose of writing in bed. True story.


----------



## JackC666 (Nov 28, 2013)

Hi there! I've always struggled with the arrangement aspects of my music. I will have the ideas at the beginning and then when it comes to stretching it out and actually building up and compiling a song will be immediately make me hit a mental block. 

But I'm going to give THIS method a try tonight. It sounds so simple, and something I would of never considered. Not sure if this is exclusive to Cubase, but the idea sounds cool. What do you think?

Cubase 7 - Structure and Arrangement using the Subtractive Structure approach - YouTube


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Dec 1, 2013)

JackC666 said:


> Hi there! I've always struggled with the arrangement aspects of my music. I will have the ideas at the beginning and then when it comes to stretching it out and actually building up and compiling a song will be immediately make me hit a mental block.
> 
> But I'm going to give THIS method a try tonight. It sounds so simple, and something I would of never considered. Not sure if this is exclusive to Cubase, but the idea sounds cool. What do you think?
> 
> Cubase 7 - Structure and Arrangement using the Subtractive Structure approach - YouTube



From what I gather from the video it seems like the basic idea is that you structure different sections of your song as being basically the same musical idea but with different orchestrations and dynamics, adding and subtracting parts as you go.

This is something that is used widely in pretty much all kinds of music -- you'd be surprised how often it comes up. I definitely suggest trying these kind of things in your composition. For example,

You may have these two harmonizing guitar riffs that sound really crunchy and fantastic together, along with a bit of drums + bass.

What you can do is simply instead of starting the song with that, maybe you start the song with only one guitar. Then add in the bass and drums. Then, at the same time you remove the bass and drums and add the 2nd guitar part. Then when it starts feeling really intense you can run a drum fill and then throw everyone into the mix.

This will give a sense of both _dynamic_ and _development_ for the listener. 

Anyways, I thought I'd throw in a bit of a song that I recently started working on to ask you guys about how you think it's going and where you see it going next. Granted, this is still a _work in progress_, so it's kind of in a compressed version where I hastily slapped the beginning and the end together. I still haven't written the part in the middle... 

It's called Reionization (I attached a .zip below that contains the gp5, gp4, and midi) and will hopefully actually be part of my 13-track concept album that will maybe possibly potentially see the light of day many a year from now:


```
A Universe

1.  (nothing)
2.  Big Bang Singularity
3.  Inflation
4.  Baryogenesis
5.  Nucleosynthesis/Recombination
6.  Reionization
7.  Galaxy Formation
8.  Life
9.  Stellar Degeneration
10. Proton Decay
11. Black Hole Evaporation
12. Heat Death
13. The Last Question
```

Also a note about Biison's newest edition:

I like it. The beginning made me feel like I was in this weird slightly alternate version of the 90's.  It's pretty good. The build up to the B section and the B section is cool, and overall it would make some good video game music.


----------



## inaudio (Dec 1, 2013)

AF pretty much said everything I had to say about the video. I even think that it might hold its value not only as something within a song, but as a way of exploring parts you have already written - you might end up finding something interesting that you could use later on in the track! 

If you ended up building an entire song around one "loop" I'm guessing that it might end up sounding rather one-dimensional - I don't think that this is a good or a bad thing. If what you are expressing has a static or a "not going anywhere" -vibe to it then this method might be right on the money. An example that comes to my mind is a song called Undertow by Chroma Key/Kevin Moore. You'll probably notice that the drum pattern doesn't really change at all throughout the entire song and I feel that it's spot-on with what's being expressed:



Do you think that you could find a way of recording the GP tracks, AF? I currently don't own a computer with GuitarPro, but I remember that back in the day I used to record my GP tracks into Audacity by plugging the headphone out into the line-in with an 1/8" plug audio cable. I can't comment on the music, but when I saw the track list I immediately thought of Sithu Aye and his album Invent the Universe:



I'd love to check out your tracks if you manage to get them into a more accessible format! Oh, and I don't have the means to work on the track today but I'll get to it tomorrow.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Dec 1, 2013)

Biison said:


> Do you think that you could find a way of recording the GP tracks, AF? I currently don't own a computer with GuitarPro, but I remember that back in the day I used to record my GP tracks into Audacity by plugging the headphone out into the line-in with an 1/8" plug audio cable.



I could record the GP file into an audio file, but that was kind of the reason why I included the .midi file in there. Basically any modern computer can play those because your OS comes with a set of default midi instruments. For Windows users, this is called "Microsoft GS Wavetable Synth". In fact, that is where I get the sounds when I play my own files back in GP5.

Alternatively, you can also simply download TuxGuitar, which is free and lets you open, play, and edit GP5, GP4, GP3, and PowerTab files. It should sound basically the same if you play it in TuxGuitar as if you played the .midi file, except you will be able to read the parts.



Biison said:


> I can't comment on the music, but when I saw the track list I immediately thought of Sithu Aye and his album Invent the Universe:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to check out your tracks if you manage to get them into a more accessible format! Oh, and I don't have the means to work on the track today but I'll get to it tomorrow.




.....

 Guess I got pretty ninja'd by Sithu Aye there on the whole universe concept album thing.

The only real difference is that Sithu Aye stops at just about the point where there is life on Earth. Mine hits that point about in the middle and then proceeds on to heat death (the coolest part).

Oh well.


----------



## inaudio (Dec 1, 2013)

AugmentedFourth said:


> I could record the GP file into an audio file, but that was kind of the reason why I included the .midi file in there. Basically any modern computer can play those because your OS comes with a set of default midi instruments. For Windows users, this is called "Microsoft GS Wavetable Synth". In fact, that is where I get the sounds when I play my own files back in GP5.



Huh, the more you know! I checked out the track and oddly enough it even reminded me of Sithu music in some regard - definitely a good thing. Based on this and the last track you posted I'd say that you have a really "slippery" way of phrasing things that I really enjoy - other than that I don't really have much more to say. Keep them coming!


----------



## inaudio (Dec 2, 2013)

I managed to piece together the basic structure of the song but the individual parts still need a lot of work. I want to figure out some atmospheric textures for the softer part in the middle and then get figure out the arrangement of the last part so that it will pop out properly. Any feedback/criticism you guys have to send my way is welcome as always!

https://soundcloud.com/biison/3-1


----------



## TallestFiddle (Dec 18, 2013)

Pretty awesome song Biison  I like all the individual sections a lot, especially those more energitic parts. The dynamics between the soft parts and the loud parts add some nice depth to the song. I think you should work a bit on the transitions though, its kind of abrupt how it changes from one part to the next.


Heres a song I just wrote a few days ago, I just sat down with my bass started playing through some ideas that were in my head and then decided to tab it out as a full idea, then added some drums and guitar layers.

Its just a 50 sec clip, I can't think of anything to add onto it now. It feels like a complete idea, and I sort of like it that way. Let me know what you think! 

https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/8-16-2013-midi


----------



## TallestFiddle (Dec 18, 2013)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Anyways, I thought I'd throw in a bit of a song that I recently started working on to ask you guys about how you think it's going and where you see it going next. Granted, this is still a _work in progress_, so it's kind of in a compressed version where I hastily slapped the beginning and the end together. I still haven't written the part in the middle...
> 
> It's called Reionization (I attached a .zip below that contains the gp5, gp4, and midi) and will hopefully actually be part of my 13-track concept album that will maybe possibly potentially see the light of day many a year from now:



Cool song!! thanks for sharing the GP files too, Its definitely a good example of what you were talking about. I love how you keep the same guitar idea throughout the whole song and yet it has a lot of room for development.

Looking forward to you releasing more!


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jan 18, 2014)

Phew -- this thread hasn't been posted in in a while. Sorry about that.

That song that I posted a while back I got around to recording, and now it's called 'Nucleosynthesis' instead of 'Mach's Principle'.

@Biison Haha I was grooving pretty hard by the time the last section came around. Definitely more straight-ahead than some of the stuff you posted earlier (e.g. 1.4). Less TToL, more video game victory music. 

@TallestFiddle The first thing I noticed is that the drums are a little all over the place. It sounds less tasteful if you throw gobs of crash cymbals all over the accented beats than if you pace your hits to only crucial spots or use straight quarter notes (in the case of a driven or heavy-sounding section).

Otherwise I really liked the musical ideas you had in there. Just those 0:50 alone could be worked out into a couple of minutes at least.

There's a lot of notes, or rather, musical phrases going around in that clip, esp. near the end. If you can spread out your melodic ideas and spread out the harmonic ideas (and then expand on them and modulate keys), you'll be golden.


----------



## tyler_faith_08 (Jan 18, 2014)

Hey, I remember everyone talking about starting one of these in the chatroom. We were all mad as hell because of the lack of a songwriting thread lol. I can't remember if I started one of these or not.


----------



## inaudio (Jan 18, 2014)

It's the same thing at the end of every year - I start to feel like pushing myself no longer really yields results and that's when I know that it's time to quiet down and soften up. Last week I started to awaken from the slumber and now I'm back on my feet, revitalized and ready to tackle the obstacles ahead.

@TallestFiddle: Firstly I'd like to apologize that I didn't comment on your posts any sooner. Ignoring someone like that is a real dick-move and I'm sorry for that. The track itself sounds really exciting and dare I say fresh! The parts that you've written out sound really cool but the combination of the short track-length and really busy/dense instrumentation leaves me feeling like the track ends all too soon. The suggestions that AugmentedFourth made would be great for expanding the song in a way that would give the listeners more time to absorb and appreciate all the great stuff going on.

@AugmentedFourth: Just listening to the intro of Nucleosynthesis started forming callouses on my right-hand thumb.  
Since you've started recording Nucleosyntehsis does this mean that you have most of your EP written out? I'm hoping to hear a lot more of your tracks during this year!

@Tyler: Nah man, I was the only one who made one of these threads. I think that for the time being it might be a good idea to just turn this into a general thread where people could post their tracks for feedback since the traffic is really minimal. If you guys agree with me I'll go ahead and ask one of the Mods to rename the thread appropriately.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jan 23, 2014)

Just wanted to drop by and throw up a mixtest because I am bad at the mixing and the mastering and the audio engineering and the things with the sounds and such. Any critiques welcome.

Nucleosynthesis/Recombination Mixtest


----------



## JohnIce (Jan 23, 2014)

Cool thread!  I might as well contribute by sharing the best (i.e. easily applied) lyric-writing tip I've ever heard  Because I just heard it and it works great!

The tip is that when you find yourself having written a verse 1 and a chorus, and feel like you have nothing left to say and feel too uninspired to finish the song, just move verse 1 to verse 2 and write a new first verse that sets the background/scenery etc. for verse 2.

Boom, a new song is done!  Beer!


----------



## TallestFiddle (Feb 25, 2014)

Thanks for the feedback guys! its much appreciated. I'm definitely taking it to heart and trying to apply it. AugmentedFourth, I'll listen to your track and give feedback later  I'm just not at a place where I can listen to music at the moment.

I've been working on composing without my guitar recently, just starting with a simple idea I had when I was playing, and using my ear to fill in the rest. Or sometimes just humming something and starting a song from there. I'm trying hard to really develop ideas fully before changing to a different idea, so please let me know how I'm doing with that 

Here's a few songs I've been working on recently
[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/gettin-busy[/SC]
[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/february-19th[/SC]

Also I wanted to pass on some advice. I've found recently that developing my ear has been one of the best things that has been helping me write. I'm finding it much easier to figure out what I want something to sound like without even using my instrument. I learned from Guthrie Govan that you should be able to sing everything you can play, so I always try to sing/hum along with music (even instrumental). This way I can get my ear to know the music that I like. And also, whenever I try to learn something new on guitar, I always learn it by ear, even if it takes more time. I think that doing these things really helps to develop your ear, and it makes it easier to get things from your head into music.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Feb 25, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Just wanted to drop by and throw up a mixtest because I am bad at the mixing and the mastering and the audio engineering and the things with the sounds and such. Any critiques welcome.
> 
> Nucleosynthesis/Recombination Mixtest



Really awesome song! I like it a lot! One thing I'm noticing with the mix is that the levels of the instruments are imbalanced. Its easy to bring the volume of the guitar really high up when you're just starting mixing, because that's the instrument you want to focus on  I would suggest going over to the recording studio forum and asking for some feedback there if you want to be improving on your mixing. 

One thing that helped me a lot to learn mixing was to just read a ton on the recording studio forum, watching a bunch of youtube videos, and also reading "The Systematic Guide to Mixing" an e-book that you can look up on Google. That book gives a pretty good step by step guide to getting a good sound, after you do that you can kinda use that knowledge and apply it in your own way.

I forgot to upload this song, but I just wrote this one a little while ago too if you guys want to check it out. I'm not sure about the way I develop it after 1:40, I might have rushed into that a bit. Let me know 

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/february-2-2014[/SC]


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 26, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys! its much appreciated. I'm definitely taking it to heart and trying to apply it. AugmentedFourth, I'll listen to your track and give feedback later  I'm just not at a place where I can listen to music at the moment.
> 
> I've been working on composing without my guitar recently, just starting with a simple idea I had when I was playing, and using my ear to fill in the rest. Or sometimes just humming something and starting a song from there. I'm trying hard to really develop ideas fully before changing to a different idea, so please let me know how I'm doing with that
> 
> ...



Them there's some solid-ass jams, yo. 

As far as developing ideas, you seem to have it pretty much down pat. Honestly as far as advice goes, I might say that you could try out drumless bits in the middle of songs. I know you have some drumless intros, but having breaks where there are no drums can make the aesthetic sound crunchier because you get to hear just the transients from the pitched instruments but at the same time spacey because of the lack of a punchy beat. It makes for a nice break in mood and makes ensuing parts have more impact when the drums come back.

On that first tune, there are some seriously sick bass lines in there. The 15/8 bits around 1:24 sound good and the theme about 75% of the way through sounds very melodic.

The second one surprised me with the intro. Sounds like a 4 part harmony straight out of the 18th century. Very well done.

And on the third, I thought the development after 1:40 was very good. Doubling up the melody with a soprano voice sounds very appealing and you definitely took advantage of the independence.



TallestFiddle said:


> Really awesome song! I like it a lot! One thing I'm noticing with the mix is that the levels of the instruments are imbalanced. Its easy to bring the volume of the guitar really high up when you're just starting mixing, because that's the instrument you want to focus on I would suggest going over to the recording studio forum and asking for some feedback there if you want to be improving on your mixing.



Funny you should say that. I just recently posted it over here.

I got some good tips and went back and threw in some high-pass filters and adjusted volumes. In my headphones the levels sounded right, but I suspected otherwise so I'm glad I posted it here. Here's the new version I came up with, hopefully most of the immediate problems are fixed. Probably not..... feel free to inform me as such.

Is there any reason why you aren't recording your songs? They sound really good as just MIDI, and I'd love to hear them in proper recording.


----------



## inaudio (Mar 1, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> ...


This really is some incredibly tight material! I think that the third tune you posted is among the coolest things I've heard in a while and if this really is your first attempt at trying to "develop ideas fully" I must say that this is damn impressive. I agree with the point that AugmentedFourth made about drums, after sifting through the songs a second time I noticed that there really are no parts where the drums take a break. And this is just personal preference, but adding more variety to songs in general is something that I look for and enjoy. Reminds me of a friend I used to have in upper school: he'd write really tight riffs and cool solos but that's all that his songs ever really were - a collection of tight riffs and slick licks. I really couldn't enjoy more than two songs from him at a time because after that I just felt like I had kind of "heard it already" no matter how cool the riffs were. Having said that I do feel like you have your own style that is very apparent throughout your tracks and I feel that if you keep writing stuff of this caliber, get them recorded properly and present yourself appropriately people will surely take notice. 



JohnIce said:


> ...


Thanks for the tip, if I ever get to a point with my music where vocals and lyrics are a part of it I'll make sure to give this a try. And it's always nice to see more people contributing to the thread so thank you for that, and if you've got more tips/tricks/swedish-success-secrets please do share them! 

And I'd like to briefly bring up the question of renaming the thread. I feel a bit weird having my username on the title since this is no longer a personal songwriting thread and I feel that as such the current title is quite off-putting and misleading. If you guys have any suggestions for a more suitable name for the thread please do share!


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 1, 2014)

Biison said:


> If you guys have any suggestions for a more suitable name for the thread please do share!









I may have spent a little too much time on that.

Bit rusty on the ol' there Photoshop.

Anyways, I came up with this quirk of a chord progression. (The tuning I use is EBEADGBE, this only shows bottom 7.) What'dya guys make of that?


----------



## JohnIce (Mar 1, 2014)

Here's a tip I got from Rammstein's producer: Most metal bands tend to start writing a song by stringing riffs together and making a finished arrangement before putting vocals on top of it. He suggested (to my band) to take those vocals, scrap the previous arrangement, and start over by arranging the song around the vocals. Some old riffs may still work unchanged, but doing this you might discover that in some places, the instrumental was too heavy for the vocal or too busy or whatever. Maybe the overall sound is too polished and neat to go with the lyrical theme?

Another guy who we always turn to for feedback, gave us a similar piece of advice. We'd made a super-polished, damn near radio quality demo with no sharp edges and everything sounded clear and punchy and heavy. He said: "Wow, that sounds amazing! You've come _exactly_ half way!"  His point being that "perfect" is just an attribute, not an end goal. Because what "perfect" lacks is emotional relevance. Perfect is not memorable.

Just like when casting a blockbuster movie, you don't call the "perfect" looking model dude. You get Nicholas Cage, Morgan Freeman, Adrien Brody etc. because they look unique and memorable. Perfection is no where near as appealing. That totally applies for music and any type of art really.


----------



## inaudio (Mar 1, 2014)

It's been 3 months since I last posted any music on here and I actually had time off tonight so I figured that I might as well give it a shot. I'm currently visiting my parents so all I had at my use was my father's nylon string acoustic and my laptop. I was able to come up with a few basic parts on the git-fiddle and after that I had a furious one-hour session with the mouse clicking everything into the Maschine DAW. There's not really a whole lot to comment on yet since it's a very rough sketch without any apparent structure, but this is what I was able to slap together:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/biison/4-0[/SC]

@AugmentedFourth That picture made my day - Songwriting Thread it is. I'll check out the chord progression when I'm feeling a bit more fresh.

And I actually feel like adding that the way of writing that I tried out tonight was actually quite fun and interesting. If I remember correctly Lights writes pretty much all of her material on an acoustic. Her basic ethos is that she wants her songs to have substance and to work even when they're completely stripped down. Probably not the kind of music that most people on here will enjoy but if anyone is interested I'll leave both a live acoustic and a recorded studio version of her song "Toes" down below:





She's totally kickass live too:


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 4, 2014)

_*EDIT: *Here's the reupload for my new mix on 'Nucleosynthesis/Recombination'. The other one had a few problems._

@Biison: 4.0 sounds pretty good, probably cool for people who like trance-y stuff. Then again, I don't really know much about trance. And I agree that coming up with a stripped down version of something is always a good idea. Keeps us from using production as a crutch for musicality.

@JohnIce Very true. Imperfection and asymmetry is something that people listen for and look for in all kinds of art, whether they realize it or not. I just wish I could get nearly perfect mixes and then mess it up from there, instead of struggling to not have messy mixes in the first place.....

You guys should check out metric modulations. I'm not sure if y'all maybe already use them, but they are really cool because they are like key changes, but for rhythm. The reason I thought to bring this up is that I just wrote one into a song I'm working on, so I have an example:

Listen to: Metric Modulation Example







So you may notice as the bass line comes in the tempo seems to have changed, but in a funky way. The new time is not just 'out of the blue'. This is because the new tempo is exactly 3/4 times the original in terms of BPM. Viz., a 'triplet half note' becomes the new 'quarter note'. I have mostly heard it in jazz, e.g. The Bad Plus, Rudresh Mahanthappa.

Listen to this for some neck-breaking tempo changes throughout the rest of the song.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 4, 2014)

I can't even describe how much I appreciate the kind words and feedback!  I love the specific examples because that gives me something to look for and think about, and I will definitely be trying out the things that you guys mentioned.

Later tonight I'll be listening to what you've posted, I'm in a computer lab without headphones, so I can't listen to anything at the moment.



AugmentedFourth said:


> Is there any reason why you aren't recording your songs? They sound really good as just MIDI, and I'd love to hear them in proper recording.



Its because my laptop died, and I lost all my mixes and plugins and stuff, and I've been lazy about getting it all set up on my desktop. I haven't even moved my monitors from where my laptop was, haha. Also I've been focused on writing, because I've been interested in developing some video game music for some of my friends that are making a game. So any tips on writing multiple songs with a common theme would be greatly appreciated  I'll be recording some stuff soon though, so stay tuned!

I'm very excited that this thread is becoming more active, I think that by sharing ideas we can improve much faster! I'll be able to give you some more specific feedback on the mixing aspects AugmentedFourth, I'll be checking your new version out tonight.

By the way, I don't know if you guys like Intervals, but I'm really obsessed with their new stuff right now. vocals aside, the instrumentation and writing is out of this world. Aaron Marshal(Guitarist) and Anup Sastry(Drummer) are geniuses, and some of my biggest inspirations when it comes to writing.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 5, 2014)

Biison, I really like that song!! Everything flows so nicely, and the way it progresses seems very natural. I didn't want it to end when it did! I think that idea could be expanded much more into a really nice track. You should try bringing the beginning part back again after the end that you have there and see how it sounds, If it still flows nicely you could then develop it into a new section too.

I hadn't heard lights before, I like that acoustic version, shes got some really cool vocal melodies and shes really cute too! 

AugmentedFourth, when the higher background part comes in at about 0:40 I think the volume is a bit too high on that layer, and I would change up the tone on that one a bit to make it really a background sound. When the lead comes in at 1:12 the lead and that background part are competing for the same space, and they are a very similar tone. Maybe put a bit more delay/reverb on that background track and eq it a bit differently than the lead. I find that background stuff like that sits well in the low mids, while that lead could be more focused in the treble / presence region. I'm starting to like the song a lot, that lead melody is so cool. The mix is definitely getting better too, keep working at it! 
As far as the composition goes, when I listen to the part after the keyboard part I want to hear just the clean guitar strumming for a bit without the original guitar in there. Maybe hold off on that layer for a bit and then reintroduce it once the drums come back in? That original layer is really cool once the ending drums come in though.

(edit) I accidentally listened to the older version, I think you already fixed some stuff that I mentioned, the levels of everything sound a lot better now, especially the background layer. I would still try changing the tone and EQ of that background guitar a bit.

I think I knew what metric modulations were, but I never knew them by name. Would an example be like if you had a guitar part in 3/4, and drums in 3/4, and then switched the drums to 4/4 and then that gives the listener a different perspective on the guitar? (please correct me if I'm wrong) 

A specific example that I think of would be the ending of Blindfolds aside by Protest the Hero, I remember noticing this and loving the effect that it had 
Its the part at 4:00


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 5, 2014)

Thanks a lot for the feedback! It's really helping me guide my mixing. 



TallestFiddle said:


> I think I knew what metric modulations were, but I never knew them by name. Would an example be like if you had a guitar part in 3/4, and drums in 3/4, and then switched the drums to 4/4 and then that gives the listener a different perspective on the guitar? (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> A specific example that I think of would be the ending of Blindfolds aside by Protest the Hero, I remember noticing this and loving the effect that it had
> Its the part at 4:00
> ~



Not quite. What you are thinking of is a polymeter.

*Polymeter:*

Having two (or more) distinctly different time signatures with different total lengths (e.g. 5/4 is one quarter note longer than 4/4 or 2/2) that are playing simultaneously in distinct voices, without truncating any of them to fit another. They simply continue until they hit a common multiple (e.g. with 5/4 and 4/4, after 20 quarter notes the two time sigs start a new measure simultaneously).

Example:





*Polyrhythm:*

Having two (or more) distinctly different _subdivisions_ of a fixed-length measure being played in distinct voices. In this case the voices always start a new measure at the same time.

Example:





Here the &#9484;---5---&#9488; notation indicates a 5:4 _ratio_. Ratio is the key word in polyrhythm, so in this case we have 5 of these "5:4" notes for every 4 regular quarter notes.

*Metric Modulation:*

Metric modulation is something different in which there is an actual tempo change. However, the key word here is still _ratio_ because the tempo (in terms of BPM) that you start with and the tempo you change to are in a rigidly defined ratio.

We usually notate these in ways that are more intuitive and express what we are actually trying to get across rather than saying &#9833; = 144, and then in our new measure saying &#9833; = 216. This is not a helpful notation unless you are a computer. Which means that sometimes it is useful... but for the most part, we may write something like:






To say that what used to be a triplet quarter note is now our quarter note, or unit beat.

So take for example starting with a tempo of 144 BPM. We crunch the numbers: (using our old friend dimensional analysis which is no longer just for the physicists and the chemists apparently)






And find out that our new BPM value is 216. And we can smoothly transition into this new tempo because the tempos share a common note length between their triplet quarter notes and quarter notes, respectively.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 5, 2014)

I understand it now! I really appreciate the in depth explanation, I love how you drew in paint to try and describe it, lol. I'm going to have to try this sometime. It seems like a really cool and sneaky way to increase the tempo of a song, and ease into the transition.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 6, 2014)

Since you mentioned key changes, could you give a short explanation of what they are and how they might be used in a song? I don't think I know how to listen for them, and if I've done it in my own songs it was only by accident


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 7, 2014)

Yeah, that's a good question, esp. when you take into account the difference between a key change and a harmonic modulation.

It's good to define both terms, so as to avoid confusion even though personally I often use 'key change' and 'harmonic modulation' interchangeably. 

*Harmonic Modulation:*

Any time that a song changes its tonal center. That means, even if you change the notes that are part of your 'key signature,' or in more precise terms the pitch collection that you center that bit of music around, it's not a harmonic modulation if the tonic is the same. A harmonic modulation *may or may not* also constitute a key change. For example:

C major --> C minor
_Not a harmonic modulation. C is still our 'tonic'._ 

C major --> G major
_This is a harmonic modulation. Our tonic shifted from C to G._ 

Db lydian --> Db harmonic minor
_No matter how wacky this is, it's not a harmonic modulation. Our tonic is *still* Db._ 

Db major --> C minor
_This is a harmonic modulation._ 

*Key Change:*

Any time that the 'predominant pitch collection/scale/pitch set/key signature' changes. A key change *may or may not* also constitute a harmonic modulation. For example:

A minor --> C major
_This is not a key change. C maj. is the relative major of A minor._ 

A minor --> C minor
_This is in fact a key change. The 7 notes between these key signatures are different, i.e. they have a different combo of sharps/flats/naturals._ 

C harmonic minor --> G phrygian dominant
_This is not a key change because the 7 pitches that constitute C harm. minor are the same 7 pitches that constitute G phrygian dom._ 

G major --> G minor
_This is a key change. The notes contained in G minor and major share some commonalities but are not identical._ 

So now that you know what each one is, let's contrast:

F major --> Bb major
_Harmonic modulation?: Yes.
Key change?: Yes._

C major --> A minor
_Harmonic modulation?: Yes.
Key change?: No._

D phrygian --> D dorian
_Harmonic modulation?: No.
Key change?: Yes._

C major --> C major
_Harmonic modulation?: No.
Key change?: No._

Anyways, harmonic modulations (and key changes) keep your music harmonically and thematically interesting. They're like fruits, because they are good for you... and taste good too.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 9, 2014)

Just checking back in to post the song that I just put up on SC.

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/rubisco[/SC]

Any feedback of any kind is greatly appreciated! 

Oh yeah and here is the chord progression:

```
| D&#9837;maj7    :|| [b][I]intro[/I][/b]

| G&#9837;-       | F6add9    | D&#9837;maj7    | %         :|| [b][I]section A[/I][/b]

| E&#9837;-11     | F&#9837;6add9   | B&#9837;-       |

| B&#9837;-7 (&#9837;9) :|| (play many times) [b][I]section B [bassline][/I][/b]

| B-7 (&#9837;9)  :|| (play several times)

| B-        | Cmaj F&#9839;°  :|| x4 [b][I]bridge[/I][/b]

| B- E-     | Dmaj C&#9839;-7 :||

| G&#9837;-       | F6add9    | D&#9837;maj7    | %         :|| [b][I]section A'[/I][/b]

| E&#9837;-11     | F&#9837;6add9   |

| G&#9837;-       | F6add9    | D&#9837;maj7    | %         :|| x5

| G&#9837;-       | F6add9    | E6        ||

!---insert acoustic guitar solo here---!

| Amaj      [b]||[/b]
```


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 14, 2014)

That song is awesome!! I love the part at 1:15! And damn the way it ends is awesome, is that a key change right before the acoustic part? The acoustic break is perfect, that dynamic is exactly what I wanted to hear  As far as the mix, I'd say that the drums aren't cutting through very well when all the instruments are at full volume. I think the drums are mixed really well though, they just need to all be brought up a tad.


And I'd like to thank you for the explanation on key changes and harmonic modulations. I was writing a song with 2 of my friends and we wanted to change to a different key, and I was able to understand what was going on and explain it to them. One thing I'm a little curious about though, is there anything that I should be thinking about when transitioning between one key and another, like what chords could I be using to get there. 

In our example, we were in E minor, and we were changing to A minor, The chords we used seemed to work really well to transition, but i'm not sure why. It was just all simple power chords, but the roots are: | B | B# | A | B | -> | E | F | D | E | -> | A |. I know that the notes in the chords we're using for the | E | F | D | E | chords aren't all in E minor, and I think that they are all in A minor. I'm just guessing, but does this work okay because the E is the 5th chord in A minor? and that's what we want to hear when resolving back to the root of A?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 14, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> That song is awesome!! I love the part at 1:15! And damn the way it ends is awesome, is that a key change right before the acoustic part?



Thanks!  The ending before the acoustic bit _is_ a key change, and it sounds more significant because the listener at that point has heard multiple ways that that particular progression can end, and that tonic chord (E major, basically) is completely new to the piece.

Really the whole thing is littered with key changes and ambiguous keys that make it a little more difficult to define what is a key change, what isn't, what's a harmonic modulation, what isn't, etc.



TallestFiddle said:


> The acoustic break is perfect, that dynamic is exactly what I wanted to hear  As far as the mix, I'd say that the drums aren't cutting through very well when all the instruments are at full volume. I think the drums are mixed really well though, they just need to all be brought up a tad.



Thanks a bunch. Hearing mixing tips from other people helps a lot because I have very limited monitoring ability. I use ATH-M50's, which are really good headphones and are perfect for surgical bass adjustment, but are still headphones (unfortunately). I try to use other sources, like playing stuff through my phone and things like that, but things still always end up a bit wonky in some places. 



TallestFiddle said:


> And I'd like to thank you for the explanation on key changes and harmonic modulations. I was writing a song with 2 of my friends and we wanted to change to a different key, and I was able to understand what was going on and explain it to them. One thing I'm a little curious about though, is there anything that I should be thinking about when transitioning between one key and another, like what chords could I be using to get there.
> 
> In our example, we were in E minor, and we were changing to A minor, The chords we used seemed to work really well to transition, but i'm not sure why. It was just all simple power chords, but the roots are: | B | B# | A | B | -> | E | F | D | E | -> | A |.



OK. For future reference, power chords (when actually used in prevailing harmonic movement, like in your case) are denoted with a 5. So I would rewrite this thusly:


```
| B5 | C5 | A5 | B5 |

| E5 | F5 | D5 | E5 |

| A5 |
```

Also note that B&#9839; in this case should be C, because having two notes with the same letter should be avoided if possible (e.g. B and B&#9839.



TallestFiddle said:


> I know that the notes in the chords we're using for the | E | F | D | E | chords aren't all in E minor, and I think that they are all in A minor. I'm just guessing, but does this work okay because the E is the 5th chord in A minor? and that's what we want to hear when resolving back to the root of A?



Yeah that's pretty much what's happening here. To make the entire progression more clear we might use our good friend roman numeral analysis thusly:


```
| B5 | C5 | A5 | B5 |
Em: v    VI   iv   v

  | E5 | F5 | D5 | E5 |
Em: i   (&#9837;II)(VII)(i)
Am: v    VI   iv   v

  | A5 |
Am: i
```

It's a strong progression. You are making heavy use of what I like to call the 'magic chords,' which are the IV V and VI. I extend the idea of magic chords to both major and minor keys, even though they are primarily major. Take for example the "pop-punk progression," which is the progression used in literally every pop-punk song ever, sometimes with slight variation, and even more in other pop music.



> Ye olde dreaded pop-punk progression
> 
> | I | V | vi | IV | I |
> 
> ...



I highly recommend watching this video. It may give you a taste for what harmonic analysis can do, or just a hatred for Pachelbel's Canon and pop music in general. Or both.



Anyways, in your case you are taking this idea of "v VI iv v" and repeating it in a new key (and then resolving in your new key). The key here no pun intended, i'm so sorry is that what is normally the final resolution in your initial key (viz., that first appearance of E5) becomes the v of the next key because the two keys are right next to one another on the circle of fifths.

In effect, that makes B5 the V/V in the key of A minor. If you haven't heard of or seen secondary dominants, that's fine. Basically "V/V" just means that B5 is the V of E5, and E5 is in turn the V of A5. The only reason why I included those chords in parentheses [(&#9837;II)(VII)(i)] even after the key had switched from E minor was to demonstrate that only one note that you are using steps outside of the key. That F5 "would be" the &#9837;II of E, which means that the root in not in the key. But the fifth (the only other chord tone since we are using power chords) is.


----------



## smackhead999 (Mar 23, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Just checking back in to post the song that I just put up on SC.
> 
> [SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/rubisco[/SC]
> 
> Any feedback of any kind is greatly appreciated!



Channeling AAL at 00:30. I liked it.

I read through this thread a few times just now. I have had the itch to get back to writing something after many months off.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 24, 2014)

smackhead999 said:


> Channeling AAL at 00:30. I liked it.



Haha thanks man. Yes, the AAL is sometimes quite strong with my music; although I do find it somewhat interesting that you point out the bit at 0:30.



smackhead999 said:


> I read through this thread a few times just now. I have had the itch to get back to writing something after many months off.



Do it, man. It's always the time for writing music. 

In other news, I took a song that I actually posted a while back in an infant form (over on the synthetic scales thread) and finished it, including the end which leads into Proton Decay. A short explanation of the scale is over on the thread itself, and it's worth noting that I actually came up with the scale as a way to tie together the first 3 chords:


```
e|--13--9--5--|
b|--10--6--3--|
G|--10--6--6--|
D|--10--6--4--|
A|------------|
E|------------|
B|--11--7--0--|

{1 #2 3 4 5 b6 7}

{G&#9837; A B&#9837; C&#9837; D&#9837; E&#9837;&#9837; F}
```

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/stellar-degeneration-demo[/SC]

EDIT: I am feeling increasingly guilty that I may be hijacking this thread a bit. I'm somewhat surprised to not see very many posters in here considering how many people seem to post on the Recording forum with their various pieces. Then again it's probably more of a neglect of the Music Theory/Techniques forum as a whole.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 25, 2014)

I think most people probably just don't know about it. I know what you mean though, there are a ton of people that just post their songs on the recording studio forum for people to listen to. I'm sure they would like some songwriting feedback. Maybe one of us should post something in there to inform people about this thread, lol. 

But I'm glad to see there's at least a few other people interested in this stuff, haha! Even though I'm not the best with theory, I still study songwriting and song structure a lot. I would probably learn much more if I had a solid base in theory though :/

Can't listen to your song until tonight, but I wanted to ask a question to everyone. 

How do you guys go about writing songs? Do you start with your instrument and come up with ideas there? Do you try to transcribe what you've come up with, or record it right away?

I've used both methods, and I like them both. The only thing that is different is writing leads. I can never transcribe a nice lead or a solo and have it keep all the information I wrote into it (slides, vibrato, triplets, different inflections) I know that these things can be written into most transcription software, but there's still so much that can vary that gives the playing its personality. I think that's the biggest reason why I like just writing and recording without transcribing.

Also, recording some rough tracks of what you wrote is nice because it gets your ideas down so you can use them later, and its faster than transcribing.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 25, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> How do you guys go about writing songs? Do you start with your instrument and come up with ideas there? Do you try to transcribe what you've come up with, or record it right away?



Yes. Pretty much all of the songs that I write stem from something that I basically came up with by noodling around. Often it's something REALLY simple, like maybe just one chord.

It's kind of like a seed. I can use my creativity and musical knowledge and all of those wonderful things, but it's much more intuitive to do when there is a context. That is to say, the "seed" is what sparks the entire songwriting process basically. Sometimes I can just hear two chords played on my guitar and already imagine an entire song built around that alone.

Pretty much all of the songs that I've posted on here started like that.

Nucleosynthesis/Recombination:
Came up with this when I was noodling around, once again, and came across that slapping pattern that you hear at the very beginning--just those two chords. Everything after that was an expansion, using different chords, time signatures, adding a "chug" part and an "ambient" guitar part to outline the modes I was using. Then once I knew what notes would fit over what I wrote, I kept the part that I had written stuck in my head and started noodling some more until I pieced together a melody. Literally, piece by piece, phrase by phrase. And so on and so forth I developed the song.....

Rubisco:
This entire song is ALSO based off of two chords. Just the Gb and the F.

Stellar Degeneration:
Entirely based off of two chords, which quickly expanded to 4 chords. (I think I'm sensing a pattern in my songwriting.)

Personally I always go ahead and transcribe the stuff as I come up with it. The reason is really just because after years of using GP5 I am basically a GP5 wizard at this point and can transcribe my music really fast. However, for most people being able to handwrite your parts really fast is just as good. And recording is ultimately even better for many things, since you are capturing everything.



TallestFiddle said:


> I've used both methods, and I like them both. The only thing that is different is writing leads. I can never transcribe a nice lead or a solo and have it keep all the information I wrote into it (slides, vibrato, triplets, different inflections) I know that these things can be written into most transcription software, but there's still so much that can vary that gives the playing its personality. I think that's the biggest reason why I like just writing and recording without transcribing.



For me, even when it comes to lead parts I transcribe it. That may seem obvious because I'm so used to using GP5, but it helps me a lot because the way that I think of music doesn't involve all of those articulations (slides, bends, etc. like you said) until I go to play it. 

I simply transcribe the actual notes and then when I do play it for the recording, I have already practiced it enough that I have developed my own way of playing it, viz. my own interpretation. Then in the final draft all of the articulations are there and sound very natural and fluid. Or so I hope.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 25, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Rubisco:
> This entire song is ALSO based off of two chords. Just the Gb and the F.



Cool, I'm glad you said that. Usually when I write chord progressions I don't think that 2 chords is enough, and I start trying to come up with more (sometimes it ends up getting worse). I'm definitely going to try a 2 chord progression next time I'm writing 


The thing with me and writing leads.. I usually can't write a whole lead in one thought, I usually improvise a few times until I get a few ideas and then string them together. So in the act of writing it I'm already coming up with the different inflections naturally, and then it becomes hard for me to transcribe those. Sometimes though If I'm just composing without my instrument, I will write a lead, and I will like it a lot, but then I might have trouble making it feel natural, so I'm torn with that.

your stuff definitely sounds natural and fluid though, so you're doing something right


----------



## smackhead999 (Mar 25, 2014)

#4- Its all good. I must mention though how the last sound clip you posted has a phallic shape to it... just saying.

Its cool. Kind of lost me at the drastic change in feel though. The end feels like rewind.

Fiddle- I have never finished writing a song. I have started many and always manage to get discouraged at some point. It is either because I run out of sufficient theory to pull it together, or I run out of inspiration.

So, today I spent a few hours trying to write the way I started writing a few years ago when I started playing, before I learned any theory. It seems that once I learned the theory, I stopped writing the way I used to. 

Opposed to popular opinion, I actually seem to do better writing with a lyrical concept and some amount of lyrical development beforehand. I find that without that kind of a system, I can not create movement or cadences.

What I wrote today is what I think will be a pre-chorus section with lyrics and a progression settled but not all of the rhythm figured out just yet. This is followed by some chorus lyrical ideas and a theoretical direction for instrumentation.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 25, 2014)

smackhead999 said:


> #4- Its all good. I must mention though how the last sound clip you posted has a phallic shape to it... just saying.
> 
> Its cool. Kind of lost me at the drastic change in feel though. The end feels like rewind.
> 
> ...



Cool, I'm glad you're getting back into it!! Whatever works for you is what you should do. Just keep pushing yourself through the tough parts and you'll be making some good songs in no time. You have to write shitty songs before you can write good ones, just remember that and don't feel discouraged.

EDIT: By shitty I don't really mean shitty, I just mean songs that you might not be super excited about, I guess shitty is a bit harsh


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 25, 2014)

I like that new song Augmented Fourth, The way you pick sounds really cool, is that finger picking? Its so forceful. I like that change at 1:06 a lot too. And the change at 1:26 is awesome too, I love it. The transition at 2:13 is a bit abrupt for me, maybe fade that distorted guitar in? Its really cool once its there, but I felt weird about the transition.

The part at 3:00 is awesome too, so creepy


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 26, 2014)

smackhead999 said:


> #4- Its all good. I must mention though how the last sound clip you posted has a phallic shape to it... just saying.



 One might say that all good fade-outs are phallic in nature.



smackhead999 said:


> Its cool. Kind of lost me at the drastic change in feel though. The end feels like rewind.



Interesting. I see it as a good thing if the end of a song sounds like 'rewind,' because it gives it a sort of symmetry -- much like a geometric shape that possesses bilateral symmetry.

The transition is definitely abrupt though. It was sort of supposed to be like that, but now that I listen to it again I realize that I was picking too hard at the very beginning of that end part and so the guitar is much too loud for like the first 1.25 seconds... 



smackhead999 said:


> What I wrote today is what I think will be a pre-chorus section with lyrics and a progression settled but not all of the rhythm figured out just yet. This is followed by some chorus lyrical ideas and a _theoretical direction for instrumentation._



I'm wondering as to what you guys mean when you say that you are "applying theory" or "taking a theoretical direction" as opposed to maybe "forgetting about it" or "taking a whole different approach."

I guess what I'm really asking is how you guys apply music theory knowledge to your writing on a normal basis. Sometimes I hear people talk about music theory like it's some sort of formulaic, axiomatic beast that you can maybe shove all of your ideas into and get a song magically spat out of the end... 



TallestFiddle said:


> I like that new song Augmented Fourth, The way you pick sounds really cool, is that finger picking?



Yes.



TallestFiddle said:


> Its so forceful.



With chords like the ones I used, it's conducive to really digging underneath the strings with one's picking hand and getting a solid 'twang' out of the strings. Also it may be partly the compression I employed.


----------



## smackhead999 (Mar 26, 2014)

Augm[CENTER said:


> entedFourth;3977363]
> 
> I'm wondering as to what you guys mean when you say that you are "applying theory" or "taking a theoretical direction" as opposed to maybe "forgetting about it" or "taking a whole different approach."
> 
> ...




I understand the discussion about "theory" is kind of lost to the masses. I was part of that group at some point, but realized something in a conversation with SW about Bartok and symmetry. It became clear to me that theory is not the formula, it is a set of rules that are applied. There is no one theory. 
 
So, when I say theory, I mean to reference the specific rules I have outlined for the project. In doing this, when I reach a point where I need to make a decision, rather than be overwhelmed by the plethora of choices ahead of me, there are some amount of confine that shows me the direction. Rather than noodling around without direction and hoping for the best does not work for me. It helps with cohesiveness, when the sound could go in any of these directions, it consistently did not go in _this_ direction, neither before nor now, and I can recognize that sound.

I think that other crowd thinks there is only one theory, only one way, and if they use it, all of the unknowns are answered. I want to use theory as a manifest to my journey. Welcome aboard. We will be listening to the keys of F#m and G#locrian today. You will feel it when G#locrian hits but it will be nice and easy following a full cadence when we leave F#m because we do not want to startle you. We will cruise at 120 beats per minute generally in 4 beat groupings but sometimes in 3, but we wont stay there long when we do so you do not get nauseous.​


----------



## Pweaks (Mar 26, 2014)

How do you guys deal with writer's block? If/when you experience it, how do you deal with it? 

Lately I have found my self writing maybe 3-4 sections that flow well together but then I hit a brick wall. I have no idea where to go and then maybe a few days go by and I dump the whole song idea. Any ideas on how to prevent that from happening?


----------



## smackhead999 (Mar 26, 2014)

Pweaks said:


> How do you guys deal with writer's block? If/when you experience it, how do you deal with it?
> 
> Lately I have found my self writing maybe 3-4 sections that flow well together but then I hit a brick wall. I have no idea where to go and then maybe a few days go by and I dump the whole song idea. Any ideas on how to prevent that from happening?



Thats part of my problem too. Just gotta find the right method to get past it.


I dont think this is even in any condition to be getting feedback on yet, but...
since we are at it...

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/smackhead999/032514-1[/SC]


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 27, 2014)

I think I'm going to have to try finger picking now, i'd like to have another type of sound to my clean stuff. Also, AugmentedFourth, what do you do when you decide what chords you use? Do you just remember the ones you like and use those? or do you build them based on the harmony that you want. I have a little trouble finding more complex chords sometimes, I play in E standard on a 6 string.

*Pweaks:* If you've got 3 or 4 sections and you like the way they sound, then thats fine. If you can't find anything else to write in, just move on to a different song. Theres nothing that says a song has to be a certain length, if you do your best on it, then thats all you can do. No worries because you're gaining experience writing. 

Some stuff you can do though: You can always try to develop things differently. Add different transitions between parts, it can increase your possibilities, and make your song longer. Try to repeat parts more often, and change it up a bit as you go through each one. You should show us the song if you can, then we could help a bit more I think.

*smackhead999:* I would suggest that you finish your drums, you'll need to write a lot of drums before you're able to get proficient at it. You want to get to the point where you can write them quickly, so you don't lose the idea you have before you're able to get it down. And study the drums in songs you like, so that you can get an idea of what you could do with your drums. I like what you're doing though, you're on the right track, just keep writing and recording stuff like this, and with each time you get better. Don't worry if its a "complete" song, Its all about learning.

Heres a song I'm working on. (Finally back to recording)

I pretty much started with the clean chord progression in the beginning, I tried pretty hard to develop things well and not rush into the solo, but I'm not sure if I should add something else before it to ease into it a bit more. Also the ending is going to develop into something else based on that idea. I'm curious what you guys think, should that part be upbeat like the solo section, or maybe a bit calmer like the intro? I'm not sure which direction I want to take this song. Keep in mind I will have someone doing vocals for it too. I was also thinking that I should take down the volume of the solo, to fit vocals in there. Anyway, let me know what you think

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/march-27-work-in-progress[/SC]


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 27, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> Also, AugmentedFourth, what do you do when you decide what chords you use? Do you just remember the ones you like and use those? or do you build them based on the harmony that you want. I have a little trouble finding more complex chords sometimes, I play in E standard on a 6 string.



Honestly, a lot of the chords I come up with are just me dicking around with my guitar in my lap. I would recommend doing this in a controlled fashion.

For example, you may just restrict yourself to the top 4 strings. Try to create as many 4-string shapes you can muster with your fretting hand and listen to what they sound like. When you find cool ones, write them down and analyze them just enough so that you have one or two labels for it, so that maybe you know what the 3rd is, or that one note is a 2nd. Or even better, learn how ambiguous it is and try to line it up with as many bass notes as you can. Some chords are surprisingly nimble and can 'change sound' depending on what note(s) you play below it.

Then try slight modifications, moving tones up or down a semitone and such. You may find other good ones, or get a sort of melody going.

You can add different restrictions, like that you can't double any tones. Or that you cannot use any minor or major thirds in the stack. That will get you some cool and potentially ambiguous chords.

Then, once you have an idea, maybe you can use your imagination and a pinch of music theory to come up with a chord that you want to throw in next. That way you may know "OK I want something that implies D Dorian," and then come up with your next chord by trying to make a chord very similar to the one before it, but that uses crucial D Dorian tones and makes nice voice leading, or has qualities that you like (e.g. no thirds in the stack like I said before). Or you can maybe just outline the 3/4/5/etc notes you want and try to find a voicing you like the sound of isolated.



TallestFiddle said:


> Heres a song I'm working on. (Finally back to recording)
> 
> I pretty much started with the clean chord progression in the beginning, I tried pretty hard to develop things well and not rush into the solo, but I'm not sure if I should add something else before it to ease into it a bit more.



I thought it was good because you had some actual thematic presentation and slight development (at least in my eyes, so help me if Mr. Big Noodles comes in here to show me what thematic development _really_ is  ) so that when you got to the "solo" it didn't sound contrived or like you were soloing over a backing track or something. The ambient bit is a good theme, the chord progression itself, the bass line variations, and even when the snare hits really start picking up that provides a nice rhythmic motive. It definitely sounds "chill".

As a bit of an aside, although this definitely applies to the song in question, when I write music I try to avoid ever thinking of the word "solo". When I write music there is no such thing as a solo, only melodies. The only time it crosses the line is if it were a section for improvisation in one voice.

That way I don't ever think of parts that I write as completely distinct from the rest of the song. Music like metal, rock, pop, and even jazz and blues to some extent have given many people the impression (including myself unfortunately) that "solos" are separate and could very well be entirely constructed of melodic themes that weren't previously explored and don't ever get explored further for the rest of the song. "Guitar solos" make me think of like... Steve Vai... or Satriani or Plini or something. But I don't really enjoy a lot of those solos, or at least they narrow my definition too much.

Instead, I would encourage you to revisit the melody you used in your solo there.



TallestFiddle said:


> Also the ending is going to develop into something else based on that idea. I'm curious what you guys think, should that part be upbeat like the solo section, or maybe a bit calmer like the intro? I'm not sure which direction I want to take this song. Keep in mind I will have someone doing vocals for it too. I was also thinking that I should take down the volume of the solo, to fit vocals in there. Anyway, let me know what you think.



The part at the very very end I thought was quite good because it kind of pulled the words right from my mouth. When the solo ended and went into that kind of calm part I was contemplating what I would do next, and I thought it would be cool to change up from the continuous flow to a more start-and-stop bit with new rhythmic motive(s) and a new sort of harmonic progression.

What I would suggest is using the new chords you arrived at, and while keeping that new stop-and-go sort of playing, taking bits of the "solo" and putting them on top, so to speak. Think of it as like reharmonizing the solo, while making a cool and distinct rhythmic interaction between the lead voice and the chord-playing guitar.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 27, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Honestly, a lot of the chords I come up with are just me dicking around with my guitar in my lap. I would recommend doing this in a controlled fashion.
> 
> For example, you may just restrict yourself to the top 4 strings. Try to create as many 4-string shapes you can muster with your fretting hand and listen to what they sound like. When you find cool ones, write them down and analyze them just enough so that you have one or two labels for it, so that maybe you know what the 3rd is, or that one note is a 2nd. Or even better, learn how ambiguous it is and try to line it up with as many bass notes as you can. Some chords are surprisingly nimble and can 'change sound' depending on what note(s) you play below it.
> 
> ...



Wow, thanks for all this, Its going to help very much! 
I actually feel the same way about solos most of the time. In my songs its more like a very dominant melody where I really get to explore all the cool intervals that I can come up with. I'm not a huge fan of "shredding" solos. But maybe this is just because I don't practice speed enough 

I don't know if you've listened to interval's new songs. (Im sorry I keep mentioning them, but I'm really inspired by their new album lol) But since they have vocals now, the lead guitar melodies they use are still intricate, but they are mixed in with vocals some of the time. So some people could say that it is a solo, but since there are vocals on top of it, its not really a "solo" just an interesting melody. They're really making me re-think about how the guitar can be used to really develop themes and make interesting melodies and voicings without it being the typical "solo." Too often, a solo is put there for its own sake, not because it fits into the song.

I think you gave me some great ideas for what to do next, I'm definitely going to be revisiting some of the melodies I used in the lead part. And I'm glad I kept that last part in there, I didn't take the time to finish it yet so I thought about leaving it out for now. I'm glad you got an idea from it!


I've noticed something about more complex progressive music recently is that they often have much longer chord progressions. I've noticed that in the middle of a progression they might revisit the root chord, or at least hint at it, but then they go on to some different more unexpected chords, or even just progress differently the second time, and then finally return to the root. Its like they're taking twice as long to arrive at the destination, but it makes the trip more interesting. Is this something that will just naturally happen as I get more comfortable with chords and where to take them? I'm trying to understand it a little bit better and use it in my own writing. Its hard for me to naturally come up with something like this, and I don't want to just do it for no reason without it feeling right.

And another thing I've been thinking about lately is the structure of a collection of songs rather than one individual song. Like revisiting themes from other songs, or having different moods in different songs. Progressing a certain way from the first song to the last song in order to get a certain feeling by the end.


----------



## smackhead999 (Mar 27, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> *smackhead999:* I would suggest that you finish your drums, you'll need to write a lot of drums before you're able to get proficient at it. You want to get to the point where you can write them quickly, so you don't lose the idea you have before you're able to get it down. And study the drums in songs you like, so that you can get an idea of what you could do with your drums. I like what you're doing though, you're on the right track, just keep writing and recording stuff like this, and with each time you get better. Don't worry if its a "complete" song, Its all about learning.
> 
> Heres a song I'm working on. (Finally back to recording)
> 
> ...



I will have to give this a listen later when I am not at work.

I basically came up with a concept and jammed that out for a little while and then dial in my metronome app on android for a "feel." Once I feel like I have that spaced out about right, I get on Music Studio and throw together some basic 4/4 drum midis and then record the jams on a track. Then I go back and spend a little time playing with the drums to figure out how to make it "go" with the riffs I just wrote.

I actually spend way more time trying to figure out how to switch from F#m to G#. And I am still not impressed. When in doubt, heavy chug section


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 27, 2014)

What I would recommend, Smacklehead, (And I'm not saying that you HAVE to do it this way, this is just what works for me,) is to record your ideas with a metronome before putting in drums. So create a project in your DAW, set the tempo that you're going to play at, and then record your ideas to the metronome. From here you will be able to write your drums to go along with your guitar. Since your guitar is already in time with the song's tempo, they will line up just fine with the drums once you program them. If you are writing from the perspective of your guitar, it is helpful to get that recorded as the basis of your song, then start to add from there. So drums will be easier to write if you already recorded the guitar that you are writing them for.

Hope this helps


----------



## UncurableZero (Mar 30, 2014)

Hey guys, I've been struggling for a while with getting good sounding and comprehensive songs. 
Your critique on some of my stuff would be very helpful.
I haven't had time to record anything so guitar pro would have to do it for now.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmla3l3NUFBUmxKdE0/edit?usp=sharing
Atlantis and Arkay are kind of finished, the other two songs are works in progress (it shows ).


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 31, 2014)

UncurableZero, you should really try to export those to a wav or mp3 and post them on soundcloud. Some people might not be able to listen to those if they don't have GP5. I think I have it though, so I'll listen to it later when I'm at home.


----------



## UncurableZero (Mar 31, 2014)

https://soundcloud.com/theuncurable/sets/ep-midi-demos-crimson-skies/s-7mFt9
Hey, here's a playlist of the converted songs.
I forgot to cut out the clutter and leftovers after the outros of Atlantis and Dusk, so everything between 11:15-15:40 and after 29:00 was not meant to be there haha.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 31, 2014)

UncurableZero: I listened to Arkay, it's a really cool song!!  One thing that I notice, is that you're using a lot of the same progression, and it got a little stale for me. It was very refreshing when you started a different progression at 1:10, but once it went back to the original progression I was a little dissapointed. I think you should add a different section after the one at 1:10 so that you can give the listener something a little different. Or you could bring back the first section like you did but put an interesting lead melody on top of the chords. The part at 2:20 is cool, that type of thing is nice to hear, it adds some good dynamics in, do some more of that. 

By the end of the song you used that original progression a lot. I think you should try to develop ideas piece by piece to make it more interesting, or add some different sections. I think the chord parts are much more interesting when you have a nice lead melody over them. I just think that because I heard so much of that progression in the beginning of the song, I was bored of it by the time it got to the end. Its definitely some nice stuff, I can see a lot of potential in it. 

Atlantis is very interesting from the start! I like the way you're developing this one better than Arkay. I think there are some very interesting things going on in Atlantis, but again, you're using a lot of the same progression, so It starts to get a little bit stale. The part at 4:48 is a nice part, After that I don't mind hearing the original progression. I think that if you learn to change up your progression, or change to another key, you could get some really nice results. You just need to have more dynamics between two different parts so that it is more interesting. You shouldn't feel like you have to make your songs very long too, sometimes a nice short song that showcases your ideas is more interesting than a long repetitive one. I'm not a very experienced songwriter, so I'm sorry I can't give you too much more direction.


----------



## UncurableZero (Mar 31, 2014)

Thank you for the advice 
It's kind of hard to judge your own music with no other perspective to think through, that was very helpful.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 1, 2014)

I've been avoiding this thread because I don't really have anything to contribute, but I thought I might leave a little input.



TallestFiddle said:


> Heres a song I'm working on. (Finally back to recording)
> 
> I pretty much started with the clean chord progression in the beginning, I tried pretty hard to develop things well and not rush into the solo, but I'm not sure if I should add something else before it to ease into it a bit more. Also the ending is going to develop into something else based on that idea. I'm curious what you guys think, should that part be upbeat like the solo section, or maybe a bit calmer like the intro? I'm not sure which direction I want to take this song. Keep in mind I will have someone doing vocals for it too. I was also thinking that I should take down the volume of the solo, to fit vocals in there. Anyway, let me know what you think
> 
> [SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/march-27-work-in-progress[/SC]



This sounds really good. To me, I hear this as an introduction or A section. Lop off everything past 2:00 and start a heavier section in a minor key. You could turn this into something pretty extensive, provided you manage your materials well.



> I've noticed something about more complex progressive music recently is that they often have much longer chord progressions. I've noticed that in the middle of a progression they might revisit the root chord, or at least hint at it, but then they go on to some different more unexpected chords, or even just progress differently the second time, and then finally return to the root. Its like they're taking twice as long to arrive at the destination, but it makes the trip more interesting. Is this something that will just naturally happen as I get more comfortable with chords and where to take them? I'm trying to understand it a little bit better and use it in my own writing. Its hard for me to naturally come up with something like this, and I don't want to just do it for no reason without it feeling right.


I think that you could benefit from learning more about how chord progressions work, and from getting a bit of form under your belt.







This is a flow chart for the diatonic chord progression in the major mode. If you want minor, then it's the same thing, but with the minor mode equivalents of those numerals (I ii iii IV V vi vii° becomes i ii° &#9837;III iv V &#9837;VI vii°). Before you delve into this, you want to be aware of these basic progressions, called "cadences".

Conclusive cadences:
V I or vii° I = Authentic cadence
IV I = Plagal cadence

Inconclusive cadences:
V vi = Deceptive cadence
V = Half cadence

Cadences are found at the ends of phrases, and they can drastically influence how a section of music is perceived. Conclusive cadences, as the name would suggest, have a very final sound. This closes a phrase. Inconclusive cadences are like a comma in a sentence: they indicate that the musical idea is not quite over yet.

One tried and true way to use these different cadences to your advantage is through repetition. Let's say I have this progression: D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 D

In D, that's I I&#8710; V7/IV iv I V7 I. It ends with an authentic cadence, so let's find a way to counterbalance that with one of the inconclusive cadences. We want it pretty much the same right up until the end. The easy one to do is the deceptive cadence:

D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 Bm

I I&#8710; V7/IV iv I V7 vi

All I did was replace the last chord with vi. I'm using a borrowed chord a little earlier in the progression (iv instead of IV), so it is feasible that we can use a borrowed &#9837;VI without sounding too out:

D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 B&#9837;

I I&#8710; V7/IV iv I V7 &#9837;VI

Now we can pair the original version of the progression together with its altered version:

D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 B&#9837;
D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 D

And instantly, you have twice the amount of music with not much effort. Deceptive cadences are kind of rare in this usage, though. Half cadences are more typical, but you have to change the progression a little more. An example:

D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7sus4 A7 (I I&#8710; V7/IV iv I V7)
D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 D (I I&#8710; V7/IV iv I V7 I)

Note that what we're doing is creating a sort of V I macroprogression. You could also do this:

D D&#8710; D7 G Gm E7 A7 (I I&#8710; V7/IV IV iv V7/V V7)
D D&#8710; D7 Gm D A7 D (I I&#8710; V7/IV iv I V7 I)

The ending of the first phrase is changed more, but your ear will still pick up on the beginning being the same.



AugmentedFourth said:


> I thought it was good because you had some actual thematic presentation and slight development (at least in my eyes, so help me if Mr. Big Noodles comes in here to show me what thematic development _really_ is  ) so that when you got to the "solo" it didn't sound contrived or like you were soloing over a backing track or something. The ambient bit is a good theme, the chord progression itself, the bass line variations, and even when the snare hits really start picking up that provides a nice rhythmic motive. It definitely sounds "chill".



So help you indeed. 

That's not development. The music is multi-textured (which is what I think you're noticing), and that is an excellent thing to have, but development is the unfolding of a musical idea over time. Typically, there is a change of character while the same material is maintained (such as taking a theme from major to minor), or the material itself is used to expand upon itself. 

Alfred Schnittke - Piano Sonata No.3


I've written some annotations for this piece. The entire thing is built from the interval of the minor second. I don't mean secundal harmony (of which there is certainly much of here), I mean that the minor second has informed the composer's every decision on this piece. The first thing you hear is an ascending series of minor seconds, followed by a descent by minor seconds. Immediately after, that figure is transposed (already an expansion using the opening material). In measure 5, the minor seconds start going in the opposite direction, but then there is a major second, so the melody goes back around to fill in the missing pitch. This is development of the contour. Then the plain inverted form is heard before the retrograde version of the transformation from measures 5 and 6 comes in. We also get a chord that's built from the constituent intervals of the first two measures: minor seconds spanning a major third. It goes on in this fashion until the end of the first movement.

There is some stuff that I cannot yet explain because I've only started looking at this piece now. Some other pitch sets show up later on in the piece, namely 016 and 027. I don't think it's haphazard, but I'll have to take a closer look. 016 looks to me like the minor second (01) and double the range of the opening motive (06). 027 could be intervallic expansion, or 07 (prime form 05) could be from 016 (16; prime form 05). It might be neither.













> And another thing I've been thinking about lately is the structure of a collection of songs rather than one individual song. Like revisiting themes from other songs, or having different moods in different songs. Progressing a certain way from the first song to the last song in order to get a certain feeling by the end.


And to continue with the perfunctory analysis, listen to the other movements of the above sonata. You can look at it too, if you'd like.

Movement 2 - 5:15; Very different from movement 1. Built on the same minor seconds (later minor ninths and major sevenths) and on the repeated notes from measure 20 of movement 1, though. Minor second chords are in abundance. The perfect fourth (05) starts to come out more.

Movement 3 - 7:25; Movement 1 imagined anew. Elements of movement 2 creep in with the repeated notes in measure 17 and greater prominence of the perfect fourth.

Movement 4 - 11:59; Movement 2 imagined anew. All of the previous movements rolled into one, and made more explosive. An awesome recapitulation of the opening motive of movement 1 at measure 33 (12:55). The last chord is a tritone (06) filled with minor seconds.

Anyway, that's development.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 1, 2014)

Thank you very much!!   I'll definitely try adding in a minor section there. I was getting a little blocked, thinking that the song was getting too stale, so I think that will be refreshing. 

Very awesome explanation on chord progressions! I only ever thought about authentic cadences so all of that will be very helpful. I will be trying all of that out as soon as I get back home tonight. One thing I'm unsure about though:

So a cadence of (V I) is an authentic cadence, I understand that. Then with a half cadence, you end on V. But if you go right back to (I), Isn't that the same feeling as an authentic cadence? So at that point is it more about the rhythm and relation to other voices? I guess I'm a bit confused because I always thought that ending my progressions on V and then starting again with (I) meant I was using an authentic cadence. (Its hard writing roman numeral I in a sentence where I'm saying "I" a lot )

I'll also check out the piece you referenced about development. I'm unsure about what exactly "development" means, so I'm sure that will help a lot!

Again thank you for all the help! I can't manage to take any classes on theory right now, and studying on my own is difficult, so I truly appreciate it.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 1, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> Thank you very much!!   I'll definitely try adding in a minor section there. I was getting a little blocked, thinking that the song was getting too stale, so I think that will be refreshing.



If you think in contrasts, then this music thing gets a lot easier. If the A section is lyrical and major, make the B section rhythmic and minor. Or do it the other way around. Let the ear get settled in, then give it something new to chew on.



> Very awesome explanation on chord progressions! I only ever thought about authentic cadences so all of that will be very helpful. I will be trying all of that out as soon as I get back home tonight. One thing I'm unsure about though:
> 
> So a cadence of (V I) is an authentic cadence, I understand that. Then with a half cadence, you end on V. But if you go right back to (I), Isn't that the same feeling as an authentic cadence? So at that point is it more about the rhythm and relation to other voices? I guess I'm a bit confused because I always thought that ending my progressions on V and then starting again with (I) meant I was using an authentic cadence. (Its hard writing roman numeral I in a sentence where I'm saying "I" a lot )


This is why I say a cadence closes a "phrase".





The key is G major. Phrases are four measure each. Here is the chord progression, bar to bar:

G | G | Am | D | <- Pause here. That's a half cadence.
G | G | D | G | <- Pause here. That's an authentic cadence.

I I ii V
I I V I

We are partly concerned with the melodic content. Do you hear the musical "punctuation"? The half cadence is a "comma", the authentic cadence is a "period" (not to be confused with the musical term, "period", because these two phrases together make up what is called a "parallel period," which is what I'm trying to get at).



> I'll also check out the piece you referenced about development. I'm unsure about what exactly "development" means, so I'm sure that will help a lot!



Development is sadly lacking outside of classical music, and the concept is rather nebulous. I know it when I hear it, and I also know when I do not hear it, and I can do it and show you how to do it, but I can't really describe it. I can try, though. In development, there is a fixed, immutable, and permanent idea. In the Schnittke sonata, that permanent element is the first two measures. Simultaneously, that same idea is undergoing transformation, fragmentation, deconstruction and reconstruction. This is accomplished through a variety of means, possibly infinite means, but there are a few common ones.

The permanent element in the piece we looked at is the G G# A B&#9837; at the beginning.


That can be inverted: G F# F E.
It can be played in retrograde: B&#9837; A G# G.
The inversion can be played in retrograde: E F F# G.
The material can be reordered: G A G# B&#9837;.
It can be rotated: B&#9837; G G# A.
Any of those may be transposed to another pitch level.
The intervallic content of the motive may change.
The rhythm may be changed.
The rhythmic values may be increased (augmentation).
The rhythmic values may be decreased (diminution).

The transformations may then become another permanent element, and any of those may be similarly transformed. At the back of our mind, we have the first permanent element. That way, when it comes back at 12:55, our ear says, "Oh yeah, I remember that."

I'll get another example of development for you later using triadic language.



> Again thank you for all the help! I can't manage to take any classes on theory right now, and studying on my own is difficult, so I truly appreciate it.



You're welcome.


----------



## UncurableZero (Apr 3, 2014)

https://soundcloud.com/theuncurable/crimson-skies-arkay-ii-midi/s-XDxjX
Guitar pro tab - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmlX3pOQTVCRlF0Z3M/edit?usp=sharing
MP3 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmlbnVCV3R0TGNwQ28/edit?usp=sharing
I did some work on Arkay today. Added some stuff, removed others and changed it up a bit. I'm just starting to wonder if I should edit something else out for the sake of not boring the listener (and myself ) out. I'm open to criticism.
By the way, I am planing to add some vocals on top and not keeping it instrumental. So I am not sure in what sections should the vocals be.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 4, 2014)

UncurableZero said:


> https://soundcloud.com/theuncurable/crimson-skies-arkay-ii-midi/s-XDxjX
> Guitar pro tab - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmlX3pOQTVCRlF0Z3M/edit?usp=sharing
> MP3 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmlbnVCV3R0TGNwQ28/edit?usp=sharing
> I did some work on Arkay today. Added some stuff, removed others and changed it up a bit. I'm just starting to wonder if I should edit something else out for the sake of not boring the listener (and myself ) out. I'm open to criticism.
> By the way, I am planing to add some vocals on top and not keeping it instrumental. So I am not sure in what sections should the vocals be.




I like it!! One thing I notice is that there are a lot of different sections, which isn't all bad. It just makes it a little harder to feel an identity of the song. As far as vocals, I'd say just pick any part where there isn't any crazy instrumentation going on, and put them in there. The only parts you might want to leave them off is when you have a big guitar lead going on.

By the way, I like that break at 3:55 a lot, its really effective! one thing you could try to do is to have a bigger buildup to the louder section so that when you get there it feels really epic. Like bring in one instrument at a time in that bridge part, and then when you want to transition to the next section bring them all in and go really loud. Good work though, keep it up, its very interesting material


----------



## smackhead999 (Apr 5, 2014)

So, I want to ask about the development conversation a little bit.

One could say that modern music kind of misses the development portion of music. And I get that. So I played with some idea development and had a little phrase that I was playing with where I played it through and then spent a little time figuring out how else I could play the same notes/chords, in the same order but add variety to the phrases via timbre, speed, note length, inversions, etc...

That had a nice cohesiveness.

So I got thinking about becoming stagnated on that and not being able to "progress" without losing the development. Maybe its more about not limiting yourself to the developing idea, but to keep it included some way...


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 6, 2014)

UncurableZero said:


> https://soundcloud.com/theuncurable/crimson-skies-arkay-ii-midi/s-XDxjX
> Guitar pro tab - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmlX3pOQTVCRlF0Z3M/edit?usp=sharing
> MP3 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQMTLJYTWmlbnVCV3R0TGNwQ28/edit?usp=sharing
> I did some work on Arkay today. Added some stuff, removed others and changed it up a bit. I'm just starting to wonder if I should edit something else out for the sake of not boring the listener (and myself ) out. I'm open to criticism.
> By the way, I am planing to add some vocals on top and not keeping it instrumental. So I am not sure in what sections should the vocals be.



Pretty cool stuff. Looking forward to hearing this bad boy with some vocals. The first thing that I noticed though was that you kind of hang around the same harmonies for the whole song. It's cool that your main tonic is actually in lydian (Eb lydian), but most of the song is just

{Eb&#916; Gm F&#916; Bb&#916;}
-or-
{I iii II V}

The section that starts at measure 50 is at least sort of a break. It uses most of the same chords but there is some shift in emphasis to the iii chord and we are introduced to the Cm and Dm chords. But this is no excuse, because as I looked through your guitar parts I noticed after changing the key signature at the beginning to 2 flats (Eb lydian, in your version you didn't have a key signature), there are no accidentals at all. Which wasn't surprising; that's why the song gets so stale... you will probably find when you go to put vocals on it later that your lines will get stale because you are stuck around the same 4 chords and the same 7 notes.

M-m-m-modulate! 

You did a fair job mixing up some of the rhythms, not assaulting your listener with _too_ many eighth notes... Your occasional use of triplets was tasteful and the section at m. 103 is a nice change up in syncopation even though it really is still eighth notes. However -- if you modulate and allow your vocal melodies and harmonies to because fresh and harness new colors (coloration is nice too by the way, whilst still hanging about in one key) while mixing up some of your themes or rhythms or dynamics or instrumentation you can _really_ pull in your listener.



smackhead999 said:


> So, I want to ask about the development conversation a little bit.
> 
> One could say that modern music kind of misses the development portion of music. And I get that. So I played with some idea development and had a little phrase that I was playing with where I played it through and then spent a little time figuring out how else I could play the same notes/chords, in the same order but add variety to the phrases via timbre, speed, note length, inversions, etc...
> 
> ...



That's a very good point. I wouldn't worry about it so much and think of it as "losing the development". It's O.K. to have more than *one* theme throughout a piece. In fact, I would encourage it. If you are worried about transitions, think of it this way. If you just have 1 theme so far (your A theme), you can introduce the B theme while the A theme is still going in one form or another... and them maybe strip away the A theme and come back to it later, or whatever.

It's also perfectly fine if you just suddenly ditch everything you were doing for a new theme, provided you make a point of it so that it doesn't just sound glued together. Often when you have two different themes, they aren't derived directly from one another (by definition basically), but they may share characteristics. maybe they are in the same key... or they contain two chords in common... or they have similar rhythms, etc. That gives them "cohesion," so to speak.



Now, besides the fact that this song makes me cry every time I listen to it, it contains an example of what I'm talking about.

If you are listening at around 1:10, you'll notice the transition at 1:32. The transition chord is an A&#916;13. We get quite a few changes here, the tempo is up by 20 BPM and all of the instruments barring a single guitar are removed. The new theme is not only a different tempo but the whole thing is now very focused on straight 8th notes, as opposed to the previous "funkier" feel. But the keys used in both parts are very similar. The first 1:36 minutes is kind of just in F# minor, although there is some emphasis on A as well as a fair bit of chromaticism. That next part steals E&#916;, B&#916;, and A&#916; chords from the previous key.

And yet their A theme no doubt makes a sweet, sweet, mushy comeback at the end.  That transition was no mistake.

Also, another thing you can do is abstract your already-existent themes so far that they basically become their own themes. Basically, there's no rules as to what counts as an "idea" or a "theme". The concepts are fuzzy enough that you can "develop" your theme so much that to your listener it really just sounds like a new theme entirely... but somehow seems related to that first bit...

Usually people pick out examples of this in modern classical music. Maybe this snippet of what MBN wrote a few posts back will give you a slight taste of what I mean:



Mr. Big Noodles said:


> ...[t]here is some stuff that I cannot yet explain because I've only started looking at this piece now. Some other pitch sets show up later on in the piece, namely 016 and 027. I don't think it's haphazard, but I'll have to take a closer look. *016 looks to me like the minor second (01) and double the range of the opening motive (06). 027 could be intervallic expansion, or 07 (prime form 05) could be from 016 (16; prime form 05). It might be neither.*


Emphasis added.

Oh, and just for kicks, the outro for a song that I'm working on:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/chelation-outro-w-i-p[/SC]


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 7, 2014)

smackhead999 said:


> So, I want to ask about the development conversation a little bit.
> 
> One could say that modern music kind of misses the development portion of music.



This depends on where you are looking. Western popular and folk music has never been a huge repository for developmental procedure. Really, musical development is relegated to concert music, and you might not find it everywhere there either because it depends so much on the composer's skill. Some people are really good with development. Some people suck with development. Some people really have no idea that it exists. I'm sure there are even n00bs out there who endeavor not to develop, because humans like to shoot themselves in the foot for some reason. This is how it always has been and how it always will be. We all start at the "bashing two rocks together" phase in our musical journey, and too many of us never get beyond that. If you find a rock band that sticks with a single (changing) idea over the course of an entire album, let me know. I am always listening, and I still have nothing. From the annals of prog, I can point to a few isolated examples of rudimentary motivic development. I'm talking about the proggest ass motherproggers that ever walked this earth. Rudimentary. Isolated. Seeing as most popular music doesn't even modulate, there is not much hope that anyone else in the style is going to do any better. Also, modulate if you haven't already. If you have, modulate again.



> And I get that. So I played with some idea development and had a little phrase that I was playing with where I played it through and then spent a little time figuring out how else I could play the same notes/chords, in the same order but add variety to the phrases via timbre, speed, note length, inversions, etc...
> 
> That had a nice cohesiveness.



I'd like to hear what you came up with.



> So I got thinking about becoming stagnated on that and not being able to "progress" without losing the development. Maybe its more about not limiting yourself to the developing idea, but to keep it included some way...



One of my composition teachers liked to say "this is enough for the entire piece right here" whenever I brought in something for him to look at, usually referring to a single chord or three or four notes. He also was a fan of "It's got to be at least 10 minutes. Maybe 20." My internal response was, "Okay, sure. How do you do that, you doofus?"  The answer is that you have to learn to really take your time, and you really have to know how to run an idea through the wringer. Honestly, development is not something that happens _in_ the music, it has to be the music itself. Let's say you're writing a poem celebrating the life of your recently deceased grandfather, who was a war hero or something. And then the subject veers off into the three-day bender you had a month ago that resulted in you getting a tattoo of the Krispy Kreme logo on your forehead. Not good. That shit had better be about your dead nono and nothing else. It's the same thing in music: development is taking the idea that you started with and seeing it through to completion. No external subject intervenes: you wrote some notes and you want to make a statement, you had better write as much as you can on those notes. I mean, listen to this:

Gérard Grisey - Vortex Temporum (1/4)


(2/4)


(3/4)


(4/4)


Score here, if you want it.

Here is what the composer says of the piece:

Monday Evening Concerts - Notes to Vortex Temporum, Gerard Grisey



> The title _Vortex Temporum_ indicates the beginning of the system of rotation, repeated arpeggios and their metamorphosis in various transient passages. The problem here is to enter the depths of my recent research on the use of the same material at different times. The three basic forms are the original event - a sinusoidal wave - and two continuous events, an attack with or without resonance as well as a sound held with or without crescendo. There are three various spectra: harmonics, 'stretched disharmonics' and 'compressed disharmonics'; three different tempos: basic, more or less expanded, and more or less contracted. These are the archetypes that guide _Vortex Temporum_
> 
> In addition to the initial introductory vibration formula taken directly from Daphnis et Chloe, 'Vortex' suggested to me harmonic writings focused around the four tones of the diminished seventh chord, a rotational chord par excellence. Treating each of these tones as leading ones, we obtain the possibility of multiple modulations. Of course, we aren't dealing here with the tonal system but rather with considerations of what might still be relevant and innovative in this system. The chord about which I'm speaking is thus a common part of the three previously written spectra and determines other displacements.
> 
> ...




Did you read all of that? Did you listen to all of that? All of the material of the piece is in the first measure. It's an arpeggio. Furthermore, it's an arpeggio taken from another piece of music (Maurice Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloé_), so it was probably already developed. What more can he do? Probably run it through some equipment at IRCAM to analyze the spectra of the arpeggio, base various elements of the piece on his findings from those readouts, displace the material in relation to the spectral analysis, then use his concept of time and temporal perception to inform the organization and execution of the material. You know, the usual. It's not just an arpeggio, it's an arpeggio as multiple different oscillation curves through time and colored through some weird idea that he has about whales and insects. It's a statement. Is anybody on this board ever going to do spectral analysis with a program like SPEAR to inform the pitches of their latest Time Epic? Probably not, they still think they're too good for modulation. But you can at least use this example to get an idea of how four tiny notes can be expanded through the application of structure and, perhaps more importantly, a philosophy. Notes are one thing, but the thought behind the notes is more potent and gives them a direction to follow. That Schnittke sonata I posted has a lot of notes, and they're very good notes (very German, too), but the underlying philosophy is practically nonexistent compared to this Grisey piece.


Form and development are much much much much much easier if you have a path for them to follow. In 1783, you wouldn't need it because the form and the expectations for development were prescribed, but I think it is different these days. I don't modulate to the dominant just because (although any reason to modulate is a good reason until you get the hang of it).


----------



## smackhead999 (Apr 7, 2014)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Did you read all of that? Did you listen to all of that? All of the material of the piece is in the first measure. It's an arpeggio. Furthermore, it's an arpeggio taken from another piece of music (Maurice Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloé_), so it was probably already developed. What more can he do? Probably run it through some equipment at IRCAM to analyze the spectra of the arpeggio, base various elements of the piece on his findings from those readouts, displace the material in relation to the spectral analysis, then use his concept of time and temporal perception to inform the organization and execution of the material. You know, the usual. It's not just an arpeggio, it's an arpeggio as multiple different oscillation curves through time and colored through some weird idea that he has about whales and insects. It's a statement. Is anybody on this board ever going to do spectral analysis with a program like SPEAR to inform the pitches of their latest Time Epic? Probably not, they still think they're too good for modulation. But you can at least use this example to get an idea of how four tiny notes can be expanded through the application of structure and, perhaps more importantly, a philosophy. Notes are one thing, but the thought behind the notes is more potent and gives them a direction to follow. That Schnittke sonata I posted has a lot of notes, and they're very good notes (very German, too), but the underlying philosophy is practically nonexistent compared to this Grisey piece.
> 
> 
> Form and development are much much much much much easier if you have a path for them to follow. In 1783, you wouldn't need it because the form and the expectations for development were prescribed, but I think it is different these days. I don't modulate to the dominant just because (although any reason to modulate is a good reason until you get the hang of it).



Sometimes I have a hard time believing that we are speaking the same language.



Mr. Big Noodles said:


> I'd like to hear what you came up with.



I try to conjure it up again and record it.

As for everything else you posted.... when I am not at work.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 7, 2014)

smackhead999 said:


> Sometimes I have a hard time believing that we are speaking the same language.



I hope it's worthwhile, at least. Nobody talks about this kind of thing on guitar message boards, and if you're looking for something different to freshen your palette, well...



> I try to conjure it up again and record it.
> 
> As for everything else you posted.... when I am not at work.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 7, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Now, besides the fact that this song makes me cry every time I listen to it, it contains an example of what I'm talking about.



Love that song!! I didn't know their new stuff came out, instantly got it after hearing that. I like the breakdown of what you heard too, I'm going to try to think about themes now in my writing. It was definitely very powerful when they returned to the original theme there.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 8, 2014)

I apologize for this.







Disclaimer: This is the same way that I think, so mostly I made this to remind myself not to be close-minded and take multiple stances. Please don't hurt me.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 8, 2014)

Pfft. You left out utonality.

And the "ch" in "hierarchy" should have a ligature, while that should be a long "s" ("&#383;") in "musical".


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 8, 2014)

Also, the more I look at this chart, the more I realize its accuracy.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 9, 2014)

Heres the additions I've made to my song, I tried to modulate to the relative minor, and I like the way that sounds. I then tried to have a more rhythmic minor section like mr. big noodle suggested. The problem I'm having now is that I think I started to shift to major again. I had a minor chord progression and a lead voice with it, but then I introduce another melody. I think that once I introduce the other melody it starts implying major, but I'm not sure. I wanted to stay minor for a bit, but I liked the way things were sounding so I just kept going with it.

Also, I'm still fiddling around with the arrangement of the last section there, I'm not sure how many times I want to repeat things. I don't think I want to end the song after this, I think I want to move around a little bit and try to revisit themes from the earlier part of the song, and then go back to the theme that I have at the end here. I think it will be a really long song by the time I'm done doing that though, so I'm a little unsure.

Another thing I'm wondering, is the second section too different from the first? Maybe these should be 2 songs, I don't know

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/april-9-work-in-progress[/SC]


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 9, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> Heres the additions I've made to my song, I tried to modulate to the relative minor, and I like the way that sounds. I then tried to have a more rhythmic minor section like mr. big noodle suggested. The problem I'm having now is that I think I started to shift to major again. I had a minor chord progression and a lead voice with it, but then I introduce another melody. I think that once I introduce the other melody it starts implying major, but I'm not sure. I wanted to stay minor for a bit, but I liked the way things were sounding so I just kept going with it.



Sounds fine to me, just incomplete. If you want a clearer delineation, get some harmonic minor in there (V-i instead of v-i and so on).



> Another thing I'm wondering, is the second section too different from the first? Maybe these should be 2 songs, I don't know



You should roll with it. You are not accustomed to big contrasts (and this still really isn't a huge contrast), so you only stand to grow by pushing through.



> Also, I'm still fiddling around with the arrangement of the last section there, I'm not sure how many times I want to repeat things. I don't think I want to end the song after this, I think I want to move around a little bit and try to revisit themes from the earlier part of the song, and then go back to the theme that I have at the end here. I think it will be a really long song by the time I'm done doing that though, so I'm a little unsure.



Yes. It needs to develop. Now you have an A section and a B section (as well as some introductory and transitional material). Try to figure out a form for this thing. In the other thread, we were talking about the pop form, ABABCB (or ABABCAB, or even ABACAB, or ABABCBA...). You have the majority of it worked out already, so you might as well give one of those a go. I think you need to think about proportion, though: the introduction and A section seem too long to me, and the B section seems too short. I suggest you spend some time with the B section material, flesh it out (don't just repeat it verbatim; have it go somewhere), then find some way to transition back to a more concise statement of A. If you think that makes it too long, these forms omit the repeat and accomplish the same thing: ABCAB, ABCBA

Get a feel for the architecture. If you do end up making a C section, how is it going to relate to what came before? Maybe find elements from both the A section and the B section and combine them. Or find the common elements of A and B, then omit them from C, so there is a marked contrast. How about the key? You've already used the tonic major key and its relative minor, so you don't want to go back to those so soon. Tonic minor is a sensible destination. There are other key relationships, but anything new will do. Tonic to relative minor back to tonic is like getting up from my living room to grab a Rice Krispies® Treat from the kitchen, then plopping my ass down in front of my TV in the living room again. Take us outside for a walk so the cholesterol doesn't congeal in our arteries.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 9, 2014)

Thanks so much!!! I've been learning so much with the help from you guys, I'm very greatful  I definitely agree that the A section is too long now, I think I'll shorten the softer intro.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 10, 2014)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Sounds fine to me, just incomplete. If you want a clearer delineation, get some harmonic minor in there (V-i instead of v-i and so on).



I'm unsure what you mean by (V-i instead of v-i) is that just comparing chord function in harmonic minor to minor?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 10, 2014)

Yes. Here is A natural minor in seventh chords:

Am7 Bø7 C&#8710; Dm7 Em7 F&#8710; G7

Here is A harmonic minor in seventh chords:

Am&#8710; Bø7 C+&#8710; Dm7 E7 F&#8710; G#°7

But we mostly care about V7 and vii°7 from the harmonic minor, so this is the common chord palette for minor:

Am7 Bø7 C&#8710; Dm7 E7 F&#8710; G#°7

The modal v and &#9837;VII can still be used in minor progressions; the purpose of the V and vii° is to strengthen the identity of the tonic note, because natural minor has no such structure to prevent our ear from wandering back to the relative major key.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 13, 2014)

So, with our discussion of development in mind, I posted a mixtest for the new song I am working on under the "code name" Chelation.

There's a few cool things going on in there. Brief inversion of themes, retrograde, truncation, transposition. Some 4:5 polyrhythms and odd time sigs like 11/8 as well. Any critiques of the mix or the song greatly appreciated.

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/chelation-mixtest[/SC]

It's also worth mentioning that one of this song's prevailing ideas is _excruciatingly difficult to play_. At least, for me. 


```
e|----9-----------9------------9-----------9--------
b|------7-----------7------------7-----------7------
G|-------11----------11-----------11----------11----
D|----------9-----------9------------9-----------9--
A|--------------------------------------------------
e|--7-----------7-----------7-----------------------
B|---------------------------------------7----------
E|--------------------------------------------------

e|----9-----------9------------9-----------9--------
b|------8-----------8------------8-----------8------
G|-------11----------11-----------11----------11----
D|----------9-----------9------------9-----------9--
A|--------------------------------------------------
e|--------------------------------------------------
B|--8-----------8-----------8------------8----------
E|--------------------------------------------------

e|---10----------10-----------10----------10--------
b|------8-----------8------------8-----------8------
G|--------9-----------9------------9-----------9----
D|----------9-----------9------------9-----------9--
A|--------------------------------------------------
e|--------------------------------------------------
B|--------------------------------------------------
E|--8-----------8-----------8------------8----------

And so on with many different chords.....
```

All 16th notes (5/4 time), at 132 BPM. I didn't really realize it until I had to actually play it in time for the recording, but my ability to fingerpick forcefully is largely nonexistant while playing this... so in a lot of parts the notes from the guitar sound rather lacking in definition.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 14, 2014)

I feel you AugmentedFourth, I hate when you make the tempo too fast and you can't play what you wrote, its frustrating. I'll listen to the song and tell you what I think later when I'm home. 



So I've been trying to add a C section to my song. I took your advice MrBigNoodles and tried changing to the tonic minor. I'm just having a bit of trouble getting a good sounding transition. So my B section is F# minor and the main progression is i III V iv VI (which is kinda strange I guess, I just now read the minor chord progression for the first time and I guess I didn't follow it. Idk the progression sounded ok to me.) But after that I'm trying to transition to A minor. 

(I do this a lot, and I know its wrong) but once I have a chord progression I'll just copy paste repeat it for 4 measures or whatever, and then try to transition to the next section. But I'm thinking that in this case I'm going to need to have a different progression for the last measure so that I can modulate to A minor. I tried just tacking on a E7 on the end of my F# minor progression to modulate to A, but it seems a little strange. I'm guessing that I'll have to think more about how to get to that E7 instead of just haphazardly throwing it in there.

Now that I've read the minor chord progression I'll try modifying my progression to modulate from F# minor to A minor: i III iv V i V/III III 

(I don't know what this sounds like, but I think it makes sense from a theory standpoint)

Am I on the right track here?


----------



## smackhead999 (Apr 14, 2014)

Im interested in the responses of the smart ones as well. I was messing with modulation and tried running the V7 of the new tonic and it was difficult to incorporate it to what I already had. The transition from current tonic to new tonic via the V7 became so elaborate to pull it off that it kind of ruined what I started with, if that makes any sense.

I had originally thought that it was the relationship of the V7 to the current tonic that was making it weird, so I changed my destination tonic a few times with similar results.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 14, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> So I've been trying to add a C section to my song. I took your advice MrBigNoodles and tried changing to the tonic minor. I'm just having a bit of trouble getting a good sounding transition. So my B section is F# minor and the main progression is i III V iv VI (which is kinda strange I guess, I just now read the minor chord progression for the first time and I guess I didn't follow it. Idk the progression sounded ok to me.) But after that I'm trying to transition to A minor.



I like to teach that harmony is not a static thing. There are innumerable songs that utilize repeating chord progressions and never think anything of them. That gives the false impression that this is how harmony works: chords go on in the background and it's your job to come up with something "over" them. Not true. Harmony exerts its influence quite readily into the foreground, the background, the interground (is that a thing?), and everywhere else, and you might need to build up to a modulation to make the harmony agree. There is a point at which we "pivot" into the new key, but whether that happens immediately or gradually depends on an individual basis. You might be able to use a common chord to pivot between keys (between A and F#, there are plenty of them), you might prefer to jump straight in with the dominant of the new key, or you might need a more protracted modulation. Something that dances around the dominant more than the tonic, you know? Build up the anticipation.



> (I do this a lot, and I know its wrong) but once I have a chord progression I'll just copy paste repeat it for 4 measures or whatever, and then try to transition to the next section. But I'm thinking that in this case I'm going to need to have a different progression for the last measure so that I can modulate to A minor. I tried just tacking on a E7 on the end of my F# minor progression to modulate to A, but it seems a little strange. I'm guessing that I'll have to think more about how to get to that E7 instead of just haphazardly throwing it in there.



Yes. Another thought: E#°7 (E# G# B D) is vii°7 in F#. G#°7 (G# B D F) is vii°7 in A. It's the same chord, spelled differently. Both are leading tone functions. You can pull off an enharmonic modulation quite easily using that chord. At any rate, you'll need to strengthen the dominant of the new key in order for the new tonic to make sense.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 14, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> So, with our discussion of development in mind, I posted a mixtest for the new song I am working on under the "code name" Chelation.
> 
> There's a few cool things going on in there. Brief inversion of themes, retrograde, truncation, transposition. Some 4:5 polyrhythms and odd time sigs like 11/8 as well. Any critiques of the mix or the song greatly appreciated.



Wow, awesome song!!  The part at 1:36 was so good. The way it transitioned just hit really hard, I loved it. One thing I think you could do to make it even better would be to lower the volume of the section right before it so that you get a bigger dynamic between them. Also for the lead melody that comes in at 0:32, I think that you should try to differentiate the tone a bit from the chords' tone. On my first listen it just didn't stick out as much as I wanted. Maybe just focus their EQ in different zones, so for the chords maybe focus them around the mids, and the lead focus it around the treble

Another thing, I really liked the last section, so I think you could continue with that for a bit longer, it ended a bit abruptly in my opinion. Maybe try repeating it a few more times and change up the drums. Maybe break down the drums to more of a 4/4 feel with the snare so you can really feel the 4/5 polyrhythm of the synth. Maybe even put a nice lead melody over it all too. I just like that section a lot I think you should put some emphasis on it.

And from a mixing standpoint I think that your bass drum has a bit too much boom in the low end, and I think the cymbals get a bit lost in the end section. I think you could raise the cymbals volume a bit in general. Maybe just lower the synth volume at the end by a tad, or try low passing the synth a little bit so you dont cover up all the high end of the cymbals. I love how prominent the synth is in the end though so definitely keep that feel.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 14, 2014)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Yes. Another thought: E#°7 (E# G# B D) is vii°7 in F#. G#°7 (G# B D F) is vii°7 in A. It's the same chord, spelled differently. Both are leading tone functions. You can pull off an enharmonic modulation quite easily using that chord. At any rate, you'll need to strengthen the dominant of the new key in order for the new tonic to make sense.




So If I try to create more anticipation for the dominant of the new key rather than the tonic of the current key, that will make the modulation seem more fitting? I'll try that now, thanks


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 15, 2014)

Alright, another analysis. Something that uses the old tonal relationships (and can actually be found in the public domain).

Franz Joseph Haydn - Sonata No.11 in B&#9837;, Hob. XVI:2


Score here.

I'm going to do an analysis of this sonata with special attention to gestures. The gestures will each be rendered in yellow text. I am not pointing out every single instance of each gesture, or it would take you forever to read this. I should suffice for me to point out that there is a triplet at the beginning of a phrase, then you can listen to the track or look at the score and see that there are triplets all over the page. Rest assured that this sonata is very economical, with little fluff (and what fluff there is, is completely inconsequential). I hope to eventually analyze all three movements for y'all, because they are interrelated, but I think it might be best for now to give it to you one movement at a time.

*Movement 1* - Sonata form. That means an exposition consisting of two theme groups in contrasting keys, a harmonically unstable development involving the themes from those themes, and then a recapitulation in which everything is in the tonic key.

*Exposition! Theme group 1!* 0:00, key is B&#9837; (tonic).



 Starts with a Mannheim rocket, which is a fancy historical term for an ascending arpeggio. Be thankful that the world we live in is much more exciting than it was in the 1760's. This gesture is multidimensional, because it also contains repeated notes. Keep both of those in mind: arpeggio and repeated notes.
 On the last beat of the second measure, there are sixteenth note triplets acting as a pickup. The triplet pickup is another gesture. It is important that these triplets are a pickup. At first they are stepwise, then the pickup to measure 5 is a neighbor tone, but the pickup to measure 6 melds the arpeggio and the triplet pickup together.
 On the second beat of measure 6, we get another gesture: a trill.
 Measure 11 converts the triplet pickup into a duplet pickup. In measure 12, that duplet pickup is placed on the beat. Also notice the repeated notes in the accompaniment. The skeleton of the phrase (measure 11-15) is an ascending scale: A&#9837; B&#9837; C D E&#9837; F B&#9837; (dominant-to-tonic leap at the end).
 The next phrase, at measure 16, begins with the same duplet pickup on A&#9837;, and the skeleton of this phrase is the same ascending scale, but a little bigger: A&#9837; B&#9837; C D E&#9837; F G B&#9837;. Notice that the pickup notes that previously ornamented that scale have been replaced with iterations of repeated notes.
 Measure 23 begins has a triplet pickup, then repeated notes on the downbeat. In the accompaniment, there are more repeated notes.

*Theme group 2!* 0:45, key is F (dominant).



 Measure 31. The theme is the inversion of the phrase at measure 16. The skeleton of the phrase is a descending scale (the inversion of the earlier ascending scale), ornamented with repeated notes. Repeated notes also occupy the accompaniment.
 The pickup to 39 brings back the triplet pickup. The triplet pickup with neighbor tone is manifested again.
 The trill comes back in 40.
 45 is an ascending arpeggio, ornamented with chromatic apoggiature.
 47 contains a trill.
 48 expands the repeated notes into an octave figure. The accompaniment is above the melody. The melody is a descending scale terminated by a neighbor group, which gives way to a descending arpeggio (inversion of the ascending arpeggio) in measure 50 and 52.
 54 sees the reintroduction of the neighbor tone as triplet pickups. A trill follows.
 From the second beat of 56 to the downbeat of 58, the melody outlines a neighbor tone: F-G-F. Repeated notes are in the accompaniment.
 The same neighbor tone (F-G-F) is reiterated from the second beat of 58 to the downbeat of 60, this time with triplet neighbor tone pickups. More repeated notes in the accompaniment.
 Triplet pickups land on F, the tonic of the current key and the dominant of the tonic key. The second theme group is finished and the exposition repeats.
_*Development section!*_ 3:00


The development section in sonata form is a tonally unstable area. In this section, fragments of the two theme groups presented in the exposition are isolated and explored through techniques of transformation, repetition, deconstruction, and transposition. Being a comparatively early example of the form, this development section is not going to be extensive. In the hands of Beethoven, we see greater interest in the development section, and it becomes more and more convoluted with Brahms and Mahler. Bartók is perhaps the last great contributor to sonata form, employing functional motivic and gestural elements in a way that supersedes tonality as the principle structural force in the form. But I digress. Let us resume the discussion of Haydn.




 Measure 62, theme group 1 is presented in the dominant key (F), complete with the Mannheim rocket, repeated notes, triplet pickup (some of which are neighbor tones, some of which are arpeggios), and trills.
 Here is where we start getting actual development. Starting with the pickup to 66, we get a model that ends on the downbeat of 68, cadencing on F. A sequence is then made by transposing that same exact material to the key of B&#9837; in 69. A third entry is begun in E&#9837; (measure 71), but then goes in a different direction than the model. This is normal behavior for a sequence: the third one differs. However...
 That deviation becomes a model for another set of sequences. 71 is the model in E&#9837;, as previously stated. 73 is the sequence in F. 75 is the third entry, in G. Sequences rarely go more than thrice, and indeed, thrice is as far as this one goes.

Notice that the modulations have been occurring at a rapid rate: every two measures, we're in a new key. Haydn accomplishes this by these modulating sequences. The formula is thus: take a tiny fragment of the theme, tweak it to your liking, then transpose it around a lot. The first time he sequenced, the transposition followed a circle of fifths (F B&#9837; E&#9837, and the second time was stepwise (E&#9837; F G).


 In 77, we hear development of the second theme group. Remember that this theme was in F major during the exposition. Development here, too, is handled as a model and sequences. It starts with a iv V7 progression in D minor, then (79) IV V7 in C major, then (81) IV V7 in B&#9837;, and we get a fourth sequence (83) that rides a B&#9837; tonic before breaking the melody and eliding with yet another model.
 84 makes a model using the triplet pickup arpeggio and trill from the first theme group. It goes from E&#9837; (84) to F (85) to G (86). Notice the contraction of the harmonic rhythm: now it is one measure per modulation.
 In 87, we get a short phrase in G minor made of the triplet neighbor tone pickup. That figure is repeated.
 91 utilizes the octave repeated notes from theme group 2, first in C minor and then (93) B&#9837; major.
 95 is pretty much verbatim for what's going on in 16. The purpose of this figure is to end up on an F triad in 101. Why might that be, you ask?
*Recapitulation! Theme group 1!* 3:58


You sneaky dominant-tonic relationship, you! Here we are, back where we started. You can check: measure 102 starts the exactly the same way as measure 1. There are two notable differences, though: the material of measures 11-21 has been omitted, and whereas there had to be some tonal trickery in the exposition to modulate to the dominant key, we must negate that in the recapitulation, because we want the second theme group to be in the tonic key. Take a look at 114. Its correspondent in the exposition is measure 27, which outlines a D&#9837;7 chord (an augmented sixth chord that leads to C, the V of F, the dominant key). 114 outlines a G&#9837;7 chord (an augmented sixth chord that leads to F, the V of B&#9837;, the tonic key). Remember that thing I said about strengthening the dominant? This is where it is important.



*Theme group 2!* 4:22


Oh boy, here we go! This sucker is the exact same as it was in the exposition, but transposed into B&#9837; major. Check it, son. By transposing the second theme group into the tonic key, the "tonal conflict" that was presented in the exposition is resolved. At least that's how these guys thought of it.


========================


Hopefully through this analysis, you can now see that the themes are made up of smaller units that are actually shared between both themes. The themes are not exactly "melodies" as much as they are a collection of cells. Of course, those cells make up a melody, but you don't want to be thinking of some huge twenty-measure phrase when you are trying to develop. Break everything down into its constituent units, and then you will have the necessary tools for development. All of the modulation in the development section is performed though modulating sequences, and modulating sequences are much easier to do with materials that can be broken down and pieced back together into three-, two-, or one-measure phrases. You don't want twenty measures in the key of G, then twenty measures in the key of A, then another twenty measures in the key of B&#9837;. That is counterproductive to musical drama. It's all about modulating like hell and blasting musical atoms at each other in the Large Hadron Collider. I bring up "gestures" rather than "motives" or "themes" because the word does not have as much baggage as the other two. A 'theme' can be a piece of music unto itself (thank you, Hollywood). If, however, you see that this piece makes consistent use of the triplet pickup and the repeated notes *in both the first and second theme group* (and they are theme groups, not just themes, because they each contain multiple melodic ideas), then you can get a better handle on the architecture of this piece. Every part of this first movement is built of the same musical DNA. If I get around to the second and third movement, you will see that the same gestures manifest themselves all over the place there as well. This sonata has but a handful of gestures that make up a great variety of melodic and textural ideas. The use of such limited materials in no way limits the composer.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 15, 2014)

Wow, thanks! I'm excited to read through this later, I just can't listen to the song until later. 

One thing though: I'm unsure about a lot of the terms you used (pickup, neighbor tone, repeated notes.) I tried looking up what pickup was but I couldn't find any good information. If you could define the yellow terms in the way you understand them that would be very helpful. 


"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Mr. Big Noodles again."


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 15, 2014)

pickup = anacrusis

By the way, an anacrusis measure does not have the full rhythmic value of a normal measure does not count in measure numbering. So the first measure of this piece starts with the second note you hear.

Here is a chart that has a bunch of non-chord tones on it:






A lesson on non-harmonic tones: http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/53

However, you'll notice that in my analysis, that some things are slightly different. For example, I use "neighbor tone" when it is a non-chord tone (measure 5), but I use the same terminology when both of the tones are chord tones as well (measure 56), and frankly don't look anything like that. That merits some explanation. Let me start by saying this: these melodic patterns were codified before chords existed, so we cannot always consider them non-chord tones, because at one point there were no chords. Instead, take them to be terms of melodic tendencies. If you see F G A, the G is a passing tone between F and F. If you see F G F, the G is a neighboring tone to F. If you see F A G, the A is an appoggiatura to G. If you see F E G, the E is an escape tone. So on and so forth. Also, "appoggiatura" is sometimes used to mean a miscellaneous non-chord tone that approaches its resolving tone from nowhere and resolves by step. That is the sense in which I use "appoggiatura" in 45. And appoggiature (I don't know if I am pluralizing that correctly) do not always resolve in the opposite direction of a leap. Nor are they always accented, as musictheory.net will have you believe.







As analysts, we need to be able to abstract. I've done just that with this excerpt (measure 56). You might not see the neighbor tone readily, but it is there. The staff on top shows the highest note in each measure. F G F, looks like a neighbor tone. Then down an octave: F G F, looks like another neighbor tone. That is the skeleton of this melody. We have to brush everything else aside and recognize for the purposes of analysis that all of the other notes are there to ornament that neighbor tone melody.

As for repeated notes, I don't know man. If you see F F F F F F F, what do you have? They're notes, and they're repeating. The soprano line at the beginning of this movement is B&#9837; B&#9837; D D F F. Repetition, iteration.


----------



## QuantumCybin (Apr 23, 2014)

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/rush-ribarovic/work-in-progress[/SC]

Hey guys, figured I'd end up learning something by posting a clip of a song I'm trying to write at the moment. Now, I'm admittedly not the best with theory. At all. My ear does all the work when I play guitar. I honestly feel like it's easier to compose with a theoretical basis when I play piano, but I digress.

The song is on a 6 string guitar in drop C. I could post a guitar pro version if anyone would want to see the actual sheet music/tab for it so you could help me understand this better!

I'm at a crossroads about where it should go at the end of the clip. I'm thinking a tempo change, but I seriously struggle with developing a "natural" flow that sounds musical and connected; I think a lot of it is self-doubt lol. Maybe let that last chord ring out before a drum fill brings the song to a slower tempo, with the guitar doing typical power chord chugs with more ambient stuff happening with clean guitars/synths. 

At any rate, feel free to have a listen and help me out. In the 6 years I've been playing guitar I've really only been spending this last year on composition and songwriting. It's hard but I'm enjoying it a lot more than learning covers 

Thanks people.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 23, 2014)

QuantumCybin said:


> Hey guys, figured I'd end up learning something by posting a clip of a song I'm trying to write at the moment. Now, I'm admittedly not the best with theory. At all. My ear does all the work when I play guitar. I honestly feel like it's easier to compose with a theoretical basis when I play piano, but I digress.
> 
> The song is on a 6 string guitar in drop C. I could post a guitar pro version if anyone would want to see the actual sheet music/tab for it so you could help me understand this better!
> 
> ...



Cool main riff. I think that at this point a transition might sound a bit inappropriate because the listener hasn't heard much more than that one riff and a bit of bridging power chords. There's no prevailing melodic content or anything like that. What I personally would do is continue exposing this initial part by repeating it, but add maybe like a clean reverb'd guitar lead on top or something like that.

If you do end up throwing a melody up there, I would recommend that you keep it (mostly) fairly stepwise and conservative in terms of interval leaps. I think it might sound cool in contrast with the arpeggios that are in your main riff. Also I think that with rock/metal-sounding guitar riffs like yours people expect melodies (and 'solos') that are flashy and maybe have a few arpeggios of their own. But if you can fit a lot of single steps (esp. half steps, non-diatonic tones that sound fitting are great) and a few solid long notes, I think you just might be golden. Or just don't, because I have no idea what your idea for this song is.


----------



## JustMac (Apr 23, 2014)

I would implement some lead melody using the 9th (D) as a pivot, this will give the listener the feel if a main theme to begin with. You can return to this later or realign the harmony while still retaining some parts of the melody. 

Just build that thing up man, you've got the foundations of a very solid tune!


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 24, 2014)

@QuantumCybin

There are always a lot of options of where to go with a song. Its hard to tell you what to do next. That's really up to your vision for the song, and your taste in music. I think that there are a lot of things you can do within this tempo before you think about switching it. The song starts out pretty slow and ambient, so I would try to have a more aggressive upbeat drum-driven section. Try to pick up the tempo of the snare, try doubling the speed of it and writing a faster section.

I definitely agree with AugmentedFourth, you should have a more prominent lead melody to accompany that riff. A prominent melody always helps me think of a better way to transition to the next section. I have a lot of trouble contemplating transitions with my ear without a lead melody.

Cool stuff though, just keep trying things, you'll get something you like.


----------



## QuantumCybin (Apr 24, 2014)

Awesome advice guys--it's beyond helpful to have someone else's insight. I'm going to see what I can come up with and experimenting with how the snare can give the sense that the tempo is faster even when it isn't.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 26, 2014)

So I think I've finished the composition for the song I've been working on. I'm a little unsure about it. I tried to do the song structure like (Intro A B C A B) but when I added the last B it didn't seem right, so I think it should end after the second A. Also I'm not sure if my C section is significant enough or if it just feels like a short transition. I'm a little afraid that its too long also, I'm having trouble judging it myself.

Let me know what you think  [SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/april-26-work-in-progress2[/SC]


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 26, 2014)

I think there is enough variety, and the proportions are decent, but I dislike the ending. Seems too abrupt. Are you going for a fadeout? Fadeouts are my mortal nemesis.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 26, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> So I think I've finished the composition for the song I've been working on. I'm a little unsure about it. I tried to do the song structure like (Intro A B C A B) but when I added the last B it didn't seem right, so I think it should end after the second A. Also I'm not sure if my C section is significant enough or if it just feels like a short transition. I'm a little afraid that its too long also, I'm having trouble judging it myself.
> 
> Let me know what you think



Hey, I think this is pretty kick-ass. 

I don't think the song is too long -- you keep the ideas fairly fresh with different riffs/melodies. I really liked from 4:19 onwards. I think that it would sound good if you ended on your B section. Just go to that and then make the last notes the melody from part B. (You know, the one that you initially right and then left panned.)

I appreciated how you mixed up your A riff when you came back to it with different 'noodly' parts.

Overall, pretty solid.   And I think that the C section is definitely substantial enough to warrant its own bit.

On a related note, I also just finished recording a song. Similar in length, you can find it right here:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/life-mixtest[/SC]


----------



## 80H (Apr 26, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Hey, I think this is pretty kick-ass.
> 
> I don't think the song is too long -- you keep the ideas fairly fresh with different riffs/melodies. I really liked from 4:19 onwards. I think that it would sound good if you ended on your B section. Just go to that and then make the last notes the melody from part B. (You know, the one that you initially right and then left panned.)
> 
> ...




its like mario brothers in space


----------



## JustMac (Apr 26, 2014)

Both of you guys, stellar job, I love them both. AugmentedFourth, were you using a nylon in that mid section? What model, it sounded beautiful! 
80H do you have any recordings of you doing your thang. With your guides etc, I'd love to hear your stuff


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 26, 2014)

JustMac said:


> AugmentedFourth, were you using a nylon in that mid section? What model, it sounded beautiful!



Heh... well, unfortunately I am not in possession of an 8-string nylon (or a nylon guitar at all), so that part is actually programmed. 

It's a sample bank out of the Kontakt Factory Library.

I may go back and just play that part on my Omen 8. Depends if it ends up sounding any good. Thanks for the responses guys.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 26, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Hey, I think this is pretty kick-ass.
> 
> I don't think the song is too long -- you keep the ideas fairly fresh with different riffs/melodies. I really liked from 4:19 onwards. I think that it would sound good if you ended on your B section. Just go to that and then make the last notes the melody from part B. (You know, the one that you initially right and then left panned.)
> 
> ...



Wow that was really good, the ending was really surprising but it was awesome!! 

I really like the part starting at 2:14 and I think its awesome how you use the theme from the first section in that different context.

I think the transition at 3:35 is a little weird though, you might be able to mix it differently so that it doesn't sound strange.

Love the song, its very exciting stuff!! 


And thanks for the feedback guys, I do agree that it ends abruptly that way. Glad to have some outside opinions on this!


----------



## 80H (Apr 27, 2014)

JustMac said:


> Both of you guys, stellar job, I love them both. AugmentedFourth, were you using a nylon in that mid section? What model, it sounded beautiful!
> 80H do you have any recordings of you doing your thang. With your guides etc, I'd love to hear your stuff



Yes, soon!


----------



## QuantumCybin (Apr 27, 2014)

AugmentedFourth....your synth sounds in your song you posted are awesome! So warm and massive sounding  Really dug the whole track.

Here's something completely different and honestly a little cheesy. I had to write a short piece for my theory class for two instruments that modulates into a different key. So I programmed this piano and violin clip and wrote something that starts in B minor, goes to F major, then finishes back in B minor. At least if I'm correct with the theory, that's how it should have gone...

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/rush-ribarovic/theory-project-2[/SC]

P.S. I am nowhere near close to being able to play this up to speed for real


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 28, 2014)

QuantumCybin said:


> AugmentedFourth....your synth sounds in your song you posted are awesome! So warm and massive sounding  Really dug the whole track.
> 
> Here's something completely different and honestly a little cheesy. I had to write a short piece for my theory class for two instruments that modulates into a different key. So I programmed this piano and violin clip and wrote something that starts in B minor, goes to F major, then finishes back in B minor. At least if I'm correct with the theory, that's how it should have gone...
> 
> ...



I think its pretty cool, its hard for me to judge. I'm not too confident giving you advice about the theory of it 



I added the last B section on to my song, and I think its done now. Just check out from 4:50 to the end, I'm feeling a little better about the way it flows now, but let me know if it doesn't feel right. I need to do some retracking, so I might write some different harmonies for the last section, I think it might be a little stale the way it is.
[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareiaswip/april-28workinprogress[/SC]


----------



## QuantumCybin (Apr 29, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> I think its pretty cool, its hard for me to judge. I'm not too confident giving you advice about the theory of it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really dug that man! Cool build up from the beginning and use of recurring riffs with slight variations


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 30, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> I think its pretty cool, its hard for me to judge. I'm not too confident giving you advice about the theory of it
> 
> 
> 
> I added the last B section on to my song, and I think its done now. Just check out from 4:50 to the end, I'm feeling a little better about the way it flows now, but let me know if it doesn't feel right. I need to do some retracking, so I might write some different harmonies for the last section, I think it might be a little stale the way it is.



Sounds good man. It flows pretty darn well as far as I can tell, and the ending is a lot better now. Much more like I would have imagined it. I do agree that reharmonizing might do you good on the last bit, just keeping the melody and such constant while trying to find trickier ways to accompany it. 



QuantumCybin said:


> Here's something completely different and honestly a little cheesy. I had to write a short piece for my theory class for two instruments that modulates into a different key. So I programmed this piano and violin clip and wrote something that starts in B minor, goes to F major, then finishes back in B minor. At least if I'm correct with the theory, that's how it should have gone...
> 
> P.S. I am nowhere near close to being able to play this up to speed for real



Seems legit to me.


```
| Bm | Em | Bm | F#m | Bm | .....
  i    iv   i     v    i   <---Key of B minor
.....

| Bm | C7 |
  i   bII7*
       V7 <--- Key of F
| F  | % |
  I    I
| C  | F  | Gb7 | % |
  V    I   bII7* bII7*
            V7    V7 <---Key of B (minor)
| Bm ||
  i

*Or as I prefer, V7[SIZE="1"]trisub[/SIZE].
```

It's a pretty simple modulation trick but can be handy in a pinch because it allows you to just harmonically modulate a tritone away in basically a single chord swap. Plus since it hinges on a dominant chord you can have various different modes as your starting and ending points. E.g. from B minor to F major, or B major to F minor, or B major to F major, etc. 

EDIT: Forgot to mention I was going to talk about ways to 'soften the blow'.

In your recording the jump from i -> V7(trisub) is a bit jarring. This may not always be the case for that particular movement (it probably depends somewhat on the context, the way it's executed, the way the chords are presented, etc.) but many times you will see progressions leading up to that tritone sub. The vast majority of the time, in jazz at least, it is part of a 2-5-1, so the chromatic root motion (2 -> b2 -> 1) makes it appealing. Or you could find a more creative way to come at it. Maybe since you are in a minor key you can use that to your advantage and go from the bVI chord since it's a movement down by P5. Or maybe go from the iv chord. I dunno.


----------



## JohnIce (May 2, 2014)

QuantumCybin said:


> AugmentedFourth....your synth sounds in your song you posted are awesome! So warm and massive sounding  Really dug the whole track.
> 
> Here's something completely different and honestly a little cheesy. I had to write a short piece for my theory class for two instruments that modulates into a different key. So I programmed this piano and violin clip and wrote something that starts in B minor, goes to F major, then finishes back in B minor. At least if I'm correct with the theory, that's how it should have gone...
> 
> ...



Cool stuff! I love it when you switch keys and manage to find your way back, something I've always wanted to do on command but I struggle so much with it every time.

Here's one of mine, which was also an assignment in school. However it was quite the opposite of yours, the assignment was to write a full song using only two chords  It seems to have worked well, I've played it for a bunch of people now and no-one seems to have noticed yet 

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/mark-zero/all-that-i-loved-was-the-enemy[/SC]


----------



## TallestFiddle (May 3, 2014)

JohnIce said:


> Cool stuff! I love it when you switch keys and manage to find your way back, something I've always wanted to do on command but I struggle so much with it every time.
> 
> Here's one of mine, which was also an assignment in school. However it was quite the opposite of yours, the assignment was to write a full song using only two chords  It seems to have worked well, I've played it for a bunch of people now and no-one seems to have noticed yet
> 
> [SC]https://soundcloud.com/mark-zero/all-that-i-loved-was-the-enemy[/SC]



Awesome song!! I don't know what to say about it, its just great 

Next time I'm writing, If 2 chords feels right, I'll just go with it.


----------



## JohnIce (May 4, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> Awesome song!! I don't know what to say about it, its just great
> 
> Next time I'm writing, If 2 chords feels right, I'll just go with it.



Thanks a lot, mate!  Yeah do it, it makes you spend some extra attention on the other ingredients of the song. We were a handful of bands who did this exact same exercise and we all ended up with good and very different songs 

Kinda like writing on an acoustic guitar or piano can shift your focus away from the arrangement and put all the attention to the melody and lyrics instead.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (May 10, 2014)

@JohnIce: I thought the song was pretty good, considering that you were restricted to two chords used in a 'conventional pop' sort of sense. The beginning reminded me a bit of this Six Gallery song.

Here's the first part of a song that I've had around for a while but have never been able to get a good mix out of:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/proton-decay-mixtest[/SC]

It's actually fairly straightforward 'metal,' I guess. Straight 4/4 and all of that junk, which is a part of the album's progression. I'm curious what you guys think of it, and also as always I appreciate criticism of the mix as well. It's a bit rough.


----------



## TallestFiddle (May 12, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> @JohnIce: I thought the song was pretty good, considering that you were restricted to two chords used in a 'conventional pop' sort of sense. The beginning reminded me a bit of this Six Gallery song.
> 
> Here's the first part of a song that I've had around for a while but have never been able to get a good mix out of:
> 
> ...



I think when the heavier part comes in, that chord sounds a little gross. If that's the effect you're going for then it worked nicely  Its a really unsettling sound. I think that the transition is a little rough though. I think that clean chord strumming is too loud and too prominent. Maybe try putting some reverb on it and bring down the volume a bit. I think that the lower string part should be a little bit more prominent compared to that higher chord strumming.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (May 28, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> I think when the heavier part comes in, that chord sounds a little gross. If that's the effect you're going for then it worked nicely  Its a really unsettling sound.



O.K. so I listened to it through crummy earbuds and I understand now what you mean. The chords do sound... disgusting (in a bad way). Either that's what you were referring to or you were referring to the gross voicing I came up with:


```
E|--3--|
B|--4--|
G|--3--|
D|--6--|
```

[E in bass]





TallestFiddle said:


> I think that the transition is a little rough though.



Do you mean in terms of the mix, or does it sound jarring to you harmonically?



TallestFiddle said:


> I think that clean chord strumming is too loud and too prominent. Maybe try putting some reverb on it and bring down the volume a bit. I think that the lower string part should be a little bit more prominent compared to that higher chord strumming.



O.K. I tried.

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/proton-decay-mixtest[/sc]

Also here's another one I'm working on

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/turing-morphogenesis-wip[/SC]

Anyways sorry I'll try to spam you guys less.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Jun 1, 2014)

I like the new version of proton decay a lot better! The transition sounds much better now, not so abrupt and out of place. Its still unsettling to me, but now it feels like that's how its supposed to be.

I like the second one a lot too, very nice


----------



## QuantumCybin (Jun 13, 2014)

So I finally finished this song I have been working on for a while. I'm always pretty critical of my own stuff but this time I just pushed those thoughts away and finished the whole thing. Take a listen for me if you'd like! 

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/rush-ribarovic/aries-full-track-free-download[/SC]


----------



## TallestFiddle (Jun 14, 2014)

QuantumCybin said:


> So I finally finished this song I have been working on for a while. I'm always pretty critical of my own stuff but this time I just pushed those thoughts away and finished the whole thing. Take a listen for me if you'd like!
> 
> [SC]https://soundcloud.com/rush-ribarovic/aries-full-track-free-download[/SC]



It's really cool! I'm glad you pushed yourself to finish it. I loved the ending, I thought that was a great way to finish the song.

I think the middle section was a little too long because there wasn't too much variation going on. But overall, great job!




I just wrote a song because I wanted to write something short and simple. It's meant to have vocals as well. It's just midi right now, but I'm liking the structure of it. Let me know what you think about the proportions, that's one thing I was tweaking a lot.

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareiaswip/midi-june-13-2014[/SC]


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jun 17, 2014)

QuantumCybin said:


> So I finally finished this song I have been working on for a while. I'm always pretty critical of my own stuff but this time I just pushed those thoughts away and finished the whole thing. Take a listen for me if you'd like!
> 
> [SC]https://soundcloud.com/rush-ribarovic/aries-full-track-free-download[/SC]



Cool beans man. I liked all of the transitions, you used metric modulation very well. The bit in the middle I actually enjoyed quite a bit. Sure, you could have exercised a bit more freedom and not stuck to the same pedal tone, but you seemed to make it work both proportionately and with some interruptions of the chugging. More importantly, it had an Irepress vibe, which I was stoked about. 



TallestFiddle said:


> I just wrote a song because I wanted to write something short and simple. It's meant to have vocals as well. It's just midi right now, but I'm liking the structure of it. Let me know what you think about the proportions, that's one thing I was tweaking a lot.
> 
> [sc]https://soundcloud.com/nickareiaswip/midi-june-13-2014[/sc]



I like it. Much like you said, short and simple. But not stale by any means. I liked the drum work. One thing I would say is that you might be able to get away with more interesting ways of presenting your chords. Mostly it's kind of single strums of the whole chord interspersed with palm muted bass tones.

Here's a bit of a song I recently started working on:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-obsolescence-swooper-rough-sketch[/SC]

I haven't had access to recording equipment so this is all I have so far, but whatever.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Jun 19, 2014)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Here's a bit of a song I recently started working on:
> 
> [SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-obsolescence-swooper-rough-sketch[/SC]
> 
> I haven't had access to recording equipment so this is all I have so far, but whatever.



I thought it was really cool! I loved the part in the middle, the rhythm was really interesting. I almost feel like the beginning part is out of place. I feel like the middle part should be the start. I like the transition between the two parts though, it definitely works nicely.


----------



## inaudio (Jun 24, 2014)

Man, am I glad to see that this thread has kept on going! One thing that stuck out to me while I was catching up was how different all the guys who post here sound - I think that the variety of things going on in this thread is pretty damn kewl. 

It's been a while since I last wrote anything so I'm taking baby steps. I decided to try and work from the ground up this time without caring too much about the final product - so far I've been enjoying the process. I could feel the haunting presence of Augmented Fourth in the room while I was working on this which lead to what may very well be the clumsiest example of a harmonic modulation in the entire universe. 

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/biison/51a[/SC]

I tried to be a bit more adventurous with my low end than usual. Also, the "C-part" in it is absolutely cringe-worthy. Any comments/thoughts/advice you guys have to send my way are muchomuchomucho welcome as always.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Jun 24, 2014)

Still working on me folk metal shite. Check sig for example, it's all in guitar pro MIDI export as I don't have any access to recording materials other than an old ipod touch and audacity, but should be getting a pod hd soon. Hope you guys enjoy it


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jun 24, 2014)

Biison said:


> Man, am I glad to see that this thread has kept on going! One thing that stuck out to me while I was catching up was how different all the guys who post here sound - I think that the variety of things going on in this thread is pretty damn kewl.
> 
> It's been a while since I last wrote anything so I'm taking baby steps. I decided to try and work from the ground up this time without caring too much about the final product - so far I've been enjoying the process. I could feel the haunting presence of Augmented Fourth in the room while I was working on this which lead to what may very well be the clumsiest example of a harmonic modulation in the entire universe.
> 
> ...



I like that you were more adventurous with the bass part. It definitely breathes life into the tune. If by the "C-part" you mean the quieter section
starting at 1:45, then I thought it wasn't bad. The changeup in the melody was nice, although I thought you could have used it to introduce a different harmonic progression. From what I hear that part is basically a truncated version of the progression in the rest of the song, i.e. V - vi - IV instead of I - V - vi - IV.

I like that you stretched out that bar an extra 2? beats there to make the real transition in the modulation/key change. However I would probably do a sort of subtle lead-in dealio with the drums before they come in full blast because as it is it sounds kind of rhythmically jarring. Since the only place where the overall time signature is violated is also where you made it the most sparse (only one voice holding out a single note), I kind of get what you are doing with the rhythm but at the same time it sounds a bit out of place as like a fermata.

Adding a little drum fill or like two hi-hat hits could fix that.

Also, from 2:21 - 2:32 I felt like the bass was missing and it should have been there. After that leaving out the bass seems tasteful, but aesthetically I think that with the sound you have going, leaving out bass where there is drums makes it feel empty. Vice versa it is probably just fine.

Overall my main critique would be that the harmonies kind of bored me. They were fairly uniform in a few senses. One, it was basically the same progression throughout, albeit in a different key at the end. Two, the rhythms were very static. All of the chords always had the same number of beats, or rhythmic real estate I guess. Three, the chords were basically played the same way throughout. There's nothing inherently wrong with just playing the chords "straight up", as I call it, in sort of blocks where all the notes are played and all at the same time. But after a while it can get stale, especially when the instrument playing them is really prominent, or is one of only two prominent instruments in the mix.

There are always other ways to play chords, whether it's just playing the roots, playing arpeggios, or simply implying the progression on a melodic level.

Then again, as I've probably said before, take my advice selectively. Not everything that I (or someone else) might suggest is something that you should necessarily always implement. Ultimately it just depends on the sound you're going for. 

Also, like I said, I don't have any access to my recording equipment right now but here's some of the progress that I've made so far working on Riff Obsolescence. I agree with what you said, TallestFiddle, I myself was struggling (and still am struggling) with trying to order the ideas in the song. Ultimately I kind of ended up putting that part at the beginning like I did because usually my songs start out stripped down and/or quiet and then get layered and/or loud, which is a pretty typical "shape" for songs to take. So I wanted something that comes out with the core idea blaring right out of the gate. Still though I might rewrite it a bit but here's what I have so far:

riff-obsolescence.zip


----------



## TallestFiddle (Jun 27, 2014)

Really cool jam Biison, I had no reason to cringe, I liked the whole thing. Its really relaxing and I think it flows nicely. I agree with what Augmented Fourth said about the rythm going into the transition to the harmonic modulation.

Augmented Fourth: I totally see what you're saying, that makes sense. And after looking at the GP file I noticed that the piano melody that comes in is the same as the guitar from the beginning. I think its cool that its the same time signature. I think the opening section would seem better if you chose a different leading melody for the guitar there. I love the melody when it comes in on the piano, but something about it on the guitar doesn't seem right. It might sound good with just the rhythm guitar, bass and drums in the beginning.

Like i said before though, I love the song from measure 13 onward. Its really cool, I have no idea how you come up with these time signatures 

jarvn: cool song! I think the beginning is a little too slow. The pauses between the chords seem to long to me. Cool stuff, keep at it! I'd like to hear it recorded too once you get your POD


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jun 28, 2014)

jarvncaredoc said:


> Still working on me folk metal shite. Check sig for example, it's all in guitar pro MIDI export as I don't have any access to recording materials other than an old ipod touch and audacity, but should be getting a pod hd soon. Hope you guys enjoy it



Yeah, I'd love to hear what this sounds like when given a proper recording. I actually disagree with TallestFiddle  I think that the drawn-out chords at the beginning sound good, besides that the MIDI instrument seems incapable of playing notes that long. It kind of adds the doomy metal vibe to the "folk" bit that is the steel string guitar.

However, I would say that around the 2:25 mark, that first chord kind of stretches out too long. Between the fact that there is one instrument, a static and straight-8ths rhythm, and just a 3 note repeated arpeggio, there's not much to listen for. It might even be OK, except that it's new material, a new section. So I would just cut it in half or do whatever.

Other than that I can't really critique it rhythmically, the rhythms in the rhythm guitars and melody sounded very appropriate for the vibe you were going for. 



TallestFiddle said:


> I think the opening section would seem better if you chose a different leading melody for the guitar there. I love the melody when it comes in on the piano, but something about it on the guitar doesn't seem right. It might sound good with just the rhythm guitar, bass and drums in the beginning.



I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. At least, partially. I kind of had the form set in mind that I wanted that melody to be the recurring/proliferating "A" section, and so it would only (to me) make sense contextually to start out with it. But the dirty lead isn't working for me. I'm going to try replacing it with a clean guitar that is reversed and see how that works. (I.e., play the riff backwards into the recording and then reverse the *.wav file.)

I tried what you said, just removing the melody and leaving the rhythm section, but as I expected, it sounds weak. The rhythm part really only is there to emphasize the melody and give it a shifting rhythmic motive to contrast the straight-ahead 16th notes (really 8th notes but I wrote it sloppy). So without the melody, it's like this base for a tower without the tower there. Not so special anymore.

If the clean reversed guitar lead doesn't work I'll probably just settle for a softer intro.



TallestFiddle said:


> I have no idea how you come up with these time signatures



Well to start with, the way I wrote it is a little misleading. I mean, in one way the 23/16, 25/16, and 26/16 are all there, but if I wrote it properly it would be at 154 bpm, making those 23/8, 25/8, and 26/8. Then they would be broken up something like

*6/8*, *5/8*, 6/8, 6/8 (23/8)
*6/8*, *5/8*, 6/8, 8/8 (25/8)
*6/8*, *5/8*, 8/8, 7/8 (26/8)

Bold denotes the common chords that play errytime

But actually the "8/8, 7/8" at the end is its own thing, it repeats as a bar of 15/8.

*6/8*, *5/8*, 6/8, 6/8 (23/8)
*6/8*, *5/8*, 6/8, 8/8 (25/8)
*6/8*, *5/8*
8/8, 7/8 (15/8)
8/8, 7/8 (15/8).....

So really it's just me deciding to finish my melodic ideas without requiring that they strictly fit 4/4 or 6/8 or what have you. Rather, the notes are grouped into clumps that make up a harmonic cluster and those series of groups make the overall rhythm (e.g., 6+5+6+6).

And that transition to the clean guitar part at the very end:


```
|: 5/4, 5/4, 9/8, 9/8 :|
   5/4, 5/4, 9/8, 9/8...
  |__20/8__| |_18/8_|

   5/4, 5/4, 9/8, 9/8, 1/4.....
  |__20/8__| |____20/8____| Now they match, in a weird polyrhythm sort of way.
  
  ...Next section
```


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jul 5, 2014)

Sorry for the double post here, but I've been working a bit more on Riff Obsolescence *cough* (Galaxy Formation) *cough* since the forums have been down...

I added a little D section that is kind of a transition/bridge section, and I brought back the C theme (and wove in the A theme with it). Then I realized that I was a long way from home (home being D major) and pulled out a subdominant tritone sub chord (lots of subbing all at once) to pop my head back into D major in a spectacularly jazz-fusion-y manner. The purpose was two-fold: D major meant I could play the A riff one last time to close the loop (the A riff, not A' or A'' or A''', etc.) and also leads well into the next song. The next song starts out in B minor, so it works out as the relative minor of D major.

riff-obsolescence-mkiii.gp5

Thematic Form:

A A B C C' A' A' A'' B' D (C'' + A''') E A

After all that nonsense I felt it was only right to close with the main theme in its native key.

I'm still not completely 110% on the ending. I'm not sure how cheesy it is...
It goes something like:


```
| Cm7 | A&#9837;maj7(&#9839;11) || [SIZE="1"]<---from the section before the "outro"[/SIZE]
| B&#9837;6 | E&#9837;9         |
| D   [b]||[/b]

E&#9837;: vi - IV - V     - I7
D:            V/&#9837;II - &#9837;II7 - I
```

The thing is, since I wanted to make that E&#9837; a subdominant instead of the I chord, I made it an actual dom7 chord. But usually I try to disguise my cadential chords (ones that lead to the I) to avoid that dominant sound. Interestingly enough, even though I listen to a lot of jazz, in which dominant chords are everywhere and are sometimes used quite liberally, I try to avoid the sound in my music. The aesthetic that I use seems to avoid diminished fifths, which is strange. Generally I am just fine with augmented fourths, but for some reason I can't seem to stomach things like dom7's and half diminished, etc. that have diminished fifths in them. It's like some layer is peeled away as soon as you decide to use them... everything is less spacey.

It's not necessarily that I avoid classical "dissonances" or even "jazzy idioms", but I am more prone to use chromatic notes and runs where it makes sense due to the harmonic background, more likely to use things like chromatic mediants to express dissonance rather than things like half diminished chords. I think the reason for that has something to do with how horizontal the music is. Chromatic mediants are classically/traditionally dissonant by nature, but usually when I use them I will utilize, say, two major 7 chords in mediant relation. So the chords themselves are perfectly consonant, (except if you count the minor second/major seventh thing, which is really just justified by the stacking of thirds) but if you look at the music like you are staring down the pipe (of time, so to speak) rather than at any given circle-shaped slice of the pipe, it looks messy because the notes of the two chords clash.

Some thing with chromatic melodies. I could take a run in a melody such as

A B&#9837; B C

This wouldn't be weird in jazz; it could simply be a lead-up to a note, or maybe the B natural just fills the gap because the melody is in C Dorian, etc.

But I would be very unlikely to use this run, especially if the notes were short, since it would likely create some sort of clash with the other instruments. Squashing the notes together would make them too "vertical", too much like they are part of the same harmonic entity.

A B B&#9837;

Also swooper-dooper common in jazz. Just some lower-upper neighbor action.

I also use this a lot because it's likely that I would be utilizing some pitch set that has A and B in it, and then changing it, maybe in the next bar, by diminishing the B, possibly among other things.

Anyways, sorry. I think at this point I'm just using this thread to vent. 

Looking forward to hearing some more of your guys' tunes.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Jul 8, 2014)

It's ok augmented fourth, sometimes you just need to tell someone else what you're thinking in order for it to stick with you, I appreciate being able to read your thought process. I'm on vacation restricted to mobile so I can't open your gp5 file until I get home. I'll check it out as soon as I get back 

I've written a few songs in the past two months, and I've been trying to write more concise songs. I'm having a problem where the structure of them is always very similar. (I'll post three songs to showcase this when I get back home.) I think I need to do something to break out of this habit but I don't know what. I usually write songs starting from a riff I like while I'm playing my guitar, then I try to develop that into different parts. Sometimes this works out, but lately I've been left without enough material to finish the song and no good ideas where to go with it. 

I feel like I have the wrong mindset when I'm writing songs, if anyone has some advice for me I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll post examples soon.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Aug 22, 2014)

TallestFiddle said:


> It's ok augmented fourth, sometimes you just need to tell someone else what you're thinking in order for it to stick with you, I appreciate being able to read your thought process. I'm on vacation restricted to mobile so I can't open your gp5 file until I get home. I'll check it out as soon as I get back
> 
> I've written a few songs in the past two months, and I've been trying to write more concise songs. I'm having a problem where the structure of them is always very similar. (I'll post three songs to showcase this when I get back home.) I think I need to do something to break out of this habit but I don't know what. I usually write songs starting from a riff I like while I'm playing my guitar, then I try to develop that into different parts. Sometimes this works out, but lately I've been left without enough material to finish the song and no good ideas where to go with it.
> 
> I feel like I have the wrong mindset when I'm writing songs, if anyone has some advice for me I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll post examples soon.



I get what you're saying about trying to continue a song from an idea and being unable to produce material to continue said idea. There are obviously many ways of going about it, given a common situation such as coming up with an 'A' section and then layering it enough that you want to move on to something else.

Generally it's a good idea to separate your sections not only by their actual "thematic" content, but by key/pitch collection. Just imagine a miniaturized Mr. Big Noodles perched atop your shoulder advising you to modulate to keep the harmonic playing field interesting. This is a tip that pretty much works for any situation but obviously isn't necessary or anything like that.

One thing you can do is enter a very classical section of development of your theme. Play the theme in different keys, different instruments, augment or diminish the note values, chop up/truncate the theme, mix & match, etc., etc. This can be a great idea depending on what you're going for, obviously.

Or maybe you can enter a 'B' section..... however that works. With 'B' sections you have to somehow make it relevant and cogent with the 'A' theme, while still having to pull it out of your ass since it's dissimilar enough from 'A' to get its own letter. To produce a 'B' section there are _generally_ four things that I do:

*Modify 'A' sufficiently enough that it's basically its whole own thing.
*Come up with a 'B' section that is very loosely theoretically associated with the 'A,' by some tenuous similarity.
*Think of what I've already written, or listen to it, and "intuitively" imagine something that makes sense to go next, a.k.a. the something-from-nothing method. But not really nothing.
*Harmonize the 'A' section with something that fits harmonically/vertically and then strip away the 'A' section and make the harmonizing thing its own theme, a.k.a. the tablecloth method. (Yes I made up this name too)

But obviously there are many ways to skin a cat, and in this case there are potentially infinite ways...

What's funny is that Proton Decay is a song that I actually wrote without any planning ahead of any kind. 

It actually came out of me messing around with a parody of a doom metal song... just to see if I could record a convincing doom metal song, except that I don't actually have experience with doom metal so it was pretty much bad. But I really liked the riff... so I wrote an intro. 

And I also came up with some new material for it:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/proton-decay[/SC]

I basically used method #1 to generate the rest of what I've recorded.

Also I posted this, which uses a more characteristically electronic-music method of simply adding layers to a single sample:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-beta[/SC]


----------



## octatoan (Dec 20, 2014)

AugmentedFourth: what is that rapid percussive trilling (?) in Another Year at around 3:15?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Dec 21, 2014)

Awesoham said:


> AugmentedFourth: what is that rapid percussive trilling (?) in Another Year at around 3:15?



Sounds like Navene's work. Most likely a synth sound from Massive or a direct sample from what Tosin is playing that is EQ'd and repeated to sound robotic. But it's not playing any notes not already played by the guitar. It's just to embellish. It sounds similar to a lot of parts in other songs off of that album and Weightless as well, e.g. the end of Nephele.


----------



## inaudio (Jan 1, 2015)

Wrote and recorded a short "intro"-track of sorts during today to welcome and kick off the new year. As always I'd love to hear what you guys think. 

https://soundcloud.com/biison/awakening

Happy New Year, fellas. Let's keep the thread alive. Snootch to the nootch!


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jan 1, 2015)

Biison said:


> Wrote and recorded a short "intro"-track of sorts during today to welcome and kick off the new year. As always I'd love to hear what you guys think.



Really liking this one. There's a lot of melodic independence, which is sexy. I also like the sort of trading-fours thing you have going on at the beginning between the strings and wind instruments.

The vibe/aesthetic also fits together beautifully. I can imagine this song being used in an exploration video game and fitting quite nicely. I'm curious, what did you intend for this song? Is that it in its complete form, as a short piece, or are you planning to extend it. If so, do you have a large-scale form in mind? Is any of the material related to any of your other pieces?

EDIT: Added a new section to CMB:

EDIT the sequel: SoundCloud is being a turd and will accept neither an mp3 nor a flac version of CMB: The SQL Sequel. So here it is.


----------



## inaudio (Jan 2, 2015)

AugmentedFourth said:


> EDIT: Added a new section to CMB:



I feel like I should start by stating that I like this track. My description of it might otherwise give the impression that I don't, haha. It sounds almost like an eerily happy, bad acid trip. (Not that I'd have experience of acid trips of any kind. ) I must admit that your style of writing is not my usual cup of tea. The thing about it is that it challenges my ears which is exactly the same thing that happened the first time I started listening to progressive music or was introduced to harsh vocals. 

I think that it would be interesting to hear you implement a more straightforward melodic "hook" in one of your tracks. I think that not only would the contrast be interesting but it might also give more simpleminded listeners such as myself something to come back to the track initially. A good example of this from my personal history would be the theme in 'Peaches En Regalia' from Frank Zappa. (Kicks in around 1:40.) 

http://youtu.be/RGQxI0G6mKk

Another example that comes to my mind is the subtle crowd chant melody at the end of 'Glass Crush' from TSF. (Kicks in around 2:40.) Something very subtle like this might work very nicely. 

http://youtu.be/6NhyobLD5iQ

In my experience hooks get me to come back to a track. The more I listen to the track, the more I will appreciate and notice the rest of the track. Of course the hook has to serve the music and to some people the entire notion of purposefully trying to get people hooked seems dishonest and manipulative. Lots of drug-related "innuendos" in this one, sorry about that.  



AugmentedFourth said:


> The vibe/aesthetic also fits together beautifully. I can imagine this song being used in an exploration video game and fitting quite nicely. I'm curious, what did you intend for this song? Is that it in its complete form, as a short piece, or are you planning to extend it. If so, do you have a large-scale form in mind? Is any of the material related to any of your other pieces?



I wrote and recorded the track in its entirety yesterday as a sort of challenge to kick off the year. Because of that I want to leave it as a short piece. I'd really like to thank you for this post. I read it last night and my initial reaction to all of your questions was: "I have no clue." It prompted me to actually think about what I'm doing with my music. I haven't had any direction or a bigger picture which pretty much sums up the last 6 months for me. The material is not related to any of my other pieces. If I'm completely honest all of the stuff that I wrote last year felt uninspired with the exception of a few moments. For that reason I want to ditch everything I've posted on here last year. 

You've mentioned video games quite a few times. I have no idea how it would even be possible to get to write music for video games. It's an interesting thought but with my current nonexistent skill set I'd say that it's just that - an intriguing thought. A completely unrelated note: I think that track was subconsciously inspired by your "Cosmic Microwave Background" and the Star Wars soundtracks, haha. 

I think that an exciting challenge would be to write an "EP" and use the track as an intro for it. That way I could revisit the themes and expand on the track in that way. It's actually something that has intrigued me ever since I found "Through the Deep, Dark Valley" by The Oh Hellos. I'll post some links of it at the end of this post just because I love that album to pieces. 

Lastly I'd just like to state how much I appreciate this thread. Writing an EP when you have 4 followers on SoundCloud seems silly. Writing an EP just for yourself (and possibly your mother) seems just as silly. But somehow having this thread makes the idea work. I really believe that it's not fulfilling to try and ego-egocentrically garner an "audience" for your music. It's about building and being part of a community. Having followed Periphery&Friends since 2009 really exemplifies that point to me at least. Wow. Really poured my heart out on this post. Such heartfelt. I'll stop now. 

---

And here's an example of one of the themes from The Oh Hellos. One theme is first introduced in this track around 2:18. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd9vh89To4M

And it is revisited in this track around 3:31. So pretty. 

http://youtu.be/nLnaaZPVhgc?t=3m24s


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jan 2, 2015)

Biison said:


> I feel like I should start by stating that I like this track. My description of it might otherwise give the impression that I don't, haha. It sounds almost like an eerily happy, bad acid trip. (Not that I'd have experience of acid trips of any kind. ) I must admit that your style of writing is not my usual cup of tea. The thing about it is that it challenges my ears which is exactly the same thing that happened the first time I started listening to progressive music or was introduced to harsh vocals.



Thanks. I'm curious as to what it is you are hearing that is challenging (and I wouldn't expect someone to intuit something like that off the top of their head, obviously). My best guess is the harmonies in general. Do you listen to jazz, or any classical music from around the same time of mainstream jazz/slightly before? Obviously none of the stuff that I write is jazz, but I think that my sense of harmony was/is deeply influenced by jazz and especially the early 20th century classical stuff, e.x. Debussy, Scriabin, Ravel, etc. My instructor more than once commented that my music sounded to him like "70's jazz fusion" because of the harmonies. Usually when I cite this period I bring up pieces like:




(You may recognize the 2nd movement here)



Biison said:


> I think that it would be interesting to hear you implement a more straightforward melodic "hook" in one of your tracks. I think that not only would the contrast be interesting but it might also give more simpleminded listeners such as myself something to come back to the track initially. A good example of this from my personal history would be the theme in 'Peaches En Regalia' from Frank Zappa. (Kicks in around 1:40.)
> 
> http://youtu.be/RGQxI0G6mKk
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think you're right. I try to make my melodies singable but so far the only recurrence of a full melody that I've had in this piece is of that 8th note vibraphone ditty, which isn't really a hook...

The Zappa example is a really good one. I think I'm going to have to steal that example, I always forget about that song. 



Biison said:


> I wrote and recorded the track in its entirety yesterday as a sort of challenge to kick off the year. Because of that I want to leave it as a short piece. I'd really like to thank you for this post. I read it last night and my initial reaction to all of your questions was: "I have no clue." It prompted me to actually think about what I'm doing with my music. I haven't had any direction or a bigger picture which pretty much sums up the last 6 months for me. The material is not related to any of my other pieces. If I'm completely honest all of the stuff that I wrote last year felt uninspired with the exception of a few moments. For that reason I want to ditch everything I've posted on here last year.



I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. there are plenty of amazing albums out there that don't noticeably trace back themes. My album doesn't trace any distinct themes through it--that can be attributed to the sort of haphazard way I kind of threw it together.  For me it's more the subtle things like having two songs in a row that exhibit a vi - IV - I progression during a loud/climax part but in very different sounding themes.

I try not to ditch my songs entirely... always keep them there, and you can peel off little sweet bits as you continue to write other stuff.



Biison said:


> You've mentioned video games quite a few times. I have no idea how it would even be possible to get to write music for video games. It's an interesting thought but with my current nonexistent skill set I'd say that it's just that - an intriguing thought. A completely unrelated note: I think that track was subconsciously inspired by your "Cosmic Microwave Background" and the Star Wars soundtracks, haha.



Yes... I suspect in part those remarks come from the timbral palette you use. How do you record? They seem to be mostly if not all software instruments, so where are they from? A big part of that is that you seem to be really good at using space in your music. Space not necessarily denoting silence, but sort of fluctuations of density in the arrangement and the notes played that make the songs ebb and flow a little more than my songs do, which sometimes come out like I'm trying to cram everything out at once. 

Like, in a video game you want somewhat shorter melodic themes so that you can both actively listen but also hear it in the background and still enjoy it. And the lack of constant busyness and maximalism helps. 

I have just as much idea as you do as to how to start writing music for video games... but being inspired by video game music is never a bad thing.



Biison said:


> I think that an exciting challenge would be to write an "EP" and use the track as an intro for it. That way I could revisit the themes and expand on the track in that way. It's actually something that has intrigued me ever since I found "Through the Deep, Dark Valley" by The Oh Hellos. I'll post some links of it at the end of this post just because I love that album to pieces.
> 
> Lastly I'd just like to state how much I appreciate this thread. Writing an EP when you have 4 followers on SoundButt seems silly. Writing an EP just for yourself (and possibly your mother) seems just as silly. But somehow having this thread makes the idea work. I really believe that it's not fulfilling to try and ego-egocentrically garner an "audience" for your music. It's about building and being part of a community. Having followed Periphery&Friends since 2009 really exemplifies that point to me at least. Wow. Really poured my heart out on this post. Such heartfelt. I'll stop now.



There's nothing wrong with writing an album. I mean, in the days of the internet, anyone (like me) can throw together some songs and call it an album. What matters then is how much love and special sauce you put into your creation, so to speak.

I mean, if you ever do finish something that you feel is complete as an album/EP, throw it up on bandcamp or whatnot. I mean look at Cloudkicker. That's basically all he did (and still does). Just all of his albums, on bandcamp, pay-what-you-want. It's a legit thing to do, and gives that sense of finality that a couple of spare recordings doesn't. And who knows, some people just might like it enough to throw some money your way. 



Biison said:


> And here's an example of one of the themes from The Oh Hellos. One theme is first introduced in this track around 2:18.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd9vh89To4M
> 
> ...



I'm really liking that first hook, but I think I'm missing something. I don't see the recurrence in theme. The melodies you point out seem to be relatively distinct. Or maybe I'm not listening hard enough.


----------



## inaudio (Jan 2, 2015)

Challenging was the wrong word to describe what I meant but it definitely is the harmony. I think that a more fitting way to describe it would be that it tickles my brain. I've never really listened to jazz or classical music, not that I'm opposed to it. I've just never really had a "reason" to. I really enjoyed both pieces that you linked (all 31 minutes and 29 seconds of it, haha.) It's refreshing to hear music that doesn't conform to the schema of music that I have. 

It's just funny to me that you mention video games since the only ones that I've ever played are The Elder Scrolls series. Jeremy Soule and his soundtracks have been rocking my world since the fifth grade. 



To me your tracks don't sound like you're trying to cram out everything all at once. If I had to somehow describe it I'd say that your tracks feel like a freight train, not second-guessing or doubting their direction. As for The Oh Hello's tracks, I might just be imagining things as my sense of pitch and rhythm are really quite horrid. 

And now we get to the dreaded gear-section. All the tracks from last year were done by using the NI Maschine which is a controller/DAW aimed at making using VSTs more tactile. So yes, all the stuff from 2014 was purely software instruments. 

"Awakening" is the first track I've done with my new rig. I'm hard to please since I want lots of options but not a lot of tweakability. That's why my new rig is built around a Yamaha Motif rack synthesizer. 





What I do these days is essentially MIDI-reamping. I send MIDI from the DAW to the synth and then record the audio. This way I get to keep the MIDI performance but the recording itself is an audio file which allows me to move on and not get lost in tweaking. This also makes it possible to use the Strymons, which is really cool. 





And when it comes to writing I find that nothing works better than an acoustic and a looper for me. The ideas do tend to change quite a bit once I start playing around with instrumentation but the acoustic gets the ball rolling. If you like the sounds in anything that I do and have MIDI-data of parts I could easily "reamp" it through the rack and send back the audio file!

You mentioned that you have an instructor. Do you study music/composition at university/college?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jan 2, 2015)

Biison said:


> Challenging was the wrong word to describe what I meant but it definitely is the harmony. I think that a more fitting way to describe it would be that it tickles my brain. I've never really listened to jazz or classical music, not that I'm opposed to it. I've just never really had a "reason" to. I really enjoyed both pieces that you linked (all 31 minutes and 29 seconds of it, haha.) It's refreshing to hear music that doesn't conform to the schema of music that I have.



If you ever need any similar recommendations, just ask! 



Biison said:


> You mentioned that you have an instructor. Do you study music/composition at university/college?



No, I'm still goin' through high school. I was just referring to a private instructor.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Jan 13, 2015)

Damn a4 you're still in high school? I'm impressed that you're even able to record music let alone make such good stuff. I listened to your album today and I love it!! I listened up to life and then I ran out of time, but it's really cool so far. I like life a lot, I think that's my favorite so far, it's just the most dynamic and it has a lot of personality.

Biison, I really love that new song awakening. Don't be so down on yourself, you just gotta keep making more and more music, some of it is gonna be lousy and some of it is gonna be good but you get better after each time. Just based on what's going on in that new song I can tell you're improving a lot. I want to hear more like that.

I was feeling kinda depressed the other day because I worked really hard on a song and posted it and everything but I didn't get as much of a response as I would like. After a bit I realized that it's not a big deal. I've just got to keep working and improving because any of the musicians that I look up to have done the same.

I just finished writing a song so now I'm going to spend some time practicing guitar and learning some songs I like. I think that's a good way to end up getting inspiration for writing.

I'll try to remember to post some preliminary writing in here next time to get some feedback from you guys. It always helps. Hope you're doing well in the new year, best of luck


----------



## octatoan (Jan 14, 2015)

AugmentedFourth is in high school.
Repeat after me: AugmentedFourth is in . . .


----------



## inaudio (Jan 17, 2015)

TallestFiddle said:


> I listened to your album today and I love it!!



Wait, A4 has an album out? Why did I think that he's still writing it? Links. Now. Damn it.

Thanks for the encouraging words, Nick. I actually noticed that you have a track called Awakening that I listened to not too long ago. It's a really "pro"-sounding track even though it's not my usual kind of thing. My subconscious probably told me to steal the name, haha. 

As for the track you were talking about, what kind of a response were you expecting to be exact? Because a lot of what I tried to express earlier is that I feel that it's (initially) more rewarding to have a community of people who support each other creatively as opposed to just trying to garner an audience. Then again, I am very pretentious.

It'd be cool if you posted your tracks on here even if they are finished. I'm kind of bad with the internet these days and don't really delve too deep into the other subforums. And for what it's worth I honestly think that your tracks sound damn cool. Kind of the same way that Queen sounds cool to my ears. A friend of mine actually asked to listen to what I'd been working on recently and SoundButt played one of your WIP's after my track had finished. She really, really liked it. And that's a gut reaction from someone who has never listened to your music.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jan 17, 2015)

Here is a link to my bandcamp.


----------



## inaudio (Jan 18, 2015)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Here is a link to my bandcamp.



I listened to the album and wrote things that came to my mind while listening to it. I'll post my notes hoping that you'll get something out of them!

(nothing)-
Well, I loved Cosmic Microwave Background. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Inflation- 
The part from 02:10 onward really works for me. Intriguing and playful.

Baryogenesis - 
Love this. First half is really fresh and funky. Gets really epic towards the end. 

Reionization -
This was cool. I was really expecting it to turn into glitchy electronica before the drums kicked in, haha.
The ending is awesome! Reminds me of the ending of Jacob's Ladder from Patrick Wolf.



Galaxy Formation -
01:30 distorted guitar that kicks in is kickass. It surprised me because it sounds different to the riffs that I'm used to hearing from you! Throw in some delay, and baby, you've got a stew going. 
From 03:00 to the end, it's just really pretty. Tastefully executed straight-up kick drum is always awesome. And the snare hits, much yes. 

Life - 
Synth lead around 1:30 effin' works. The nylon acoustic is a really cool transition that stood out to me. Fuggit, cool track in every single way. 
LOVE the spoken word at the end, felt like I was listening to Kevin Moore for a second. 

Proton Decay - 
I've heard this one before but in the context of the album the heaviness really stands out. Nice.
02:07 onward. The "harmonic scene" sounds a lot more conventional. Kind of like we talked earlier about hooks. This fuggin' works. 

Black Hole Evaporation - 
Same thing as with the previous track. The grooviness somehow stands out in the album. Also, it's refreshing to hear the eerie horn/sax again. 
It somehow starts to tie the album together. Nylon acoustic part, love these. 
Do specific instruments have certain roles in the album? 
I think that it would be cool to hear a concept album where actual specific instruments assume roles within a concept. 
I wouldn't be surprised if somebody had already done that. If nothing else it could be a cool guide when figuring out instrumentation! 

Heat Death-
The plucked/pizzicato/whatevertheyarecalled strings around the six minute mark made me smile. The drums that kicked in later made me smile even more. 
Dat ending. Incredibly well executed. 

The Last Question-
I was eyeing this track the entire time. Curious name with a length of 02:42. I don't know what I was expecting, but this is a brilliant way to finish the album. 
The last 10 seconds made my day. Much satisfy. Very impress. Wow. 

General thoughts - 
The music itself sounds very well written and I feel like you can hear that you KNOW what you're doing. 
Personally, I did feel like the "sweet" moments were over quite fast. I sometimes wanted the moment to a last a bit longer if that makes any sense. 
I feel like the album grew on me the further I got in it. It might not have an initial "wow"-factor to some folks but I think that if you
listen to the whole thing it definitely will capture your imagination. Thanks for this!


----------



## octatoan (Jan 29, 2015)

This is the first thing I've ever made. Far from finished, and please don't judge this any more harshly than a toddler's first crayon drawing.

This is a very wanky crayon drawing, though. Be prepared. It's bad. (In a bad way.) 

Please criticise this. MIDI and TuxGuitar files attached.

Edit: Yes, the solo at the end is _horribly_ vomit-inducing, and the transition is bad - indeed, I'm not even sure there's a transition to speak of.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 29, 2015)

^ I think it would be better if the drums came in sooner, at the same time as the syncopated "ostinato" thing. I get tired of that ostinato by the time the B section rolls around. Consider changing its character. Other than that, I think it's pretty good. You need to expand this. My strategy to writing is to come up with a form first, then fill it in with content. Right now, your form is ABC (B is the key change at measure 55, C is the solo at 72). Try making it ABCAB, or ABCB, or ABABCB, or whatever. Expand it, give your sections purpose. You've already written the material, so you might as well use it.


----------



## octatoan (Jan 29, 2015)

Wow. Thank you. 

Hardly any key change to speak of - I simply transposed everything down a m3 haha. Anyway, I'll do everything you said and see where that takes me. Thanks!


----------



## inaudio (Feb 1, 2015)

This is definitely NOT bad stuff, there are some cool parts in there especially with what's happening on the bass. Based on what you wrote earlier I think that we both share a similar fear of putting our music out there; it's awesome that you did! One thing that freed me up a lot was when someone said to stop thinking about it as something that is MINE but rather as something that is happening and coming through me. Yes, it's flowery, but if it's resourceful to you then that's all that matters.

As for the actual track, like Mr. Big said, structure is what you want to look at. There's a lot going on and it sounds quite busy but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you wanted to explore something I'd say that you could try letting some parts "breathe" a bit more. Tension and release, yo. 

The main points of what I've taken away from this thread so far:

- Harmonic and rhythmic modulation keep things fresh. 
- Cool parts alone don't make a song, think about the bigger picture. 
- Start simple, expand later!

In many ways a lot of what has been recommended here reminds me of agile software development. You don't build the whole thing from start to finish in one sitting, but rather work in smaller cycles, expanding on what was previously built and re-factor constantly so that what you're left with after each cycle is a functional piece of music/software.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 3, 2015)

That's nice, thanks 
I'm especially happy about the last ascending run/lick/whatever in the guitar solo. The rest was cobbled together in ten minutes :/

I'm very busy with school now (exams) so I can't exactly work on it now. Come April, and then . . . behold, for darkness shall cover the earth.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 3, 2015)

Yeah, I don't agree that the guitar solo is "horribly vomit-inducing".  I really like mm. 72-73. Only thing I would change is I went back into m. 72 and changed the 1st note into a D#, which I liked more. But that's just artistic license or whatever.

As for the drums, one thing I would say is that while I liked the snare and kick placements in general, your use of cymbals is questionable. There are some obvious examples, like m. 54, where you have 32nd note ride and tom/snare going on at the same time. In general, while this is not only impossible to play for an actual drummer (I assume), it sounds distasteful. Ride hits that fast should be reserved for blast beasts and maybe the occasional grace note.

More generally, your cymbal placements are awkward because usually any syncopation that is independent of other instruments (I qualify this because often cymbals are good for syncopation when emphasizing notes in other voices) is done with toms/snares/kicks/etc. and cymbals are played on strong beats or where there isn't too much going on with the other drumheads. Strong beats could be strong beats of the meter or notes that are accented in other voices.

I also question your use of harmonization in fifths in the "Guitar 1.5" score. If you think it's cool, that's great, but to most listeners I think harmonizing in fifths not only clearly breaches the Western tradition of no parallel fifths, but sounds archaic and blocky. Like an ancient Roman march or something, I dunno.

I kind of like the "ostinato" thing in the sense that it keeps you rhythmically on your toes. Since it's constantly hitting around the beats and only occasionally stops, it keeps rhythmic tension.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 4, 2015)

Well, it did sound wanky to me, haha.

Biison: Thanks 

Here's a quick update because my mom's not at home. It's all very . . . kinda _unfinished_ now. Stuff is simply lying around, and still no transitions to speak of. 

I changed the steel-string to a vibraphone voice, added some (a lot?) ornamentation, and there's a little (humanly unplayable?) synth solo at the end, before the guitar solo. I think there are a few cool ideas in there.
The ostinato is now on a pair of piano voices. 
There are lots of other tweaks and stuff, and the ostinato and the drums are a bit different during the key change now.

I agree about the P5 harmonization - I find it kind of uncreative myself. I just put it in there to quickly make the guitar sound fatter. Again, note that I'm incredibly short on time at the moment, so I don't have the time necessary to see this piece through right now.(fixed this, see the end of this post)

I don't know anything about drums ATM, so I hope my drum parts will get better with time! I think I understood what you meant, too. 

Also, how do I get the kinda "sustained" cymbal (what cymbal is that, anyway?) sound Rudy does at around 0:12 here?



Edit: Lots more edits (duh). Check out the now-properly harmonized guitar! There's a bunch of other things too.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 4, 2015)

Also, any resources for learning how to write for drums? As my previous posts show, I know nearly nothing about this.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 5, 2015)

Hey, the new & improved version is very much improved! The harmonization in Guitar 1.5 sounds much better and has some cool material of its own, and I like the volume swells/reversed guitar in the first few bars of its part.

I like the electric piano sound a lot more for the ostinato part. The steel string just sounds too harsh (or maybe I just don't like steel string guitars...) Kinda diggin the vibes solo. Definitely not very playable, but, eh.

One advice I would give is to make the key change sound a bit more intentional. In your case it really is a key change, not just a modulation in the sense that the shift is relatively permanent and not just transient. So when you do that kind of thing, you want it to sound smooth and sound intentional.

When I say intentional, I don't mean signalling, "HEY! THERE'S A KEY CHANGE HERE! RIGHT HERE, WHERE I MEANT TO PUT IT!" If the listener barely/doesn't perceive the change, then you got the 'smooth' criterion down pat. What I mean is that it should happen at a structurally significant point. Like a place where a cycle loops back, like you start a 16 bar phrase over again, or transition to a new section of your musical form.

Without having scrutinized your writing, the key change sounds unprepared. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it sounds a bit awkward when you just lob it in there at a place where the musical action doesn't take a climax or changing point. Luckily, what you are writing is very groove-based, and it also has a drum kit. So you don't necessarily have to put the change in the most significant place possible. You can just make sure that (all) the parts approach the change in a way that makes sense, and then have the drums smooth over the transition.

Unfortunately, I can't give you a whole bunch of advice on drum writing. I basically learned to write drums the way you are--by trial and error. A lot of trial, and a lot of error. I write drums parts very specially tailored to the music I write, with all of the fills and such meticulously written note for note every time they occur. So giving generalized advice is hard.

I will say that usually cymbals (crashes, splashes, rides, hats) should be locked in to simple grooves. Like, straight nonstop quarter notes or eighth notes, or a bell pattern or something. Not just willy-nilly, although they can work particularly well in some instances as a way to accent a note played in another voice or played in unison with the kick. (Overusing these though, will get old).

EDIT: For MIDI programming, the closest I can think of far that 'sustained cymbal' is note 49.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks!
Which solo did you say you liked? Synth or guitar?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 5, 2015)

Well, I kind of liked the 'freeness' of the vibes (synth?) solo, and I pointed out before the parts of the guitar solo I liked.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 5, 2015)

I didn't figure out that 'vibes' == 'vibraphone'. Duh.

Cool. Thanks, man.
Two of my friends play piano/keyboard, so if this is ever played by real people (unlikely) . . .


----------



## octatoan (Feb 7, 2015)

Okay, here's another set of ideas that came out of a post-Bio-syllabus-completion-celebratory guitar session. It may be a bit more well-thought-out; it basically came out of fooling around with 025422 etc. voicings and a huge dose of Take Five 

The drums should be more palatable now. Also, harmonized guitars and lovely fadeout magic!

(You want "10-four.tg". PS: I don't have the time to write a proper bass part now . . . :/ PPS: There's a little polymeter in there.)


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 8, 2015)

First thing I noticed: it's easier to read if you write in the key signature. In this case, writing in the key of one sharp allows you to tell at a glance where there accidentals, not just the F#s that show up that are actually diatonic to the key.

Remember, the thing with drums is that they don't always have to be playing. For the meat of a lot of songs they are nice, but try to force yourself to write parts that don't include drums, it gives a break and change in dynamic.

Speaking of drums, stuff like mm. 35-46 is a bit iffy. Snare parts like that sound too dry without kick. In drum parts that are chiefly rolls or that do not use cymbals (e.g. hi hats) to keep pulse, it's O.K. to use snare relatively unaccompanied. But since this is a rock beat and not say, a jazz beat, it's stylistically appropriate to use the two in conjunction. And remember that with a few exceptions, crash hits without a simultaneous kick hit are doing to sound whimpy.

I'm curious how you play to play/record the swelled parts, maybe with a volume pedal or backmasking or something?

I think my favorite bit is m. 57, because the whole thing so far is very uniform, harmonically and rhythmically. There is that constant 8th note pulse, and the whole thing is diatonically G major. But in m. 57, those triplets really stick out.

I'm guessing that new you would create a B section?

EDIT: Here's a ditty I whipped up recently:

Pick yer poison: Acoustic sounding | Electronic sounding


----------



## octatoan (Feb 8, 2015)

I don't exactly know how I'm going to play this . . . :/

Fifteen minutes of noodling. Moar triplets, by popular request (more rhythmic variation, generally).

Edit: fifteen more minutes. Better bass parts, I guess?


----------



## octatoan (Feb 10, 2015)

Uh, "mel.tg" has been improved with some weird wah-esque things and a weird (duh) sounding vibraphone solo over the outro.
If you haven't checked "10-four.tg" in a while, please do, there are a few changes I've detailed in the previous post.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 10, 2015)

Not a full review, but something I noticed:







Playing the kick + snare exclusively together can sound alright, but a bit blocky. So it might be cool to break out into independent kick + snare lines at some point. Here, your use of triplets is really awkward. The '5' (a beat, and an important one) is missing! Gone! And you treat that strange, lost triplet with a heavy accent (compared to other beats, mostly hihat or hihat + snare tap).


----------



## octatoan (Feb 10, 2015)

Noted, I'll fix that. 

What do you think of the older piece?


----------



## inaudio (Feb 10, 2015)

Octatoan's "Mel":
I'm really enjoying the intro now. By intro I mean all the way up to first few bars where the drums have kicked in (~1:20) To my ear it sounds like there's this really awesome build-up but then I feel like it doesn't arrive anywhere. It's like there's no release to the tension, just more tension. The part that comes in after the intro sounds like there's too much going on for me to be able to concentrate on anything. Like the ostinato is really cool in the intro but after that I feel like it's not quite fitting in. I think that what I'm missing is a strong focus on one specific theme after the build-up. The synth parts that come after I enjoyed a lot. Now this is all just personal preference but I feel like there's just a bit too much going on all the time and as a result I'm not sensing much of a shape to the track. I hope that this all doesn't sound overly critical because you definitely have more than enough ideas for a really cool song here. 

A4's "poison":
Keep the core of the "acoustic" and decorate it with elements from the "electric" and I'll be one happy beaver. 

DISCLAIMER: I'm probably just too _dumb_ of a listener for the music in this thread. 

Also, how do I get the mods to change the title of the thread? I tried PMing Max and Eaeolian roughly a month back but didn't get a reply.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 10, 2015)

I agree about it being too being too busy, and the tension thing is something I never considered. Hmm, thanks.

What do you think of the ending?


----------



## inaudio (Feb 10, 2015)

octatoan said:


> I agree about it being too being too busy, and the tension thing is something I never considered. Hmm, thanks.
> 
> What do you think of the ending?



I like the style of the ending and the parts themselves. In the context of the song though, I feel like it's just busy until it sort of stops. I'm not sure if that makes any sense but it has more to do with the general feel of the song than the parts themselves. I'd wait for A4 to comment on what I've said because my comments might have more to do with preference and taste than anything else.

Tension and resolve is something that I've heard people talk about a lot when it comes to chords and theory, though I personally know nothing about that stuff. I feel like linking two examples of what I mean by tension and release, both from Circa Survive. The first song actually does it twice in a row, starting from around 2:30. They do a really short build-up/fill on the drums at the end of the first quiet part which releases into something that sounds like floating to me. That part eventually builds up again and releases into its own slightly more chaotic floating part. I reckon that most of it has to do with increasing the pulse nearing the climax and then letting it relax/breathe/swing after the peak. Jump to 2:30, that's where it all starts. 


The second one is technically two songs but I've always considered the instrumental "Compendium" just a long two minute intro to "Dyed in the Wool"


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 11, 2015)

Biison said:


> Octatoan's "Mel":
> I'm really enjoying the intro now. By intro I mean all the way up to first few bars where the drums have kicked in (~1:20) To my ear it sounds like there's this really awesome build-up but then I feel like it doesn't arrive anywhere. It's like there's no release to the tension, just more tension. The part that comes in after the intro sounds like there's too much going on for me to be able to concentrate on anything. Like the ostinato is really cool in the intro but after that I feel like it's not quite fitting in. I think that what I'm missing is a strong focus on one specific theme after the build-up. The synth parts that come after I enjoyed a lot. Now this is all just personal preference but I feel like there's just a bit too much going on all the time and as a result I'm not sensing much of a shape to the track. I hope that this all doesn't sound overly critical because you definitely have more than enough ideas for a really cool song here.



I have to agree with this assessment. While I think that keeping the ostinato can still work (I like that you have it doubled for only 8 bars and then keep it bare for the meaty part), there is little focus for most of the composition. In mm. 38-73, it's not so much that there is a lack of theme. Certainly it is very much a jam on the main themes of the tune (the ostinato and the 

```
X:1
M:7/8
Q:130
L:1/8
C:octatoan
K:A
| B,ADBcdA | B,FAcBdf
```
 part), but the part that you hear as leading (the lead distorted guitar) seems to be aimlessly harmonizing that main vibes part without a sense of movement or of an improvised section (and it may be a weird place for an improv section, it seems more appropriate to put solos where you have them now).

That same aimlessness also kind of manifests itself in the transitions, like, the key change sounds less than smooth (although you might be able to just fix that with drums since in this case drums are so much of the dynamics). Even more so, the transition to the vibes solo is awkward. The lead guitar just kind of cuts off at an equally aimless point as it ends all of the previous bars.

What I would suggest is coming up with a more long-form theme. You don't have to trash any of the themes you already got goin', but you may consider coming up with a long (8 bar or something) chord progression that you can stretch your themes over in various ways, or a long form, singable melody of some kind.

And consider dynamics. As Biison said, it's good to have a sense of _sturm und drang_ coupled with "release", and some quieter parts and some loud, etc. I think I mentioned earlier something about cutting out the drums for some sections. You do that a few times for 1-2 bars at a time, but it doesn't really serve to add dynamic.

I did enjoy the little 2-bar leading, and the fact that it comes in later on in the piece.

Another thing I would point out is that while the vibes solo is alright as is, I think that it sounds like it's trying to be 'free' and also have an improvised feel, but doesn't commit. Like, a lot of the rhythms are fast enough and chaotic enough to sound free even within the confines of the strict tempo and sort of quantization that comes from strict midi playback that you're using. But, you don't commit to crossing barlines, so the flow sounds stunted and artificial.

As for the ending, I think the drums need a more constant, active presence and mirroring of the other parts in mm. 103-104. I like that you brought back the lead-in measures.



Biison said:


> A4's "poison":



 "Poison" isn't the name of the tune, I was just using the phrase "pick your poison" as in, choose whether you like acoustic-sounding or electronic-sounding music more. The working title is "Riff Splendor". (All of my initial sketches are called "Riff _______".)

I think I'll try out your suggestion. I might take the acoustic version but overlay an electronic bass over the acoustic-sounding one.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 11, 2015)

Hey, thanks as always. I'll go through that with a fine-tooth comb, do what needs to be done, and let you know.

I know nothing (except just about enough to understand what a ii-V-I or a I-IV-V is, but nothing besides) about chord progressions. Where can I start?

And . . . _sturm und drang_? Boy, you are well-read, aren't you? 
I totally had a wide grin on my face when I read that - we really need to chat sometime


----------



## octatoan (Feb 13, 2015)

Hey, so par A4's recommendations I expanded the vibraphone thing. It's in a separate file now. It's a super roughly-thrown-together bunch of crap (not joking this time), I'm just pretty busy now and will be, so here goes.

Biison: there's a MIDI for you!


----------



## inaudio (Feb 14, 2015)

AugmentedFourth said:


> "Poison" isn't the name of the tune, I was just using the phrase "pick your poison" as in, choose whether you like acoustic-sounding or electronic-sounding music more. The working title is "Riff Splendor". (All of my initial sketches are called "Riff _______".)



Haha, I know what you meant. "A4's poison" just made me think of a Poison that you probably wouldn't care to be associated with... 






Octatoan, I did something that I probably shouldn't have... I took your MIDI and got dirty with it. I thought that it'd be interesting for you to hear a different take on how the parts could be arranged. I mainly wanted to see how a stronger focus on just the guitar-riff would work. I feel like a lot of the themes and parts that you have really are strong enough to shine on their own. I'm hoping that this would serve to inspire but if you are mad at me for being grabby with your track I completely understand.

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/biison/octatoans-mel-butchered/s-EDgtS[/SC]

The link is private but if you want me to take it down just ask.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 14, 2015)

I have but one thing to say: You are a fine butcher, sir. How much would one of your better cuts cost me? 

Those drum parts are brilliant, as is the outro. Absolutely awesome, and I grabbed some ideas from there, thanks. I'm actually super glad you did this.

Which reminds me: I realised a part of the reason why the drum parts I wrote were so . . . _weird_ is that my MIDI synth was crap. I basically had no idea what all my stuff sounds like to you guys. 
I got a better synth. It's nice and all, but the vibraphone sounds like a frigging music box now 

Also, what did you edit it in? (And have you seen the bunch of messy crap I uploaded yesterday?)


----------



## inaudio (Feb 14, 2015)

octatoan said:


> Those drum parts are brilliant, as is the outro. Absolutely awesome, and I grabbed some ideas from there, thanks. I'm actually super glad you did this.)



I was hoping it'd give you ideas! Obviously the arrangement is very much in my style of doing things but sometimes when you've been working on something for a while you tend to get a bit tired of it. In those situations I find that it's refreshing to hear something in the track that is completely new and not your own. I remember that back in high school it was always super exciting to get a GP5 file back from a drummer or bassist after they had added in their parts and ideas. It'll be interesting to hear what you come up with next!



octatoan said:


> Also, what did you edit it in? (And have you seen the bunch of messy crap I uploaded yesterday?)



I edited the MIDI in Cubase and the sounds are from the Motif XS Rack. And yes I did, that's the zip-file that I took the MIDI from. The extended vibes definitely work - you've got more ideas in this one song than I have in three!


----------



## octatoan (Feb 14, 2015)

Haha, thanks. I'm primarily writing these for my keyboardist friend - you see, not everyone has nonexistent chops . . . 

Here are some modifications. I like mm. 14-16.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 15, 2015)

And here is more! In addition to the other changes, I added some drums - I'll go out on a limb and say that the drums in mm. 14 - 16 are nice. I still haven't got the weak/strong beats bit down, though :/

There's a little unfinished bit at the end.

Also, I know that the left/right hand parts cross too much at the moment.

Questions: 
How do I find out what key(s/modes) I'm using here? Once I figure that out, I can replace all those octave powerchords, 'cuz this shit djents too much 

How do I do a tom roll? I've tried, as you can see in one (both?) of the descending left-hand arpeggios (which is one of the things I love about The Dance of Eternity, hehe).


Edit: I forgot to update the midi last time. 

Edit 2: More edits, something of an ending.


----------



## inaudio (Feb 16, 2015)

octatoan said:


> And here is more! In addition to the other changes, I added some drums - I'll go out on a limb and say that the drums in mm. 14 - 16 are nice. I still haven't got the weak/strong beats bit down, though :/
> 
> There's a little unfinished bit at the end.
> 
> ...



The first proper drum groove around 0:22 is nice. As for writing drums YouTube is probably full of videos where they teach different drum grooves. Just take the ideas of what they play and start playing around with that. Another thing that you can do is find drummers that you like and start transcribing their drum parts from records and such. Rudinger is probably not the easiest place to start transcribing. I'm not really good at figuring out drum parts but I think that a general rule is that it's best to start from the most apparent groove or accents in the beat. Also, judging from the pieces you've posted definitely listen to Zappa with a keen ear:


----------



## octatoan (Feb 16, 2015)

Thanks! Watermelon in Easter Hay is probably the only thing of his I've heard.
What do you think of the piano parts?

Edit: The end section's been updated (take a look at it, it's basically a poor man's Cylindrical Sea) and there are now somewhat passable drums throughout, especially near the end, where the sweepy bits are.

A4, if you're reading this, I'd really love to know what you think (and would love to hear your answers to my questions, too!)

It would totally make my day if anyone says they find bar 44 similar to The Dance of Eternity, haha. 
What's the deal with the "sound" of bar 58? What scale am I using there?


----------



## octatoan (Feb 17, 2015)

Edit: oops, double post


----------



## inaudio (Feb 18, 2015)

To kick off this post I'd just like to state that you do have the potential for a "Dancy of Eternity" -style track here. However, if that is what you're going for I think that currently the drums aren't really working towards achieving that type of a sound or style. Take whatever I say with a hint of salt since all my thoughts are based on personal experience and not formal education. There's quite a few points I'd like to make that I hope will help you out a bit. 

As a general assessment it sounds to me like you're treating the drums as a "solo instrument" at times. That can be cool but I just feel like they don't serve a clear enough purpose in some parts. That can be totally cool if you're going for a more avant-garde and hectic sound and I'm not saying that you should conform to standard practice just for the sake of conformity. Having said that I do believe that the reason standards exist in the first place is because a large enough group of people consider them to work and sound good. 

*Point 1 - With pre-existing instrumentation drums can help to provide the "context"*.

Once again I'll try to demonstrate this point with a track. "The Gods Must Be Crazy" by Periphery has a part where the same guitar riff is played twice but the drum groove changes underneath the repetitions. Jump to 2:18 and listen to somewhere around 2:43. Listen to that part a few times and pay attention to the change in "feel". Don't think about how they do it, just focus on how it sounds. 


To my ear the change in feel is distinct and really cool. Once again the guitar riff stays the same but they sound and feel very different. This is what I mean by the drums providing the context for the riff. I think that this goes to show that it's not just about how good a riff sounds isolated but about how it locks in with the other instrumentation. This is going to be the least concrete of the points I want to make but I feel that it is at the root of all the other points I want to make. 

*Point 2 - With intricate parts you don't always need the drums to provide more intricacy.*

Since the track that you're referencing a lot is Dance of Eternity it makes sense to exemplify this point with parts from that track. 


Listen to what Portnoy plays with the riff that begins at 0:57. He follows the guitar very closely and almost replicates it. To me it sounds like he's using the cymbals and snare so that they're assigned to certain accents on the guitar and then the descending tom-fill mimics the descending run on the guitar. It gives that part a very specific type of feel and context. A drummer friend of mine used to call this "zeroing out" on the drums, meaning that you don't even attempt to create any new groove underneath of what is already going on. In many ways this really brings full focus to what is going on with the instrumentation. I think this is something that Portnoy actually does throughout the entire track with many different parts.

If you listen to the lower guitar riff at 1:44 he "zeroes out" with the guitar again. Not only that but also listen to how he chooses low toms and the bass drum to do it, mimicking the low sound of the guitar. After that he starts a new groove underneath the riff and the feel changes again, providing a new context for the riff. And listen to what is really creating that feel, it's just a few very scarcely spaced hits on the snare and toms. At 1:56 he introduces the evenly spaced cymbal hits to create a more flowing and forward-moving pulse. Again, the drums aren't doing anything fancy but they're creating the pulse, feel and context for everything going on. The guitar riff doesn't change and is actually pretty boring by itself but the change in feel keeps you interested. And actually, he does it again at 2:04. This is actually a pretty great part in the song to demonstrate this! 

I think that Portnoy mimics the rest of the instrumentation pretty closely throughout the track and doesn't really break out of it unless it is to change the feel of what is being played or to create a pulse and movement. Around 2:32 with the playful Star Wars cantinaesque part, he plays a very simple drum beat letting the piano take the spotlight but once again, the pulse and beat is creating a lot of the humorous atmosphere. 

If there's anything to take away from all this it would probably be that if a guy like Portnoy takes no shame in "zeroing out" neither should you. If you want to create a part that mimics completely what is going on with the rest of the instrumentation, then loop that part and compare the drums soloed out against the instruments soloed out. The drums should sound the same in some way. If you want to create a pulse and context then the simplest way to do that is by choosing simple accents. If you want to create a machine gun type of feel then zero out completely. If you want to create a shotgun type of feel then zero out partially with a few selected accents. 

*Point 3 - 32nd note runs/trills are like BBQ-sauce. Sure, it's good but you don't necessarily want to put it in your ice cream. *

Around 01:28 in the vibesonly-mod track you're being pretty generous with the 32nd note little "trills" on the hats. That's not to say that there aren't times where that would be fitting but personally I feel like it's a bit too much. In general your use of these runs and trills is something that is pretty constant but that might just be a sound and style personal to you. Personally though, I feel like it loses much of its impact when used constantly. If you listen to the beat that Portnoy plays at 0:44 and pay attention to how many times he executes that little shuffle/trill on the hats it's not very often. Obviously the part is more laid back than the part I was referring to in your track but regardless, I find it a tasteful execution. 

I think that one thing that you could try in regards to this is to try and write drums parts a bit at a time. It happens to me often when I'm writing drums that I chase down an idea that seems really cool and when I come back to the track the drums are just doing way too much. Try to come back to what you're writing with a fresh set of ears as many times as possible. I find that the best way to do this is to write just a bit at a time and then come back to the track once I've "forgotten" how it sounds. 

*Point 4 - Rambling.*

I'd just like to say a few very flimsy thoughts and ideas on complexity since it seems like you're going for a "complex" style of music. From studying mathematics my personal intuition about "complexity" as a general term is that there are two ways you can go about creating it. One is by trying to create complexity in something that is "one-dimensional" and the other is by creating complexity through _simplicity_ by combining simple "one-dimensional" constructs together in a "multidimensional" or "dynamic" way. I hate bastardizing mathematical terms this way but I hope that you kind of get what I'm trying to get across. A classic example of this would be how the result of two simple wave forms clashing can go about creating a very intricate wave. Another example could be how the constructs of frequentist statistics are really based on a few simple ideas from probability, yet manage to confuse lots of people due to how they are "layered". In music I guess that poly-rhythms would fall under this category since it's just two (usually) simple grooves in different time signatures combined together. 

To end this on a more practical note: write out a few parts from Dance of Eternity. Both the drums and the main instrument. This was a long post but I hope that it's of some use to you.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 18, 2015)

Of course it is. Seems like a lot of work ahead, haha. Transcribing Portnoy's drum parts . . . wow. I'll try that for sure.

Besides the drums, do you have any advice regarding the piano parts? Any themes/melodic lines stand out? I'm especially interesting in finding out the key this is in.

I was just going to post this when I saw your post. Nothing more than a few changes in the drums and a small change in the "sweepy section at the end" so that it's in what I think is an ABA' (correct me if it's wrong) form.


----------



## inaudio (Feb 21, 2015)

Octatoan - PM'd

This is a little brain-fart of an idea that was born out of using all of the different Google cloud documents for different projects. But it got me thinking that for collaborative/teaching purposes it might actually be pretty cool to have a similar type of platform for working on MIDI. For whatever reason I felt the need to share this little idea, what do you guys think?


----------



## octatoan (Feb 21, 2015)

Uh, did you miss an attachment?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 21, 2015)

Man, by the end of that, my ears were still reeling from the assault of 32nd notes. I think that the main place to improve in your compositions is not only the drums, but how you provide a sense of direction and theme. Like, it can sometimes be really tasteful to freak out in waves of 32nd notes, but in this context it just makes the listener feel lost. Throughout 95% of the composition one is never quite sure where they are--the only real thing there to latch on to is the little melody from the first bar that kind of shows up very occasionally.

Try this: come up with two themes that you like. Consider small ways that the two can have similarities. It's not necessary, but if they share something(s) in common, like using mostly 8th notes, having a similar melodic contour, or just originally being in related keys, it can help stick them together.

Then try to figure out ways that you can transition between them. Consider transitioning from A to B, from B to A, from A to B but with B in a different relative key than the first time. Consider how you can form your accompaniments (bass, drums, chords, etc., even a soprano melody as the case may be if your theme is a bass line or chord progression) in a way that helps you transition.

Then try to figure out ways that you can smash them together, or put them on top of one another. How you can take a version of B and put it in a higher voice at the same time that A is playing, or something like that. This tends to be more difficult, but it doesn't have to be strict. Like, if you think A would fit well on top of B, but when you test it out and move it around you don't like the way it sounds, you can modify A. Chop it up, change a note or two, move it to a new voice, adapt the contour or the rhythm to a new melody, etc.

Using these bits, consider a large-scale form that makes sense to you. Potentially, your A+B is sufficiently different from either section alone that it suffices as a C section, so you may consider a form like ABCB&#8242;A&#8242;. That's great. As it stands now, I can't really get a feel for any 'form,' even if you did intend there to be one.

-----------------------

Here's a new version of Riff Splendor, with an added B section and advice by Biison taken:

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-splendor[/sc]

EDIT: Soundcloud's compression seems subpar even for a standard 128kbps mp3. It's been starting to tick me off, so if you want to listen to a better version just hit the download button on Soundcloud and you will get the flac.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 21, 2015)

^ A4 HOW DO I FIND THE KEY OF THAT PIECE PLS

Thanks for the advice about themes, I'll work on that.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 24, 2015)

octatoan said:


> ^ A4 HOW DO I FIND THE KEY OF THAT PIECE PLS
> 
> Thanks for the advice about themes, I'll work on that.



Erm. Let's see, here's a chord chart and Roman numeral analysis:


```
A section:

| E-7sub4 | C&#916;7/E | F&#916;7&#9839;11 |
| E-7sub4 | C&#916;7/E | F&#916;7&#9839;11 |
| A&#9837; (D&#9837;add9/A&#9837;) | % | G&#9837;&#916;11 | % |
| A&#9837; (D&#9837;add9/A&#9837;) | % :||

Em: isub4 - VI6-5 - &#9837;II&#916;7 - 

    isub4 - VI6-5 - &#9837;II&#916;7 -
	         D&#9837;: III  -

D&#9837;:I     - I     -   IV   - IV -

D&#9837;:I     - I     :||
G: &#9837;II&#916;7 - &#9837;II&#916;7 :|| (<--now thinking of A&#9837; as the root)

B section:

| B-7 | F&#9839;-11 | C&#916;7 Em | Em D13 F&#916;7&#9839;11 | F&#916;7&#9839;11 :||

Bm: i - v - &#9837;II&#916;7, iv - 
               Em: i  - i, VII7, &#9837;II&#916;7 - &#9837;II&#916;7  :||
				      D: &#9837;III&#916;7 :||
```

So the first thing is, there's basically 4 separate tonal centers, so 4 keys. This is more key changing in the modulation sense, so it's more jazz than actual key changes except when going from section A to section B. That is, the changes are transient. I notate all of section A in the key of Em (1 sharp).

'&#9837;II&#916;7' shows up here a lot. It seems weird, but think of it as the &#9837;VII&#916;7 of the relative major. So like, in the key of Em the relative major is G. In a piece that is in G major, (take a rock song for example, which we would expect to contain relatively simple harmonies) we would not be surprised to see an F major chord even though the root is not native to the key. It's borrowed from the parallel minor (Gm).

In this case, I just borrow that chord from the relative major. So it's like double borrowing, sort of.

And the I - IV - I motion in the second half of section A is kind of right, but the I chord is ambiguous because it's really the I and V&#916;7 chords smashed together. So, eh. Not a complete description. It may be more accurate to consider what I can the I and IV chords as part of their own keys.

The turnaround in section A cracks me up because I wrote it by ear and did not think of this when I wrote it: it's a &#9837;II&#916;7 in the relative major of E. (So basically I went from double borrowing to triple borrowing )


----------



## octatoan (Feb 25, 2015)

A4: That's too dense for me at the moment (i.e. I need some free time to work through that; it's clear enough). Thanks a ton, I'm sure you must have spent a lot of time on it! 

First off, AFAIK, this starts in Am and goes to Cm. (Aeolian mode of parallel major?  Edit: It's a simple m3 modulation. Duh.) 
It's my first planned key change evar (unlike the infamous "transpose down 3 semitones" thing in "mel.tg").

Second, this should seem a bit more well-thought out.

Third, I've spent exactly one hour on this. So . . .

Fourth, no weird meter changes. Yet. 

Fifth, tell me how you like the piano accompaniment or whatever that is.

(Also, is this an ABA'B form or something, ignoring repeats of parts?)


----------



## TallestFiddle (Feb 27, 2015)

Wow theres been a lot of activity here lately!

A4: I love that song riff splendor, the bass sound is really cool. Don't worry that you lost quality from the compression, everything still comes across well. I think you're really getting better at mixing.

Octatoan: Wow that vibes song is insane lol. Its really interesting, its kidnda all over the place, but I think its better to start from that point and try to organize it rather than starting out with something boring and needing to spice it up. Ya the drums are just really weird, so I would spend some time studying music you like to see what kind of drum patterns they use. The new song is really good too, I like the part where the drums come in, is that a tempo change? its a bit weird, but its cool. Its hard for me to say if its ABA'B, I think that you should try to work on distinguishing between parts. Kinda like A4 said, pay attention to the differences in parts: melody, rhythm, themes, timbre. Try to make memorable parts and make sure that you can recognize when they return. I think this new one is definitely an improvement over the last one in terms of being a concrete idea. I really like when the intro melody comes back with the tremelo picking part, thats a perfect way to use a theme that you introduced before but in a different way. I just think the part after that isn't necessary, its like it builds up and then you return to a very similar yet less exciting part. Great work though, keep it up 

Biison: I like the version of Octatoan's song that you did. I think that organizing the drums was a big help, it really made it feel more like a concrete song. I think thats actually a great idea that we should explore. Messing with each other's songs to see what we each would do in different situations. I think that it would be a great learning experience for everyone. I currently haven't been transcribing what I've been writing or else I would post something right now.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 27, 2015)

Hey, nice to see you again - and thanks! Been working on anything lately?

I posted a few other (even less polished) things on the last page - might wanna check them out if you feel bored and have time to waste


----------



## TallestFiddle (Feb 28, 2015)

Ya I'm working on a new song now that I'm very happy with, it's got no bass yet because I've been dealing with finger injuries from overexertion.  remember guys take your time and don't try tracking the same difficult part for 6 hours straight. If you can't play it then up to speed then practice a bit and wait for another day. (I'll post it later if I remember)

Check out my most recent song though. I like the way it came out but I'm a little unsure of the last few parts because its the same chord progression and same exact drums. Let me know what you think.
[SC]https://m.soundcloud.com/nickareias/spiral[/SC]


----------



## octatoan (Feb 28, 2015)

6 hours? That's some dedication.

Nice use of cymbals, I need to learn.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 28, 2015)

6 hours? That's some dedication.

Nice use of cymbals, I need to learn haha. Good job.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 2, 2015)

octatoan said:


> 6 hours? That's some dedication.
> 
> Nice use of cymbals, I need to learn haha. Good job.



Thanks man! And ya, I can usually get a quick sloppy recording once I finish writing a song. But once I'm done writing, I don't ever want to do anything else but work on finishing the song, so sometimes i get carried away. Moderation is your friend though, don't get burnt out.

What I've found that works for drums, is you always want some sort of pulse to start off with. For most patterns I'll do some sort of cymbal every 4th note, or every 8th note or whatever, and then the snare is every other pulse, or every 4th pulse, or for a faster section i'll put a snare on every pulse. I usually will just copy paste this for 4 measures or 8 measures or whatever. Then I'll figure out the kick pattern based on what I was doing on guitar, and maybe put in some different snare hits to change things up. Usually the kick for me just follows the exact rhythm that the guitar is playing. Then I put in extra crash hits where I want a certain part of the rhythm emphasized. Or if its a hi-hat based section I'll try to put in some 32nd notes on the closed hi-hat and some off pulse hi-hat hits. Its hard to decide where they go, I just listen to the song and wait until I feel like something is missing and put that in. Its definitely a long process when you can't naturally drum though lol. 

I think its good to start off basic with drums, just to support your other instruments that you're focusing more on. But as you improve, start studying your favorite drummers. What are some of your favorite bands Octatoan?


----------



## octatoan (Mar 2, 2015)

Let's see. Animals as Leaders (like everyone on SS.org ), Ne Obliviscaris and The Faceless, to name three bands playing substantially different styles.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 2, 2015)

Oh cool! I guess the problem with trying to write music in that style is that the drums are so crazy most of the time. I have a little trouble following the drums in AAL sometimes, let alone writing like that  But just find some parts where you can understand the drums and try to see what patterns they're doing, then try it out in your song. You shouldn't feel any shame in copying, its the best way to learn really.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 2, 2015)

TallestFiddle, give it a listen  

(http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vzlfgQBuUcw if you're on a phone)


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 2, 2015)

I like the new composition ("bfkc") quite a bit, actually. The starting riff is a nice, simple use of parallel keys. And I really dig the electric piano sound and the way that the chords its playing really fill out the sound and provide a melody at the same time. And the bass line is pretty good; simple where it makes sense and with good intervening bass movements.

I liked the metric modulations (always good when pulled off  ). The tremolo picking sounds cool but are you going to be able to pull that off? I can't pick that fast, that's for sure. If not, I think it should sound fine if you pick it half speed (16ths instead of 32nds) and just use some distortion that has some 'crunch' to it, so to speak.

The drums are an improvement as well. The fact that you let off the drums at least once after starting them is good. It creates some dynamic. I like that there is more independence between the snare, kick, and cymbals, but there is still work to be done. Having the snare and kick hit at the same time can sometimes be good. Here's some situations you would expect to see that:

*In the middle of a fill.
*During a section where there are constant kick hits, e.g. straight 16th/32nd 'double bass' parts or parts where kicks follow a rigid simple pattern that happens to coincide with snare placements in certain places.
*Build-ups. Most commonly you see drummers hit the kick, snare, and a low tom all at the same time on the pulse in increasing volume for this kind of thing. I think you'll know what I'm talking about.

But in the first two cases, it's almost never more than once in a row. It's kind of like counterpoint, actually. If you lose independence between snare and kick, the texture hollows a little bit and you lose a layer of depth. It's O.K. to hit the occasional 5th or octave, but you can't just make every interval perfect or it will sound like ass. Drums are a bit less strict, but the principle applies.

m.56 is very awkward and likely impossible/highly difficult for a real drummer to play. lining up rides/splashes directly against the tom/kick hits runs into the counterpoint problem I was talking about, and playing fast ride and toms or fast ride and snare at the same time is hard unless you have 4+ arms.

I do like the stripped-down kick hits at the penultimate measure, although it could use a little two-16-note hit on the '&' of 4 and then a crash hit on the 1 of that last measure. Just my opinion.

Maybe it would help for you to propose a riff and/or bassline and then I or someone else can have a go at writing a drum part(s) for it and then explain our reasoning.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 2, 2015)

Wasn't it a simple tempo change? (I know that a metric modulation is some kind of 'special' tempo change, like 8th triplet is now a sixteenth. Help me out here.)

And that's a really kind offer, thanks! I'll try and come up with something tonight.

And on the topic of crunchy distortion, A4, take a look at my sig, please.  I think my 'classical' tremolo is okay, though. As an example, I can do the whole of the interlude in this song at speed:
 
(skip to around 4:10 and wait for some time, there's a tremolo part a bit later)
Might be able to wrangle it somehow.


----------



## bigswifty (Mar 3, 2015)

This is a great thread!

Really like how you guys are helping each other grow 

I'll chime in soon with some content.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 3, 2015)

dbrozz said:


> This is a great thread!
> 
> Really like how you guys are helping each other grow
> 
> I'll chime in soon with some content.



I'm sure it'll be interesting! 

#4 (do you prefer this to "A4"?), here's a bass riff I dug up from the depths of my *cough* well-organized hard-disk.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 3, 2015)

octatoan said:


> Wasn't it a simple tempo change? (I know that a metric modulation is some kind of 'special' tempo change, like 8th triplet is now a sixteenth. Help me out here.)



Well yes, a metric modulation is a special kind of tempo change. In this case you didn't do it gradually (e.g. rallentando), but it was immediate and had some sort of ratio.

Yours would be notated







Even going from 60 bpm to 120 bpm is a metric modulation, which would be eighth note = quarter note.

Here's the drum part I wrote for 'bass'. I'll get back to it later to explain. Ask questions, I guess. Oh yeah, and there are dynamic changes for effect.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 3, 2015)

octatoan said:


> #4 (do you prefer this to "A4"?)



I usually go for A4. It's more like a name since it has at least one letter, and since #4 is what I actually use in notation so it can be confusing.

Here's my analysis of my own drum part:

Section 1: mm.1-4

So it seemed to make sense to start out with a section that puts the most emphasis on the bass riff itself. This section puts emphasis on the high notes in the riff using primarily the snare, and then the kick is there to hit the low notes of the riff and also keep the flow going (so it sounds like a groove). Notice that, at least in bursts, the kick and snare together form essentially a rock beat (alternating equal rhythmic value kick and snare [in that order]).

The hi-hats are basically just playing straight quarter notes, which is a usual function for cymbals. Then there are the starts-and-stops which the hi-hats are of course conducive to, being able to open and close. The stray splash cymbal on the 6th beat of m.1 is supposed to accent the 'start' beat of the start-and-stop, and starts the white noise going again immediately even though the hi-hat hasn't quite come back yet since it is in between quarter notes.

m.4 emphasizes the 3+3+2 beat that is so common as a syncopation of 4/4 or 8/8 time. It is common to see cymbals hitting the 3,3,2 as I have done. *Notice the double 16th note snare at the very end, my preferred way of anticipating a new section or a repeat. Or just a new measure.

Section 2: mm.5-8

This is the more 'chill' feel. This is mostly due to the quarter note rides. Here the groove is not broken up, so it flows. Most of the snares emphasize the high notes, just like in sec. 1, but this time there are snares on the 2nd beat on each repeat, because that gives the impression of a straightforward, chill beat (viz., snare on the 2 & 4). The snare on the first beat of m.6 is interesting. It's in the place that there normally would be a snare to anticipate a new measure if we were in 4/4 time *(as I was saying before, but one eighth note instead of double 16ths). Because I am using straight, unbroken quarter note rides here, it sounds warranted but instead leads into just another snare in the very next eighth note (once again emphasizing a high note). Thus we are immediately reminded that it is not actually 4/4.

m.8 is basically m.4 but displaced forward in time by an eighth note.

Section 3: mm.9-16

This is 'the muted section'. The drums sound muted, and the bass is palm muted to match. The snare roll-centric drum part mutes the dynamic and also makes it sound like we are anticipating a new, louder section coming up soon.

It's based off of straight eighth notes, broken with 16th note rolls in the places that we have usually seen them in the other 2 sections, just before an important hit. At first it sounds like the snare is just mimicking the bass, but in m.10 we realize that once again we are locked into that pseudo-4/4 groove. mm.11-12 introduce the kick to emphasize all of the bass notes that are on the low E string. Notice that I still punctuate each repetition.

mm.13-14 introduces a 3-against-4 feel in the snare mixed with hitting the bass notes as before. The hi-hat pedal keeps time with quarter notes (a usual function of the hi-hat pedal) and builds a bit more tension.

mm.15-16 introduces dotted eight-note hi-hat pedals while maintaining essentially the same kick pattern and an even more syncopated snare part. Maximum rhythmic tension reached, culminating in a snare/tom/kick fill to end it.

Section 4: mm.17-24

This part was inevitable. The tension was too strong. Here we have the quarter note crashes raising the energy of the arrangement altogether. The kicks are on the low E string bass notes, and the snares on the high notes. The splash fills in where there is a not low but also not high note and a snare or kick would make the drums sound to busy. Which is a good point. Notice I didn't put a lot of confusing rolls and random-ass ghost notes, so the groove sounds clean and driving. Notice one of the main ways I 'switch it up' is by changing a 16th note kick, 16th note snare, 8th note snare into the same rhythm but kick, kick, snare instead. It sounds just as good but fresher since it's different.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 4, 2015)

That's very, very kind of you. Thanks a ton for bothering.

I'll have to slowly digest the entire thing. Off the top of my head, I think I'm going to look at your use of the snare first. The snare bits in the "muted section" are interesting, especially the dynamic contrast between the "normal" hits and the ghost notes.

Also, "rhythmic tension"? 

* Where can I learn about the whole "usually such-and-such beats are accented in such-and-such meter"? 
* Am I supposed to accent 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 in a "rock groove"? AFAIK 2 and 4 are supposed to be accented (syncopation), but then I hear stuff about 1 and 3 being the strongest beats.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 4, 2015)

octatoan said:


> Also, "rhythmic tension"?



Yes. I tend to think in the analogy that rhythm and harmony are similar even when you think of them as separate things.

Just as harmony is all about tension and release, so too is rhythm. Put in its most simple form, complex rhythms produce tension, and simple ones release it (and in some cases, no rhythm, i.e. when you end a song with all the voices/instruments hitting a note at the same time and then stopping/letting it ring). This is directly analogous to harmony, since more complex harmonies produce more tension (often in reference to the tonic).

In harmony, clearly if we are in the key of C, a G7b5#9 is going to create more tension than a G major triad. It's more complex.

In the same key, a triad on G creates more tension than a triad on A. G shares only one note with the tonic, and it's the 5th of the tonic, the least important chord tone in any chord. (Unless maybe if it's not perfect.) A is basically the tonic chord with the A added below. Not very tension-y. You see where I'm going with this.

When you have multiple rhythms going on at once (whether that be polymeter, polyrhythm, or just syncopation), you create tension. Think of it this way: one of the many rhythms in there (this could be talking about just the drum kit or the arrangement as a whole) is the tonic. All the others express the movement in the piece. The VI7 - II7 - V7s and the modulations and so forth. Everything that isn't home.

Side note: when I say syncopation, that includes things like: hitting key melody notes on the '&' of 4, or just putting things on 'off' beats in general.

Metric modulation makes a lot more sense in this context. Just like there is a ratio between the two tempi that are modulated to and from, there is a ratio between two tonics when we do harmonic modulations. Sometimes we do harmonic modulations with simple ratios, like a perfect fifth (3/2), or more complex ones, similar to your 5/4 rhythmic modulation, which is rather complex (although not on the level of like, a major 2nd modulation or something wacky like that that would have a weird ratio even in Pythagorean tuning).

So when you have like, a bunch of syncopation and polyrhythm, and then all of a sudden you break out into quarter note crashes on the drums with kick + snare that follow the main groove and the melody note finally is played on the '1' for once, it sounds like a resolution. And often that's what we see, is the coincidence of rhythmic resolution and harmonic resolution, the coincidence of rhythmic tension and harmonic tension, and so forth. They often go hand-in-hand.

Like comparing AC/DC to Tigran Hamasyan. AC/DC uses very, very simple harmonies, and the most complex that they get is when they hit the V chord... and notice that probably a lot of times that they do, the drummer also does a little fill or something to keep rhythmic tension in pace with the harmony.

Tigran, on the other hand, uses very complex time signatures, polymeter, highly, highly syncopated melodies, etc. And he also uses a very complex harmonic palette, even when it sounds a bit simpler than usual.



octatoan said:


> * Where can I learn about the whole "usually such-and-such beats are accented in such-and-such meter"?



This lesson might help. It's really about how the meter is constructed.



octatoan said:


> * Am I supposed to accent 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 in a "rock groove"? AFAIK 2 and 4 are supposed to be accented (syncopation), but then I hear stuff about 1 and 3 being the strongest beats.



1 and 3 are the strong beats in any 4/4 groove.* 2 and 4 are weak beats. But something like the '&' of 2 is even weaker, but that's because it's not on a beat, so in that sense it's not a 'weak *beat*.' In a non-syncopated rock beat, the kick is placed on the 1 and 3, and the snare on the 2 and 4. In a basic half-time feel, the snare is placed on the 3, and the kick on 1. Try it out and you will understand why I call it 'half-time feel.'

*Some 4/4 grooves are actually 8/8. Most commonly, 3+3+2/8. Meaning that the 1st, 4th, and 7th beats are strong. You did this in bass.tg for your 8/8 measures, but it's very common in a lot of music.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 4, 2015)

The lesson was helpful, but can't it also be a matter of choice? I mean, one could do 9/8 = 2/4 + 3/4 + 4/4 or something instead of three dotted eighth notes, too.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 4, 2015)

Well, the way that we construct 9/8 time is the same way that we 'feel' 9/8 time. The two ideas are interchangeable in this case. So, 9/8 time implies a strong dotted quarter note feel (not dotted eighth) just in the same way that 4/4 implies a strong 1 & 3 and a weak 2 & 4. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th 6th, 8th, and 9th eighth notes of 9/8 time are generally the "weak beats."

When you say 2+3+4/8 (I assume you meant 8 unless you were talking about 9/4 time) it should actually be 2+3+2+2/8. All meters are made of either compound or double parts, with the rare oddball/avant-garde exception of single meter. (I.e., 1/4 or 1/8 or something, which can only exist in very specific situations.)

2+3+2+2/8 (your proposal) is of course a very legitimate time signature, but it's not strict 9/8 because it is mixed (both double and compound). So you may write it as 9/8, but, to quote you, "Where can I learn about the whole '*usually* such-and-such beats are accented in such-and-such meter'?" Key word: usually.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 4, 2015)

AugmentedFourth said:


> When you say 2+3+4/8 (I assume you meant 8 unless you were talking about 9/4 time) it should actually be 2+3+2+2/8. *All meters are made of either compound or double parts*, with the rare oddball/avant-garde exception of single meter. (I.e., 1/4 or 1/8 or something, which can only exist in very specific situations.).



I like what you did with the drums, really cool!

I took a look at both of your files and I tried writing my own drums for it. I tried deleting what drums you did A4 and writing my own, but I had a lot of trouble because of how the beats lined up. I usually always work with even numbers or at least repeating odd numbers. So having 3 7/8 and one 8/8 really throws me off. it ends up being a total of 29/8 and I have trouble lining up a drum part to fit into 29 notes since it isn't an even number. I tried changing the bass part around a bit, but it just didn't seem right so I left it alone.

After messing with it and then reading what you said, I start to understand it more, its just a bit hard for me to come up with parts like that.

EDIT: Actually after listening to it again, I understand the part after the palm mute section pretty well, you're playing the pulse on the crash, and you basically just wait one 8th note at the very end before starting over. This is something I remember from Dream Theater. 


I'll try to give some insight into how I would deal with something like this though.

Something I like to do with a 7/8 measure is to repeat it until it falls into a 4/4 time. I'll just have the cymbals and snare going in 4/4 and the kick will follow the 7/8 pattern. after 8 measures of 7/8 it will fall into 4/4 and it will feel seamless.

7/8 * 8 = 56/8
if we change this to be in x/4 like our drums we get 28/4.
since 4 goes into 28 evenly, this will perfectly line up with a 4/4 pattern.

I think this is a polyrhythm? right? I think I know how it works, I don't know if I explained it correctly though.

This isn't as exciting of a drum part, but its kinda cool because the 7/8 pattern repeating always lands on a different accent of the 4/4 drum part.



I do it in this song. 
[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareias/february-2-2014[/SC]
It repeats a 7/8 part for a while with the drums just going in 7/8. Then eventually it breaks into 4/4 drums, but the 7/8 melody continues, you can hear how it plays against the 4/4, it keeps changing which beat it lands on until it finally repeats again after 8 measures. I really like this because 8 measures of 4/4 is a pretty normal chunk of time and it almost always makes sense. 

I know you guys are into more complicated stuff, and I am too  But I'm a big fan of 4/4  Most of the time I try to do as much as I can while staying in the 4/4 boundaries.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 4, 2015)

That's a polymeter, as far as I know. Nice!

Three bars of 7/8 and one of 4/4 is one of my favourites, actually. Did you end up writing a part?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 6, 2015)

At octatoan's request:



octatoan said:


> First off, AFAIK, this starts in Am and goes to Cm. (Aeolian mode of parallel major?  Edit: It's a simple m3 modulation. Duh.)
> It's my first planned key change evar (unlike the infamous "transpose down 3 semitones" thing in "mel.tg").



The change of key signature seems excessive to me. You're alternating between Am (the chord) and Cm (also the chord) every four measures (usually). A modulation requires a chord progression (more than one chord) in each key. This is what a modulation would look like:

[Am:] i V i iv V7/&#9837;III [Cm:] i iiø7 &#9837;II7 VI6,5 iv V7/vi [Am:] i

This is what you are proposing:

[Am:] i [Cm:] i [Am:] i

I'm not convinced. This is what I hear:

[Am:] i &#9837;iii i &#9837;iii

The relationship is between two chords, not between two keys. (It's a chromatic mediant relationship, by the way.) Seeing as those are the only two chords in the piece, I think it is better to scrap the key signature business.



> Fourth, no weird meter changes. Yet.


And the one you have may not be necessary. You could write this entire thing in 6/8 (or 3/4; there seems to be a lot of interplay between the 3+3 and 2+2+2 rhythms). I'd personally stick with 6/8 the entire time, especially considering that the lead guitar in measure 75 is playing the exact same thing as the acoustic guitar in measure 1. I think you could keep it consistent, unless you have some overwhelming reason to start writing in 12 at measure 50. (As a compromise, I think you could justify 12 for 50-56, but go back to 6 at 57.)



> Fifth, tell me how you like the piano accompaniment or whatever that is.


I like it very much. It brings harmonic interest to the piece, which is otherwise fairly static. While the guitars are holding down very triadic harmony, the piano is putting all sorts of added members into the chords. It gives the music a pandiatonic sound.



> (Also, is this an ABA'B form or something, ignoring repeats of parts?)


I don't hear it that way. Measures 1-8 comprise an introduction, but after that everything is A in some capacity. I don't know what you would call this formally. It's not as strict as a theme with variations. It sounds through-composed (durchkomponiert) to me. Here is a piece that is through-composed:

Richard Wagner - Tristan und Isolde - Vorspiel


Hear how Wagner is kicking around the same ideas over and over again, without any real form? That said, one could go in there and draw up sections based on harmonic and textural elements, and perhaps thematic entries, but it's probably better to consider this music as a couple of themes doing their thing with an episode every now and then (much like a fugue, though this is not a fugue at all).

Then there are monothematic forms that have multiple sections.

Johann Sebastian Bach - Two Part Invention No.8


0:00 - A
0:17 - B
0:38 - Codetta

And there is a bunch of stuff going on internally, in terms of subject entries and episodes. The thing that makes this a binary form is that there is a modulation and cadence in the dominant key. The B section begins with a subject entry in the dominant key, and the rest of the B section is about working its way back to the tonic. You're not doing anything like this in your piece, but I'm demonstrating that it is possible to have sectional form even with a single theme. (You can read a little more on the form of Bach's two part inventions here.) Stylistically, your piece is closer to Wagner than Bach.

So yeah, there is no ABA'B.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 6, 2015)

As far as I remember the meter change was for some weird reason to do with TuxGuitar's many idiosyncrasies, not because it was planned. I have no idea what the piano is playing, and 'pandiatonic' makes me not want to even try to analyse it; halp?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 6, 2015)

octatoan said:


> I have no idea what the piano is playing, and 'pandiatonic' makes me not want to even try to analyse it; halp?



It's simpler than it sounds, despite the fact that a Google search for "pandiatonic" immediately results in a headache. Pandiatonicism is the free use of notes within a diatonic scale. I'll jump right into your piece as an example. Here is what is going on at measure 17:

The guitar is playing an Am triad (A C E). There is a B in the second half of the measure, but it is a passing tone and therefore shouldn't factor into the harmonic analysis. The piano is holding down the C and E (&#9837;3 and 5, respectively) of the chord, but there is a B on top of all of that. This B is a chord tone. Specifically, it is an added ninth (making the chord Am(add9)).

In measure 18, the piano is adding both B (9) and F (11). The bass is playing G (5) and D (9). Your chord is now Am(add11,9), containing A B C D E F. That is almost an entire A minor scale crammed into that chord.

At 21, guitar is playing a Cm triad (C E&#9837; G). Piano is also doing the triad. That's vanilla. In 22, the piano is adding an A (13) and the bass is playing B&#9837; (&#9837;7) and G (5). This makes the chord Cm13/B&#9837; (C E&#9837; G B&#9837; D A), which is one note shy of a C dorian scale.

Your piece goes back and forth between Am and Cm, but also tries to throw all of the notes of the A minor and C dorian scale into those chords. Pretty much anything that you can do that doesn't conform to the functional use of diatonic harmony is considered pandiatonicism. Not that it should be a goal or anything; I rarely even refer to anything as "pandiatonic." Make your music crunchy, then you'll be good.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 9, 2015)

It's funny that you mention pandiatonicism. I'm familiar with the concept but it just didn't come to mind when listening to octatoan's composition since it's hardly ever a relevant concept.

I've here updated my progress on Riff Splendor:

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-splendor-c-section[/sc]

I've added a C section, making the form ABa&#8242;C. The C section is essentially bringing back the ascending and descending arpeggios texture of the A section and then putting the B melody on top and a bassline with identical rhythm (but not pitches) as the B bassline, all in the brand new key of F# major. For reference, A is in E minor, B is in B minor (mostly), and C is in F# major. So the transition between A and B is not a large leap, but between A and C it is considerable.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 10, 2015)

0:20 is instant AAL for me. That synth is so NES-game-like. Also, what is that, a double bass? 

Here are a few ideas, ignore the drums if you like. Also, tempo modulation?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 12, 2015)

I like this riff. With the bass guitar going it has a pleasant quality to it. I'm not sure that the "A&#8242;" flag is warranted though. It's just the A theme with a grace note added. The whole thing is just "A," with an intro. The ending could very well lead into a B section though. The metric modulation is a bit awkward as it is, I attached a slightly modified version below where I tried to make the transition smoother. It sounds smoother (and more like a metric modulation than some sort of spontaneous arbitrary tempo change) because you hear the new tempo against the old one for a second as they transition. So in one sense it's like crossfading, and more importantly it is now aurally obvious that the new tempo uses the 5-tuplets of the last tempo.

By the way, TuxGuitar is awful at handling n-tuplets. I almost gave up just trying to write that one measure. The whole thing where it tries to fill the whole measure with arbitrary rests every time you take an action is infuriating.

Those NES-like sounds that I use are actually from tweakbench's NES based synth, peach. I would encourage anyone to check out their plugins, they have quite a few and have really nice interfaces (and obviously are quality all around). And yes, that's a double bass. I wanted to make the blend of acoustic and electronic/synthetic sounds obvious, like an actual hybrid sound instead of just randomly including little synthy sounds or something like that.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 15, 2015)

Nothing much, quick tremolo thing I made while dicking around on my acoustic. In order: Madd9, M7, madd9, m7 chords.

Sounds pretty good and, yes, I can play this. (I've only tried the first shape - the major add9 one.) 

Cheers.


----------



## octatoan (Mar 17, 2015)

I'm not sure if I got around to showing you guys this. It's basically a little, I don't know, country-ish?


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 19, 2015)

Octatoan:

in 8-10-13 I really like the melody that comes in on the bass, its pretty simple and catchy compared to the guitar melody which is refreshing after listening to that for a little bit. Its a nice addition and it balances it well. I like the way that A4 did the metric modulation though, its like he said, if you don't give any reference it just seems like a random tempo change. That being said, I don't think you need to do a tempo change there, the song is like an intro section, you start with solo guitar then bring in bass, then you should bring in drums next, you still have a lot you can add to it without a tempo change. try adding more drums in and then changing the melodic content.

I listened to the more recent songs too, I think you should definitely spend some time trying to add more layers for some harmony or adding drums to give a rhythmic reference point. you should study what A4 is doing, especially when he modifies your songs, even if you completely copy what he does for drums, its a good way to learn.


A4: I really like riff splendor. The acoustic qualities of it are awesome, its really refreshing to listen to. I love the flute lol. The C section is really cool too since its familiar to A and B but its different, and in a new key. I'm curious, how do you decide to switch between keys like that? Is it just what your ear wants to hear? is it because you want to fit in a certain part you came up with? or is it because you're making a strategic decision to switch to that key? I know that switching keys adds a lot of variety to a song, but I guess I'm just confused when/how to do it. 


In my newest work in progress I think I've got the hang of going between relative major and minor though (which is probably the easiest key change, lol) I also tried writing in 3/4 for a change since most of my songs are 4/4, and It ended up being 6/8. I had a little bit of trouble wrapping my head around 6/8 since I'm so accustomed to 4/4, I was getting a bit confused with the drums at first, and since its 6/8 sometimes it can seem like 4/4 because of the way the measures line up. I think I got some decent drums though. 

Lastly, I'm a bit unsure about the structure, theres a lot of parts I like, but I tried to repeat some parts at the end and I'm not 100% on it yet. 

Let me know what you think, I would really love some criticism  I think I'm still going to change quite a few things.
[SC]https://soundcloud.com/nickareiaswip/3-18-15rough[/SC]


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Mar 23, 2015)

TallestFiddle said:


> The C section is really cool too since it's familiar to A and B but it's different, and in a new key. I'm curious, how do you decide to switch between keys like that? Is it just what your ear wants to hear? Is it because you want to fit in a certain part you came up with? or is it because you're making a strategic decision to switch to that key? I know that switching keys adds a lot of variety to a song, but I guess I'm just confused when/how to do it.



In this case I had in mind a way that I was going to mash the A and B sections together, which meant playing the B melody again. The main draw to changing keys was that playing the melody again in the same key would sound boring. Moving it made it fresher. Plus, The C section essentially marks the beginning of what we would consider development of the tune. (In terms of form, at least.) So a more dramatic key change is in order to create contrast.






This is the first image from the Wikipedia article for 'Sonata form.' Sonata form is probably the most important form in classical music, most forms are derived from the basic idea or constitute the basic idea of sonata form. Notice how it's basically this:

1) Play something
2) Do whatever you want with that thing, go crazy
3) Play it again

And that's it. That second step is the development, and as you can see in the image it specifies 'V _and other keys_.' It's the only part without a strict definition. Changing keys keeps the ideas fresh and is a part of what makes it a new section.

Choosing exactly what key to go to was a matter of what key I actually could go to smoothly. I had quite a few prototype key changes, but most were clunky or went to boring closely related keys.

On '3 - 18 - 15 (rough)':

Was this supposed to be in 6/8? Maybe I'm counting wrong, but it seemed like 4/4 the whole way through. If you count 4/4, you pretty consistently emphasize the '1' and place the snare on the '3.'

As an overall impression, it sounded pretty well done to me. The riff at the beginning was nice and relatively long-form. And if someone told me that this was one of like, CHON's old demos or something I would believe them.  Granted, I don't have much listening experience with the style in particular.

Two main criticisms:

1) The lead that comes in at 0:47 seems to be the 'main' lead, but kind of fails to differentiate itself from the main riff underneath it. There is the occasional phrasing difference here and there that gives it 'drive,' and the lead is very well done. But doesn't fit at the beginning of the song, if that makes sense. Like, it seems like it would fit in some later section after a build-up or something like that. Consider a melody that emphasizes beats that the rhythm doesn't, and notes that are somewhat at odds with the chords. Like extensions (9, 11, 13) or even blue notes.

2) There is no real dynamic. It pretty much chugs along at full drive the whole way. There's no soft part(s). But maybe that was your intention.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 26, 2015)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Was this supposed to be in 6/8? Maybe I'm counting wrong, but it seemed like 4/4 the whole way through. If you count 4/4, you pretty consistently emphasize the '1' and place the snare on the '3.'
> 
> As an overall impression, it sounded pretty well done to me. The riff at the beginning was nice and relatively long-form. And if someone told me that this was one of like, CHON's old demos or something I would believe them.  Granted, I don't have much listening experience with the style in particular.
> 
> ...



Its set to 6/8 in reaper, so idk lol. I was thinking in a 3/4 mindset when I was writing the first part, but ya I was getting confused, it seems like 4/4 even though its really 6/8. I think its because its a really fast tempo of 6/8 (230 bpm). I was just listening to it and counting 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 on every cymbal hit and it works so I see why you would see that too. But I can also count 1, 2, 3 between each cymbal hit, which is what the kick, and guitar are doing, so idk what it is, I guess its up to interpretation 

Ya I agree with your criticisms, Its a bit weird the way that lead works there, I actually was playing it as part of the main riff, but I broke it into two seperate parts for the purposes of timbre and I had the lead chugging along upper register notes in between each triplettey part. I think its also a product of my inability to differentiate the tones enough, thats something I need to work on.

I also agree that it could use some dynamics, I tried adding in a more relaxed section after I went back to the beginning material, but it just felt out of place when I went back to that main lead again, and I really wanted to replay that again but harmonize it at the end. I don't mind that its all up-tempo right now, but I definitely need to work on adding more dynamics into the next song. Actually, Now that I think about it, it would have been nice if I had a quieter section instead of that riff at 1:44. In hindsight I think that riff is a bit excessive actually.

Thanks a bunch for the criticisms, they will help me alot going forward. I think I'm going to leave this song where it is though, its not worth it to mess around with it too much, I'll just start on another one with these thoughts in mind.


----------



## octatoan (Apr 5, 2015)

Nick: Your drums be nice and simple. I like them.

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/octatoan/moar[/SC]

I forced myself to write a solo piano piece in two hours, concerned that maybe I was a) dependent on the guitar to come up with riffs/themes, b) afraid of flat keys (this is in Eb Ab) and c) dependent on "layering" multiple instruments without giving each one material interesting enough to allow it to stand on its own. Also, (I think) this ends with a ii-V-I (Fm-Bb-Eb? Might be wrong, can't check now. Bbm - Eb - Ab.)

Here's a PDF of the score. There are a few nice tuplets (I use MuseScore now, the 2.0 version is awesome on Linuxes!)

Also, I got on SoundCloud.

Edit: .... .... .... THIS IS IN A FLAT THATS WHY THE ENDING SOUNDS SO BAD
Edit 2: I WANT TO SWEAR GODDAMMIT
Edit 3: Fixed.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 24, 2015)

Octo: Cool piece. I like the tuple parts that you put in there. I think the ultra fast runs are a little out of place though, they just don't seem to belong at that speed when the bass notes are going that slow. I like the ending the best because you change up the chords a bit more, you should try to do that more if you can. It seems like it was hard based on your confusion about it, but I liked the way it sounded. Good job doing that in 2 hours!

Also, thanks for mentioning MuseScore, I just downloaded it and found out theres a panoramic view, so I'm gonna start using that. thats the only reason I was still using my current software.




I had mono this week, so i was stuck on the couch forever. I decided to work on some composition so I wrote this song. I'm happy with how it turned out, but I was hoping to make it longer. As it is, I feel like I'm losing track of the original theme as I make it longer. I don't have a very good workflow with transcription, and I'm spending a lot of time with trial and error seeing what works and what doesn't. I'm writing everything into a TAB exclusive editor, because thats what I'm used to. But I'm trying to think about things in terms of theory, and the tab numbers aren't helping me very much.

I paid more attention to dynamics in this song, making sure it wasn't just full blast the whole time like the last one. I was trying to transition to minor at one point (1:30) and I think that part is minor, but I thought everything after it was too. But I just realized that the last section is major, I was thinking of the wrong note as the root note when I was writing the chords. I was mostly writing everything by ear, and sometimes thinking about the chord roman numerals to help out. I guess this is just a common problem that I have, I think I need to do more research.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy, please let me know any critiques you think of


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 27, 2015)

TallestFiddle said:


> As it is, I feel like I'm losing track of the original theme as I make it longer. I don't have a very good workflow with transcription, and I'm spending a lot of time with trial and error seeing what works and what doesn't.



I think you actually did a good job keeping the number of materials you used to a good number. The ending part sounds like the beginning part, and the acoustic chord part at the middle/end sounds fitting with the tension that it builds, using chords that aren't present before that point.



TallestFiddle said:


> I paid more attention to dynamics in this song, making sure it wasn't just full blast the whole time like the last one. I was trying to transition to minor at one point (1:30) and I think that part is minor, but I thought everything after it was too. But I just realized that the last section is major, I was thinking of the wrong note as the root note when I was writing the chords. I was mostly writing everything by ear, and sometimes thinking about the chord roman numerals to help out. I guess this is just a common problem that I have, I think I need to do more research.
> 
> Anyway, I hope you enjoy, please let me know any critiques you think of



While the your tonality does sound very conservative, I think it really works because you focus on certain areas of the key (I wasn't sure if I heard a key change to the relative key or not) by limiting the chords that you use for each part of the song, thus making the sections distinct and poignant. Much of the attraction of the song comes from the interwoven melodies such as at 0:36.

If I may ask, do you plan on putting vocals into these pieces? If so, how are you going to write the vocal line(s)?

I also squeezed out a riff or two, I'll put those right here:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-informational[/SC]

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-crushing-defeat[/SC]


----------



## TallestFiddle (Apr 27, 2015)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad you like the part at 0:36, I was really enjoying the layered melodies, I was actually a bit afraid that it was getting too busy, but you've put me at ease there.

I have a friend who wants to do vocals for some of my songs, but I won't be writing the vocal lines for him. I've written vocal parts for some of my songs, and I did that mostly by improvising and seeing what I liked and what I didn't. Similar to how I write guitar leads. Are you planning to write vocal lines for your songs?

I enjoyed your pieces very much. I love the way that the different melodies play against each other in informational. I'm a huge fan of your chord progressions, your music always surprises me with where it goes harmonically. It inspires me to branch out and learn more. 
I love when the synth comes in on crushing defeat, and the rhythmic breakdown is really interesting and unexpected too, really cool.

I'm curious. What program do you use for composing? Guitar Pro? I tried using MuseScore that Octotoan reccomended, but its hard to use compared to the program I use now where I can maneuver around the tabs with the arrow keys. I know I'm doing myself a disservice by only writing tabs, but I have such a hard time getting used to any of the programs for writing standard music.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Apr 28, 2015)

TallestFiddle said:


> I have a friend who wants to do vocals for some of my songs, but I won't be writing the vocal lines for him. I've written vocal parts for some of my songs, and I did that mostly by improvising and seeing what I liked and what I didn't. Similar to how I write guitar leads. Are you planning to write vocal lines for your songs?



Got it. I figured that that's how most vocal melodies are written. Since it's such an easy instrument to improvise on (having had it for one's whole life) it makes sense to write that way.

I don't write vocal lines... If I did they might just be guitar lines that are 'sing-songy' so I decide to have them sung (using vowel sounds and such).



TallestFiddle said:


> I'm curious. What program do you use for composing? Guitar Pro? I tried using MuseScore that Octotoan reccomended, but its hard to use compared to the program I use now where I can maneuver around the tabs with the arrow keys. I know I'm doing myself a disservice by only writing tabs, but I have such a hard time getting used to any of the programs for writing standard music.



I use GP5. There's nothing wrong with writing in tablature (until you are writing for instruments that aren't guitar). Sure, you don't get the probably somewhat marginal practice of writing in standard notation, but it's not like it's much more difficult to use standard notation. I tend to write out my sketch ideas (and thus where most of my writing gets done) in tablature because I want to do it 1) quick 2) dirty and 3) want to preserve the voicings and fingerings that I used, since a lot of my riffs tend to rely on certain fingerings and I don't want to have to go back and re-extract those fingerings from standard notation by trial and error or whatever.

When doing transcriptions, however, I use a cheapy version of Finale. I've gotten very used to writing drums in GP5's tab-like method, though.


----------



## TallestFiddle (May 3, 2015)

That makes me feel better that you write some tabs too. I was getting worried that I was waiting time writing in tabs when I could be writing it in standard notation. I guess it's not too hard to keep theory in mind when writing tabs. Most of what I do comes from my ear and my knowledge of the guitar so it would make sense to use tabliture.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (May 17, 2015)

So I've been getting into and listening to Philip Glass a lot recently, and I think it shows in "Riff Crushing Defeat." Especially with the song now completed (I think):

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-crushing-defeat-pre-mix[/sc]

I was inspired by Glassworks specifically, and so I felt a bit freer to use simpler chord progressions and instead focus on orchestration and developing the parts/themes. The 8th-note staccato horn lines are pretty obviously Glassian, and while I abandon the (rather decidedly) conservative harmonic palette that Glass uses, some of the ideas are still there (using amen cadences, using the vi as a focus in itself instead of a passing chord, etc.).

I tried to make "Riff Informational" in contrast: Informational is very bouncy and is full of melodies (little and large) and embellishments.

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-informational-b-section[/sc]

It's funny, taking a snippet of the 16th-note tapped melody from the beginning and slowing it down x2, overlaying it over the next part. Because I don't even know if it's really possible to notice unless you transcribe it out. Maybe there's some subconscious effects where like, when you're listening to it you make connections that the new melody is at least very similar in certain ways (certain intervals or general contours, maybe) to the 'A' melody. I hope that it gives some sort of cohesion to the two parts, even for someone who is unaware of the explicit connection.

I imagine there has to be something there, since there is always that level of abstraction that your mind retains where you can listen to a melody and be like, "oh yeah... this is definitely John Coltrane" or whatever.

That also makes me wonder, do any of you guys have any 'gestures' that you have throughout your music that you are consciously aware of?


----------



## octatoan (May 17, 2015)

Gibbs, define 'gesture'.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (May 17, 2015)

A classic example of a gesture (although a rather strict example of one) would be The BACH motif.

Anything like, for example, switching your hi-hats from quarter/eighth notes to dotted eights before lots of your cadences, that would be a gesture. Anything that is a recognizable pattern that can fit in many contexts so that they can be reused to varying effects throughout one's repertoire I would consider a gesture.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 18, 2015)

To add to that, think of a gesture as the general shape of a thing, not so much the specific notes. As a simple example, an arpeggio is going to sound like an arpeggio regardless of the chord quality, transposition, inversion, range, or direction. If you build a gesture from an arpeggio, the iterations of that single gesture are inexhaustible. Another one. A repeated note will sound like a repeated note, no matter what. You can expand the idea by making a sequence of repeated notes, repeated chords, harmonized repeated notes, working the repeated note into polyphony, working with dynamics and articulation... Motivic development is about cranking out as many versions of a single idea as possible (and as desired).


Mess with texture. There's monophony, homophony, polyphony, heterophony, and a few things in between and beyond. Anything you do in one of those textures can be rehashed in the others. Same thing with dynamics and articulation.


----------



## bigswifty (May 22, 2015)

This isn't a plug, I swear!

But I posted a page or two back saying I'd share something and since then the tracks I've been composing have lost some steam and I've become a little stuck on where I should take them.

But I did do this one recently: 
[sc]https://soundcloud.com/devbrow/virga[/sc]

Feel free to nitpick the .... out of it!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 22, 2015)

I like it. There's a good amount of variety, detail, and especially texture. At first listen, I don't have any huge problems with it.


----------



## inaudio (Jun 14, 2015)

@dbrozz I really liked the track. The vibe immediately reminded me of Chroma Key's track Even the Waves but with the style/presentation/execution sounding a lot like some of the stuff I've heard from Chimp Spanner. There's a few things about the song that I think are done really well. First off, I feel like the intro stood out and actively captured my attention. I think that lots of people write great stuff but don't get much attention because there's just so much out there these days. I think that the first impression a track gives can be quite important from that viewpoint, since it's quite rare for people to take time out of their day to let the demo of somebody they've never heard of "sink in". This is obviously not something to apply to every song, but something to think about if you're hoping to get noticed. 

Another thing that I really liked was the variety of dynamics throughout the track. Especially the transition into the softer part after the intro and the slightly darker and gloomier sounding ending. The only thing that didn't have much variety in the track was instrumentation. Not a bad thing, more of an observation. Variety regarding instrumentation is something I personally enjoy in music. An example that comes to my mind is Periphery's track Priestess. Starts off acoustic, is predominantly played by a band but then has a short electronic break. Pretty sure that combined with the earlier point about making a first impression is one of the reasons why Alpha works as a single! 

And don't worry about the plug thing. I definitely agree with Kevin Smith's point that one of the things that most people yearn for is to be heard. I don't see the harm in granting each other that opportunity.


----------



## inaudio (Jun 14, 2015)

@AugmentedFourth "Riff Crushing Defeat" and "Riff Informational" is the best stuff I've heard from you. Amazing job. Although, I must ask...







...is your next song going to be "Riff Raff"?


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jun 24, 2015)

@dbrozz

Sick stuff right there. While Biison was critical of the uniformity of instrumentation, I think that you did a good job with it. Since the orchestration and simple switches between single notes and chords changes the texture, the constant instrumentation keeps the aesthetic coherent. Overall pretty tasty.

Here's the lastest thing I've been working on, Riff Worn:

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-worn-rough-sketch[/sc]

What I'm starting to notice is that I've been sneaking in more classical music influence as I go... some arts of this piece are almost baroque counterpoint, and usually I wouldn't use transitions like the one at the 2:00 mark. Anyways, I hope to make this a two-parter, which is easy to do when you end on a 7b9 chord.


----------



## jonajon91 (Nov 4, 2015)

So I try not to use threads like these, but I've caved. I've been working on this large-ish project, but I have not progressed much on it for a week or so now. My main wondering is if the heavy twist at bar 54 is too sudden and needs a build up into it or if it should be taken out completely. At the moment, it does not really fit the style of the rest and it does not go anywhere so it could be deleted quite easily.

FMP 04-11-15
I don't know how this will sound in GP6 or with RSE so ill just say for best sounds use GP5 midi.

---edit---

Happy to be a fresh pair of ears for anyone else.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Nov 4, 2015)

jonajon91 said:


> So I try not to use threads like these, but I've caved.



No worries dude. I have this thread on e-mail subscription so I can come here when people post. I think it's a good resource, no shame in adding to a conversation.



jonajon91 said:


> I've been working on this large-ish project, but I have not progressed much on it for a week or so now. My main wondering is if the heavy twist at bar 54 is too sudden and needs a build up into it or if it should be taken out completely.



No, I think the transition there is good and I think the part gives a much-needed fleshing out of that section. It's the most "metal" point of the piece but still feels like it's part of the aesthetic. That being said, the transition at m. 121 needs a bit of work. I can't quite tell from the notation, but it looks like you are going from 100 bpm to 250 bpm. This a bit awkward of a transition, but maintaining those bpm values you can do something like 5-tuplet notes to anticipate the transition or just add drums to that one interim measure or something to that effect. As it is, it's quite jarring.



jonajon91 said:


> At the moment, it does not really fit the style of the rest and it does not go anywhere so it could be deleted quite easily.



I think it's fine.

Here's a tip: Don't use the key of Ab minor, use G# minor. Unless you have some special reason to be in Ab minor, it's just too many accidentals and the relative major is Cb instead of B. Awkward.

Structurally it comes off a bit odd. The beginning is quite good, and has a nice build-up/layering, but it just seems to build up and then dump off into a seemingly unrelated theme, and the first bit doesn't come back. Also I'm curious why you have a section labelled "Transition to Ab." It sounds less like a transition and more like the song ended (fading out) and then a new one started up a bit after.

The "first idea" section is ok with the G# drone on the bottom, but the chords leave something to be desired. Maybe add a third one.

From mm. 10-41, I think that it would be cool to alternate the turnaround measures in terms of what Track 1 is playing. On the turn-around measures (e.g. m. 25), it plays a G# and then the G# below it. The note below could also alternatively be D#, or even B. Alternating one or both of those with G# might be good.

I like the sparse drum parts and I think those will translate well to actual recorded drums with reverb and all that good stuff.

Right now the last completely new song I have up is Riff Performed:

[sc]https://soundcloud.com/augmentedfourth/riff-performed[/sc]

Not a finished mix, but the composition is finished pretty much. I'm just not sure what to do for the section at 4:48 though. Right now I just have some choir business singing triads over it


----------



## jonajon91 (Nov 5, 2015)

Thanks for the thorough reply. 
I completely forgot about the change at 121, it is definitely the weakest part of what I have. I thought I might be able to hide the crap songwriting behind a layer of noise, but that's not a good idea. Ill either scrap it or rework it completely. 
The structure is still subject to change since everything is a long way from being finalised or ever written. The best way I can describe what I am doing with the ending is by sharing this. in Bb 2.0 - a collaborative music/spoken word project - The idea that a group of instruments improvising slowly in the same key with free form and no tempo, yet still fit together interests me so that is what I'm going to do in the section titled Bb is to record as many instruments as I can get my hands on doing just that. Ill then transition all the instruments into Ab (G#) for the final section which is really just godspeed but not as good. I am also tempted to add more to the 'first idea' section as well and I messed around with the turnaround bars as well, it's just a subtle change to stop it being to repetitive which I like, I'm afraid there are a few parts which repeat without enough change that I will have to sit and play with at some point.
I'm just sorry that I can't think of anything to say about 4:48 in your piece, I think it works well. Thanks a lot for all the pointers though.


----------

