The unspoken rules of music

Posted on

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member Since: Aug 05, 2003

Yeah, yeah, I know, "there are no rules to music..."

But what kind of rules do you set for yourself when you compose/record?

For example... I don't like to use loops of instruments typically, I like to play them myself. I also try not to use reverb anymore, because I've admitted to myself that in the past I've tried to cover up mistakes in playing with verb.

I guess the other part of the topic would be what musical practices do you find "cheesy"? Such as (and I'm just giving an example) using pitch correction on vocals is considered by some to be cheesy, or cheating, or whatever.

[ Back to Top ]


Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Oct 29, 2003 04:30 pm

how about "don't settle for anything"? encompasses a lot of things. using auto-tune (unless as an effect) is like settling for a sub-par vocal performance. but keep in mind that there is a difference between the standards you keep for yourself and a things like the needs of a client.

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Oct 29, 2003 08:11 pm

For my own stuff,

It has to be different than what I've done before ie: no making multiple songs out of 1

It has to have a melody and that melody can't remind me of any other melody.

The song overall has to sound original to me and interesting.

I absolutely hate contrived, mellow for the sake of mellow, thats what I sat down to write, cry me a river type songs, so you'll hear very few mellow songs out of me and when you do I HOPE TO GOD they don't fit the above <G>

As for cheesy musical practices, I don't have any rules except that what ever it is works. :)

Dan

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 29, 2003 09:33 pm

Quote:
It has to be different than what I've done before ie: no making multiple songs out of 1


I'm glad Angus Young didn't feel that way, he wouldn't have even completed a single album then. :-D

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 12:22 am

radiohead shares that philosophy of always branching out. sometimes i wish i could. but my development is slow, so i tend to stick with styles i know. i'm trying to build a catologue of hard, distorted rocking songs. once i've got them, i guess i'll get more experimental.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 30, 2003 07:00 am

I really don't feel every piece of music has to be (or even CAN be) ground breaking, or pushing the envelope of creativity, making a statement or musical prowess.

Personally, I just think it has to sound good enough to make you bob your head, tap your feet or sing along with.

I dunno, I try to keep music fun and light hearted and not put so much thought into it...

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 08:35 am

"I dunno, I try to keep music fun and light hearted and not put so much thought into it..."

I like fun and light hearted music too, but I like it to be music that makes me think, or has a unique sound, or something. Music that pushes the boundaries. I realize that you can't possibly break new ground with every single song, but right now I'm at a point in my life where I'm actively *trying* to break new ground with everything I write. But I also try to anchor my new music to an existing "zone of comfort" for most people, by using the pentatonic scale as a base for my music, as well as adding catchy rythym parts as opposed to really weird, odd-metered rythyms and such. One of these days I'm going to toss that framework out the window and see just how much ground I can break and still have listenable music.... :) but for right now I want to build a catalog of unique and catchy tunes.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 30, 2003 08:39 am

I hear ya, I don't work like that myself. Most of my music could be considered quite simple, I just write down what comes out of my head, if it's unique, thats cool, if it's not, that's cool too, ultimately I know it came from somewhere inside for some reason.

Music is a hobby that I have cuz it allows me to shut my brain off and not have to think...just kinda let me fingers go...I have to think too damn much as it is, I don't wanna have to in my down time as well.

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 02:32 pm

I think you guys are reading more into my first rule than is there :) It simply mean's I'm not going to do another song that uses the same basic chord progression/stucture, and put a melody to it that's enough different to be a "new" song, but it still makes you think of the original song.

None of my music, breaks new ground, (which, btw I think one could count on no more than 2 hands and probably 1 over the last 40 years) nor pushes the envelope of creativity (or anything else <G>) etc. I use zero brain power while writing a song, all I do is when something sounds good to me then thats what I do and if others think it sounds good too, all the better.

Dan

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 30, 2003 02:34 pm

olddog, I wanna jam with you :-D

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 02:46 pm

"....I think one could count on no more than 2 hands and probably 1 over the last 40 years...."

You mean you don't think more than 1 band over the last 40 years has broken new ground? Do you mean the Beatles? But there's been so much new music that's totally different! Compare the differences between the Beatles and Slayer, just for example. One can't go from "koo koo kachoo" to "Seasons in the Abyss" without a major creative leap. I'm not saying it's better music, mind you (you Beatles fans stop gnashing your teeth at me) - I'm just saying it's soooooo different that there had to be another great stylistic leap in between the two.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 30, 2003 02:47 pm

I think he was referring to HIS music.

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 02:48 pm

oh... ok, my bad :)


whoops, I also see he said "count on one hand" not "count on one band" as I seem to have thought... I'm having a dy7slxe3sic moment

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 30, 2003 02:49 pm

yes, yes it is your bad. :-D

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 03:47 pm

So the other morning I was recording, right? I wrote/recorded a really cool rhythym section part for verse 1 of this intrumental I'm doing now. It has a certain quality that I really wanted to capture for v2 as well, but it took me forever to get down for v1. Am I lame to copy that part and just paste it again for v2? It's background for a lead, mostly. Anyhow, I just wondered what other folks thought about this.

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Oct 30, 2003 04:09 pm

alot of music is "cut n paste" today. try tracking it out twice and if it doesn't mesh after a reasonable number of takes, then just copy n paste the best take over other part.

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Oct 30, 2003 10:07 pm

Yes I was refering to between 5-10. And of course ground breaking, as in all musical form is in the ear of the beholder as well, so you might have many more and a completely different list than I would have :)

Tincan: I don't see any reason it would be lame. The only time personally I'd find something like that even questionable is if you started using it unmodified in every song wrote to the point one started to notice it in every song being the same :) Ain't technolgy great LOL

dB, ready when you are <G>

Dan

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Oct 31, 2003 07:32 am

ahhh... then I've still got it! 30 years old and still cool. I shall paste away, sirs.
Yes, using the same music in all my songs would be pretty weird and pointless.

Member
Since: Apr 24, 2003


Nov 02, 2003 11:06 am

its not the notes. its the space between them.

my only rule.

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 02, 2003 11:14 am

huh? i dont get that one...

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 02, 2003 11:15 am

oh, I get it like crazy, he's very right. it's the "less is more" mentality.

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 02, 2003 11:46 am

ahhh, gotcha. the KISS technique - keep it simple, stoopid!

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Nov 02, 2003 03:24 pm

i thought pixelpixie was reffering to rests. like "negative space" in the visual arts, it's just as important as the actual notes. it's all very zen.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Nov 02, 2003 03:38 pm

isn't that BB King talking about how the notes that you don't play are just as important as the ones that you do?

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Nov 02, 2003 04:07 pm

nah man it's chef!

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Nov 02, 2003 04:08 pm

no but, yeah, it really shows in BB's playing. no "wasted notes" there.

Member
Since: Dec 16, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 07:41 am

Hmmm, cutting and pasting? Not sure if this is 'ethical' or not. On the one hand if a song involves the same bass part for example repeated throughout the song then why bother playing it perfectly over and over when you can play it the once and then just cut and paste thus saving time on re-takes. On the other hand it doesn't fit with the approach of what a recording should ideally be, ie a record of a particular performance.

Still, cut and paste exists and isn't going to go away, so its all academic I guess.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 07:48 am

ethical? ETHICAL? You can't handle ETHICAL!

This IS the entertainment business, not the board of ethics. People are too hung up on how music gets made, who cares...does it sound good? Do you enjoy it? Does it sell? If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, then who cares...

There are naysayers to every step technology makes...whether it's MIDI, computer recording, remote controls, microwave ovens or horseless carriages...

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 07:50 am

i think both preferences are right on this...cutting and pasting is a very useful way to get something done in less time, but you should also keep some aspect of 'human-ness' in your recording.

im hedging my bets, by doing acoustic guitar stuff, backed with stuff done in fruity!

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 07:52 am

"humanness" isn't really always the goal with some types of music thought...

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 07:55 am

yeah true...stuff like techno and some dance, i guess can be fine without anything other than computerised beats and sounds.


Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 09:05 am

heh... i'm listening to Venetian Snares right now... this has got to be the most inhuman thing i know !

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 09:14 am

that 'voodoo people' tune by the prodigy is a good one too...

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 09:26 am

flame, i like "Poison" off that same album. That whole album is s trip@

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 03, 2003 09:30 am

totally

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Nov 03, 2003 02:23 pm

Music isn't about how you make it, only that you do.

Dan

Member
Since: Apr 24, 2003


Nov 04, 2003 09:01 am

its the space between......

what i meant by that is that the mind doesn't need to be told absolutely everything about everything. it can work out stuff for itself. how many times have you been humming along to a song when you realised the part you were whistling doesn't actually exist on the song. what you're whistling is the space, the suggested notes and melodies bought about by the ones you can hear.

man,

god i sound like a hippy

dance music needs lots of humanity to get through the fact that you aint playing an instrument as such. i use warm sounding basslines and instruments to flavour mine so it sounds more organic, like dub bass or a guitar stab or somesuch. after all, dance music is about making humans dance!

you telling me unfinished sympathy by massive attack has no humanity??

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 04, 2003 10:37 am

i think unfinished sympathy is an AWESOME tune..but its the vocal that really makes it for me - the human aspect

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Nov 04, 2003 11:16 am

"i think both preferences are right on this...cutting and pasting is a very useful way to get something done in less time, but you should also keep some aspect of 'human-ness' in your recording."

Ok, thanks for the opinions, guys. Just for the record, I decided to go ahead and paste as needed. I haven't done that before, and probably won't do it often because I feel kinda like flame there, you need to put yourself into the music and not just be relying on loops all the time. But I figure, hey, I'm just one guy writing and recording for multiple guitar, bass, drum, and vocal tracks in the tiny amount of time I've got to do this - why not save myself the headache and just paste if I need to? So I used the same djembe and bass tracks in the song I'm writing, saving myself probably an hour to an hour and a half. It seems to take me about 2 months of weekend mornings to come out with a new song, so time saved is time earned, IMHO! :) The sky has not fallen yet, but I'm keeping my eye on it.

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 04, 2003 11:22 am

i dont totally go against anything manipulated...all my drum tracks are programmed and all my bass parts cut and pasted, pretty much.

but id object to cutting and pasting stuff like guitar parts and vocals...

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Nov 04, 2003 11:24 am

Yeah, me too... I doubt I'll ever paste a guitar part - I was a guitar player first, before any other instruments - but I don't feel especially dirty in pasting a drum/bass section. Besides, the way it's used, you can make out the bass line a lot better on the 2nd pass anyway, letting one hear what it's really doing.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 04, 2003 11:49 am

I'll paste anything done repetitively...

...bringing sexy back
Member
Since: Jul 01, 2002


Nov 04, 2003 11:57 am

sounds good to me!

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Nov 04, 2003 07:11 pm

If I'd been smart I'd of pasted the first portion of the bass part I just did for a song I'm working on.. 3+ hours for 3 minutes of bass before I finally got a take I could live with. <G>

Dan

Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003


Nov 04, 2003 10:40 pm

I'm with dB here.

"I'll paste anything done repetitively..."


Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Nov 05, 2003 01:26 am

yeah but coolo, you and i make electronic music... we're expected to use loops and samples! :OD

-j

sloppy dice, drinks twice
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2003


Nov 05, 2003 07:41 am

I'm thinking that as long as you can take a shortcut that's not distasteful to you (like for me, a guitar player, pasting guitar parts willy-nilly seems somehow wrong) then you should not force yourself to play through every single note. I mean, we already accept plenty of electronic music that is loaded with loops, what's the difference if someone wants to save themselves 20 takes, or whatever, repeating the first verse note for note. Just don't sacrifice quality for efficiency.
It makes me think of a discussion my wife and I were having last night. She was being a good sport and actually watching Matrix: Reloaded with me, when we started talking about how the action scenes looked distinctly like a video game sequence instead of a movie. I guess the point we agreed on was that just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Technology has given the filmmakers the ability to have some crazy slo-mo action and fantastic zooms, pans, and perspectives - but (IMHO) it sometimes cheapens a film to see every single effect at once. Some of the effects looked completely unreal. Seems to me that it's kind of a parallel to the discussion here about pasting loops. Although the effects aren't always as obvious (or at least, visually obvious) when you take advantage of technology in music, I think that you still have to be careful to write music that has worth as music separate from the technology that supports it. Obviously there are exceptions, like purely electronic music, etc. But it seems to me that if you find yourself wanting to hit your effect pedals more than 10 times in a song, you might want to take it back to the drawing board, so to speak... :) (disclaimer - I am biased, I don't use many effects in my style of music, obviously different genres have different requirements or expectations) So I guess looping too can be a boon or a crutch, depending on how it's used.

Member
Since: Jan 03, 2004


Jan 06, 2004 07:34 pm

oh man I love this thread lol. Wish I had read it sooner.

I think everyone has excellent points and I think for me it depends on the song I'm writing.

The way I write is really subconcious most of the time. I'll hear songs in dreams or in my head when I'm sick and have a high fever or something and go learn them before I lose them. Those are usually my best ones lol. (Not sure if that says something good or bad about my songwriting lmao).

SometimesI write the lyricsfirst, then wait until a tuneI write accomodates them. Other times I write the music first (though "write" isn't an actual term because I have a learing dissability in math that has carried overinto music but I can get the gist of it) and then feel out what the music is saying and write lyrics to it.

I usually go through many many iterrations of the lyrics, and quite often the music as well. But for the most part it's the lyrics that change and not the music so much because I feel like it arrivedin my headthe way it should be, and 9 times out of ten it feels best the way it came about originally. I do usualy enhance it though over time, play it with more gracenotes or whatever lol.

The most important element to me is rhythem. Everything else no matter how complex or fast or crazy comes from that. There are rythems within rythems and that's how I account for crazy stuff but it's all within the first beat you hear, just inaudible until you go into it. Y'know?

On the cut and paste thing, I think of it like this. When you hit a key, it pulls up a sound someone else programed or sampled into the keyboard. When you paste a measure, it pulls up a bunch of sounds you or someone else played. Lol. Same difference to me.

Though, for me personally, I sing songs all the way through (usually differently each time lol) and I seriously doubt I'll ever fail to play a song entirely with the exception of drum tracks. I've played drum tracks cold before, for years actually, but it's just not as good as I know it could be, and though it has a vibe, it isn't what I hear in my head. Plus while I have pretty good timing it isn't THAT good lol.

Basically I think as long as you are creating what you hear in your head, it's fine. I don't have any real rules other than that, and alot of how I do it depends on the song and it's content and the way it is conceived of. Sometimes I'm not sure whether I'm writing songs or whether the songs are writing me. Lol.

On a final note, I think it's important to remember that total originality is not possible. Everything comes from what came before. You couldn't create a song without having heard music anymore than you could be born without a mother and father. All we can do is create new and unique combinations of the elements which have preceeded us. We can imagine a dog with a chicken's head. And that may be new. But a dog and a chicken, we have all seen before. Know what I mean?

Not to sound too gushy but it's really quite beautiful actually because it's like we're all part of a family with many generations and combinations and REcombinations of music in our veins. I think it's cool to be "descended" from all those that came before. :)

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Jan 06, 2004 09:06 pm

NOw that is heavy.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.