Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Eh... I personally don't like uploading old, unfinished work onto my account - it makes my audio look sporatic. Glad you enjoyed it, though.

Well, this is OLD (three years old, to be precise), but I have a WIP of a James Bond remix of Bionic Commando.

It's dated, but maybe you'll enjoy it. It has the theme in there, at least. Someday when I actually have the tools to make it sound good I'll make it again, but... yeah, there ya go. Enjoy.

You cannot use copyrighted material verbatim under any circumstances, not even as short cameo clips. If, however, you are arranging the two tracks and making a new song with your own equipment and non-copyrighted sounds then it should be alright.

So if this is, say, a mashup, then no dice. If this is an arrangement that uses themes from two different tunes then that'd be awesome and should be perfectly acceptable.

At 6/1/11 10:25 AM, SBB wrote: hey stop the mindless theory wank and discuss something else.

it's not mindless youre mindless...

... alright, maybe it is a little bit...

I think we've both mutually agreed to stop, so don't worry. Besides, I thought that's what this thread was for? Where else can I wank my theory?!

I'm in for the dance/trance album... not that claiming a spot does anything for me :P

The proof is in the pudding... the pudding of my music.

... and I thought people have already been over why submitting previously submitted tracks on NG wouldn't be a good idea? People will feel terribly ripped off if many/most of the tracks on the album are available elsewhere for free - even if it's hard to find otherwise, people do not like the idea of purchasing something that is legally free. It'll be very bad for sales, and it'll create customer dissatisfaction, leading to a collapse in the product.

It's... just not a good idea, at all.

At 6/1/11 04:46 AM, Supersteph54 wrote: I'm still up for #1. #1 is also more flexible because you can submit a previously made track to get chosen, but nobody's stopping you from making a new one (my point was that you don't HAVE to submit an older song, but you can if you want), which rules out the last two cons of Option #1. It's true that somebody who made awesome music may suddenly make a piece of crap, but I don't think that's very likely.

Alright, here's the problem with it. #1 has an unnecessary step in it. Sorting artists into who should contribute and who shouldn't is a redundancy in the process. Worse, it's something that will take more time away from the quality control judges - whereas before they'd look through whoever submit music, now they're looking at whoever is going to submit music AND those that actually submit music. Even worse than that, it's a system that favors those that submit frequently over those that don't post as often, since they'll have more to chose from. Sure, people CAN make something for the sake of finding out if they're accepted or not, but why would they want to do that when they know they're going to need to make another track afterward? Or, in the case that the judges can accept any presented track and put it on the album, why is there a separate judging process to begin with?

The only thing that extra step serves is to save spots for the artists that are already fairly prolific on the portal. I don't like the favoritism/elitism that would inevitably occur in that system (it's an inherent flaw in the system, there's not much that you can do about that).

I think Option #1 is better because it's simply more flexible. In my opinion we should allow people to post old tracks of theirs and then a handful get chosen to make music for the album. It may turn out to be a bit more of a longer process than Option #2 but it's the best approach, the way I see it.

It's not flexible, at all, and I don't see why you think it is. It's more strain on the judges, it favorites those that are frequent posters by adding extra work to those that are not, and it is completely redundant otherwise. Option two gets rid of all these issues without any other issues occurring. How is the first method more flexible than the second?

Hmm... I think with option 2 there seems to be something missing. Wouldn't the judging technically be easier in a sense, since we'll only be listening to one track, and it'll encompass both the process of getting accepted in writing for the album AND getting a particular track chosen? Option 1 you'd need to judge the person's batting average, then find the best of the best, then chose which tracks are best for the albums. Double dipping is no fun.

That seems to be yet another perk to #2. BTW, if I didn't mention it before I'm all for #2.

I think we can both rest comfortably on most of that - there is a point where we're going to go all fanboy over counterpoint (that's me) vs harmony (that's you). ... sort of a strange way to put it, but there ya go.

Just a quick notice, when I say things get 'knocked out of wack' I just mean that using traditional means to make your music tend to lead to... strange results. Many songs have experimented with other tonal structures, motions, etc., and still manage to sound great (bless the Simpsons).

Alright, I think we've pretty much tired each other out.

Join us next week when we discuss: Tonnetz - Did your music get caught in them?

Alright, that's some great quality. PM me if you'd like any scores written for ya - I'd be happy to write for you sometime.

Sorry if this discussion is taking up so much room, by the way. I don't have too many chances to splurge my music theory nerd-dom anywhere. We'll all help anyone who has legitimate questions on the subject, as well.

At 5/31/11 05:34 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: That's a false arguement, as in any scale that is assymetrical you may have distinct modes. Melodic minor, harmonic minor, hungarian minor etc. etc. Even entatonics have this luxury, and modes of gapped, octo and nanotonic scales can all sound wildly different.

Look at the vector class of the 7-35, to understand what I'm saying (this is outside of the realm of tonality, but applicable).

--2 5 4 3 6 1--

No other septachord set class has this property - you can look all you like, but one doesn't exist. How does this translate? There are mostly 4ths and 5ths in the system (making it ideal for a system that deals especially with those intervals), followed by major seconds, then major and minor thirds (respectively), minor seconds, and finally a single, defining tritone. This prominence of intervals in this particular manner is incredible, in terms of pitch class, because it implies an order of dominant intervals (which, by the way, often helps form the structure of pantonal music).

In the case of other asymmetrical classes, there may be different 'modes', but there is often no dominant interval, and if there is there is certainly no set hierarchy to the other interval classes - there will be overlap (and therefore ambiguity in strength of presence in a piece) that will throw any set structure out of wack.

Also, you're missing what is possibly a much more practical reason for such a setup that I mentioned before - it's the maximally even distribution of seven notes over twelve halfsteps. I didn't go into detail on it, but it perhaps is even more relevant to the discussion because it very well could have been something that they thought up.

In a not-so-mathematical way of putting it, think about it this way - given twelve spaces to fill, how could you best put seven people as far away from each other as possible? After some shuffling you'll find that the best way to do this is to place them in seat 0,1,3,5,6,8 and 10... which is exactly the same as the 7-35 set class (or the diatonic scale). I don't know the exact mathematical formula offhand, but I know it deals with floor functions and such.

So yeah, not only does it's arrival make sense music theoretically, but it makes perfect sense mathematically and perceptually. The theory just helps us figure out the many strengths that the class actually has to offer... I probably should've went into more detail on the maximally even thing earlier :/

While there is nothing wrong with other scales (be they synthetic or generated from our classic model, like the one you propose), your scale does not hold these properties.

Hopefully you'll see that I'm not spouting opinion, here. That's pretty much established in the field, already.

It's not a harmonic construct - it's a contrapuntal one (and since most organized polyphony is a uniquely Western field of musical thought you really won't find too much like it in other world music pre-Paris World Fair, since most world music, particularly India/Indian music was based on monophonic constructs).

Mono and Hetrophonic, to be precise, but yes. And since parallel harmony existed previous to counterpoint I'd forget that. Rounds, Renaissance Music, Parallel Organum, it's all parallel harmony. It existed way before the concious idea of contrary motion and has indeed proved more popular than totaly independant lines of contrary motion.

Mmm... actually Contrary motion has been in existence since at least the 9th century. Again, I point you to the Musica Enchriadis and Socia Enchriadis. Documents in the 9th century that not only maps out how to deal with improvised organum, but also how to improvise true counterpoint (yes, even with some of the classic rules, like not having too much parallel motion as to distinguish between the two lines), and it's dealt with in a fashion that implies that it's already been around for a while. Look it up at a music college library sometime - it's a very short read, but it's absolutely fascinating.

...The V-I's sound is a reason we perceive V-I as good voice leading, not the other way around.

I'm going to have to disagree with that point, actually, simply because the root of the V chord was not considered important enough in a two part counterpoint back in the pre-renaissance era. It was the leading tone and third above/sixth below that got full attention every time (Again, read Zarlino or even J.J. Faux on the topic). When three voices came into play the 5 was one of two places to harmonize from (the other being 4), so it was often used as a result of the counterpoint.

Here's another point to consider - back in the day it was considered better to resolve a piece of work with either 2 or 7 in the bass. If harmony was indeed the reason behind such actions then they would've prioritized 5 in the bass, since that has the most powerful harmonic relationship possible (indeed, post Renaissance it would be unacceptable to end a piece otherwise). There's plenty of documentation from the time that shows their awareness of counterpoint (and a lack of awareness with harmonic theory), so I suspect it's the counterpoint that eventually formed harmonic theory.

No, the leading tone has little to do with the V-I relationship, but the proximity of a m3rd - Unison (a half-step below/above and a whole step below/above).

This is a valid proposal, in one sense, as it does show the tension-release that has become staple to music. But considering the popularity of plagal cadences in alot of this music it comes and it goes.

A plagal cadence is never a cadence. It is an extention of an already completed cadence. Think of it as a series of neighbor tones that occur over the root, and it makes sense.

The leading tone certainly wasn't neccesary in Gregorian Chant with its general focus on whole tone steps.

Gregorian Chant is monophonic, so... yeah. It doesn't apply to counterpoint (unless you want to talk about line writing, which was derived from it. Also, it does have half-steps in it, and performance practice would dictate that they end with a raised 7th (people didn't write that in the score - it was always implied). Most people don't sing it like that today, but they did, back in the day.

Not true, as I said plagal cadences were common. Actually, most folk and alot of Church music uses the IV-I. The "Amen Cadence", you know. Fairly bland, really. But effective! Why?

Because, again, it's not a cadence in the literal sense of the word. It's a decoration after an actual cadence occurs.

I dunno, I think you'll find this Classical Era emphasis on form and symmetry stuff abit of a false truth. The Lydian Chromatic Concept goes some way to explaining the modern systems (And indeed is the start of the Scalic model of improvisition, as previously it was a chordal approach!) but it still doesn't really reach into the guys of why we perceive these things the way we do. Why does V-I work? Because it leads to good voice leading and it sits in the major scale! Why is it good voicing? Because it agrees with the V-I and it creates tension-release motion. Why is that a good thing, why is the major scale a usable model? Because!

The Classical era heavily focuses on harmonic theory, so it goes past the realm of this discussion (Remember, it was codified in 1722). V-I works so well because of the combination of the harmonic strength and contrapuntal power. In short runs it's the counterpoint that gives it so much leway, but over long stretches of time (only really possible, by the way, starting from this era on) the harmonic relationship is what really gives it it's bond. There's a reason why pre-Classical music wasn't organized at nearly the same multi-layered level as post-Classical music was - Harmony finally set in, and allowed people to form new, cohesive structures not possible with Counterpoint.

Oh hell, I may as well give this 'Audio Advertisement' thing a whirl :P

• 
  Wind Man vs Bubble Man by Gario

  Click to listen.

  Score

  0 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Video Game

  Popularity

  2 Views

• Loading...

This is my submission from the Grand Robot Master Remix Battle '11 on OCR. Go check out the rest of the entries here. It's one hell of a compo, so keep your eyes on it.

You should probably make that a public access track, 'cause otherwise only you can hear it.

At 5/31/11 01:50 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: While you seem to know alot about Gregorian Chant and Diatonic Theory I'm referring to the Lydian Dominant scale, NOT the Lydian mode. Lydian Dominant = 1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7, Lydian = 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7. So the scale I'm referring to is not Diatonic, it's a mode of the melodic minor or a scale in its own right.

Oh. Well then, that has a completely different answer - because it's not diatonic. See, the Diatonic set class is unique among all set classes in that it is the only one with a hierarchy of interval classes. Not only is this the maximally even set of seven tones against twelve (which is a very important reason for the Diatonic system's existence, in it's own right), the way the interval are set up uniquely allow for every single combination of intervals and chords to have syntactic strength in comparison to any other interval, and this uniquely allows every mode to have a very distinctive sound compared to every other mode.

While there is nothing wrong with other scales (be they synthetic or generated from our classic model, like the one you propose), your scale does not hold these properties. Thus it doesn't work nearly as well in long-term organization as the traditional diatonic scales do... Is this the stuff that the people of the day were thinking about? Probably not, but it's a fairly decent explanation as to why they preferred one scale over another.

And my question goes further into WHY did the leading tone come to exist? What perceptual or physical structures creates the sensation that V - I is stronger than v -I ? Why have we even generated that as a concept when alot of music styles don't even use chordal structures and prefer drones and complex rhythmic motifs to our concepts of "Harmonic progression". Indian Classical Music has a tonal hierarchy as to where notes should go but despite having cadence-like concepts it has no chordal structures. There's no emphasis on the need for a leading tone, it's contextual to the scale and type of raga as far as I'm aware.

It's not a harmonic construct - it's a contrapuntal one (and since most organized polyphony is a uniquely Western field of musical thought you really won't find too much like it in other world music pre-Paris World Fair, since most world music, particularly India/Indian music was based on monophonic constructs). If you think about leading tones in terms to the harmonic relationship you're bound to fail, since it's grandfathered in through a system that didn't even think about harmonic relationships (alright, they DID understand the overtone series and whatnot, but they didn't apply this in what we call a 'harmonic relationship' until much later, officially by Jean-Philippe Rameau in 1722 with his Treatise on Harmony). No, the leading tone has little to do with the V-I relationship, but the proximity of a m3rd - Unison (a half-step below/above and a whole step below/above). It's far more powerful than the M3rd - Unison motion (whole step both ways). Since the d3rd was considered too dissonant for use, the m3rd was the closest proximity possible to the unison, so that was the interval of choice when it came to 'cadencing' a song (in the context of counterpoint, a cadence doesn't need the dominant on the bottom). This same logic applies to the M6th - Octave resolution, as well (in comparison to the m6th - Octave). It's not such a big deal nowadays, but back then a song wouldn't sound complete without such a strong resolution.

So really, it's as simple as what is closer to your goal. In counterpoint, the closer a note is physically to the next note, the more powerful the drive to it. And yes... you can also find all this in Zarlino. It's really a great read when it comes to counterpoint, as long as you can stomach the old style philosophy and translation.

At 5/31/11 07:45 AM, Chris-V2 wrote:

Simple (and this really is strict music theory) - because one of the most often used predominant chords, the subdominant (and the closest chord to the tonic on the circle of fifths spectrum, as well as the dominant) becomes a diminished triad. Most composers like that chord for it's harmonic relationship with the tonic and the common tone it holds with it, so tonal music gravitated toward the use of the scale that allowed for the use of this chord.

It's an interesting point ) but well before tonalism took hold, even before Gregorian Chant and other pre-tonal concepts, there seems to have been no real desire to use this scale.

Er... actually Lydian was quite popular among those singing Gregorian Chant (perhaps not as much as Dorian, but certainly moreso than Ionian and Aeolian, since those weren't even a usable church mode until the middle of the Renaissance - they're mostly a secular break off from the original usable modes). You won't find any written examples of it because the practice of the time was to write a very basic line and the singers were expected to transpose the proper lines on the spot (it'd be like a trumpet reading a line either as a 'C' trumpet or a 'Bb' trumpet). Lydian was one of the four primary church modes, whereas Ionian wasn't used until much later.

You'll likely find details on it in the Socia Enchriadis or Musica Enchriadis, but unfortunately it's been a while since I read either of those. I think the topic is brought up, but those are more for identifying the beginnings of written music & polyphony.

BTW, my own point of view on this is a variation of what Webern said in his 'Path to New Music' speeches. You should look them up (they're sold as a collection of speeches in a book of that name) - they're very enlightening.

My current theory is simply that the major scale evolved from the major pentatonic due to the lesser amount of dissonance (#4 is pretty dissonant, and considering 3rds were considered dissonant at the time this would have been a startlingly ugly tone). As for the leading tone, who knows? It's not like the Mixolydian or Dorian mode are uncommon in early folk music. As far as I'm aware the question remains unanswered.

Mmm... not quite - there's more than enough evidence simply by score study that musicians back in the day used a full diatonic scale as far back as Gregorian Chant (and since that's a recording of oral tradition, most likely considerably earlier, as well), though the Greeks certainly did use the Pentatonic scale... for the only written piece we have recorded from a pre-AD era. Again, the Musica Enchriadis expounds on the full scale in detail, so it's easy to see that the full diatonic scale was used as far back as the late 9th century.

As for the leading tone, Mixolydian and Dorian actually raise the seventh when they want to end a song, whereas the good ol' Phrygian used the lowered second as the leadingtone so the seventh remains unchanged during a resolution (THAT usage is certainly covered in detail by Zarlino's 1550 'Treaty on Counterpoint').

Dunno. Because... it's more awesomer? Sorry, physical acoustics wasn't my strong point.

Alright. I'll do this one, though it's not acoustics! I'd meant Odd overtones, btw, so really I meant Even Harmoncs. Anyway, time for a run down.

100 hz = Fundamental
200hz = 1 octave.
300 hz = 1 octave and a 5th.
400 hz = 2 octaves
500 hz = 2 octaves and a 3rd
600 bz = 2 octaves and a 5th
700 hz = 2 octaves and a b7
800 hz = 3 octaves
900 hz = 3 octaves and a 2nd
1000 hz = 3 octaves and a 3rd
1100 hz = 3 octaves and #4

And from here on it gets very out of tune, though by equal temperment we're out of tune by our 8F (800 hz) as octaves aren't strict frequency doubling. It's more like 1.013. However are ears have quantize functions, and this frequency difference can be considered negligible.

The debate has been going for years, especialy amongst distortion pedal enthusiasts as some units produce more even harmonics (Harmonic Perculator by Interfax) or more odd harmonics (Something like a Boss DS-1, most symmetrical clipping distortion). We can see Odd Harmonics have dissonant tones relative to the fundamental, but not to each other, and we can see that we get alot of stacked octaves with Even Harmonics. So in some ways Odd Harmonics can sound a little harsh, as they don't reinforce the fundamental the way Even Harmonics do. It's also very likely the 5th harmonic (Major 3rd) will be audible and could mess with the consonance of a chord progression.

Which goes back to what I was saying earlier, some instruments don't seem to handle dissonance. Some do, and some only if you play them a certain way!

But again this is subjective and wether a Flue (Odd harmonics) or a Trumpet (Lots of odd and even) sound more pleasant is down to preference. But it's an interesting debate and has led to people like Wendy Carlos building new musical systems built exclusively from odd or even overtones (Such as the Tritave system in the Bohlen-Pierce scale, which repeats when the frequency triples rather than doubles).

Interesting. Though I think it goes out of tune by 700hz (that 7b is more like a note between 7b - 7n) It is an interesting way to approach timbre theory. Mmm... makes sense to me.

At 5/30/11 04:33 PM, Chris-V2 wrote:

At 5/30/11 04:27 PM, Gario wrote:

At 5/30/11 04:18 PM, loansindi wrote: Instrumentation usually isn't the defining feature of a genre.

For some genres it can be - metal being one of them. Without the distorted guitar you're not going to be writing metal.

Apocalyptica. Come at me, bro.

Instrumentation is just an aspect, genre categorization is loose so I wouldn't be too woried. It's more of about sharing a certain number of stylistic elements than a particular one. You could have Metal with no drums, or Jazz Metal, or Metal in a major key, or Metal in 3/4. And if you asked someone what it was they'd answer "It's Metal".

I'd argue that it's not technically metal, actually (though it IS awesome, which is probably why a metalhead would answer as such). Probably popular, or some other obscure genre, but not metal.

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but how's your recording setup? If I write cool stuff for you I'll probably try and use it in compositions of mine, where the recording will need to be clean.

Maybe you'll want to take the violin part over for this track? I've gotten some flack for it's unrealistic sound, so perhaps that'll help bring it back from the grave. If interested I can make a conventional score for you.

At 5/30/11 08:34 PM, LogicalDefiance wrote: Okay so an italian sixth chord is a double diminished triad inverted yes? So that makes it an augmented sixth. Now does it have to built on the IV chord? How off does it sound to use it to set up something besides the dominant?

Has anyone played around much with added sixth chords in their compositions? Any neat progressions or imagery/emotions you got out of your music with it?

I hate learning this stuff off wiki & forums but my college doesnt offer theory over the summer and I'm too eager to jump ahead.

Augmented sixths are the most awesome thing on the planet, though the Italian sixth is pretty wimpy. In essence, it's a chord that has an augmented 6th above the root (along with a minor third above the root). Because of the enharmonic similarity to the m7th (on a keyboard, the A6th and m7th are identical), augmented chords get their flavor with their resolution, not their intervalic layout. As such, the chord ends up strongly leading into the next chord, which often is V, but also can be used as an applied chord of sorts (e.g. in G Major, A-C-F# to G-B-G would be an applied It6+3 / I... hard to type the correct labeling here).

Another neat use is to use the enharmonic structure to your advantage when modulating to an odd area. The German Augmented 6+ 5 (which is basically like the Italian except for the fact that there's a perfect 5th above the root, as well) is enharmonically the same as a seventh chord in root position, so one can use it both ways in a single song to mess with the listeners a little bit. For example, one could use G-B-D-F (V7 in the context of C Major) and resolve it to CM (I). Using those same notes, though (G-B-D-E#, in this context) it can resolve to F#M (or F#m) without missing a beat.

Take a look at the French 4+3, which uses both an augmented 4th and 6th. Rearrange it to one of it's inversions you'll notice that it's completely symmetrical, meaning that if you transpose it up six half steps you'll arrive on the exact same four notes. Everything about being symmetrical applies to that chord... which is quite a bit, actually.

Experiment with them and I'm sure you'll discover many neat tricks with them.

At 5/30/11 04:31 PM, Alchemist94 wrote:

At 5/30/11 04:20 PM, Gario wrote: interval stuff

Isn't it because the beginning note isn't counted? Like CDEFGABC contains the same note twice, therefore it would be counted as CDEFGAB? I'm probably wrong but hey, worth a shot haha.

Hey, I didn't expect to see a correct answer so quickly. Back when the concept of intervals were created, the medieval people didn't understand the concept of 'Zero', so they made the unison count as 'one' nominally, but function as zero. Totally fucks everything up. Thank God Allen Forte clears this up with his system... but most people hate music that uses his system of intervals, so we're still screwed.

No, it wouldn't make sense if two octaves made a 16th because that wouldn't be two octaves.

And here's a man who doesn't understand the question. Though it's a moot point now.

Now here's a question. How come the human brain can speed up a peice of music without changing its pitch?

Humans listen to music from a relative standpoint, not from an absolute one. It's pretty close to the same reason that everybody, with practice, can learn relative pitch, but only a select few people can hear absolute pitch. Our brains are just not wired for that.

Or why do we use the Major Scale when the Lydian Dominant is the closest equal temperment has to a scale that matches up with the tones of the harmonic series?

Simple (and this really is strict music theory) - because one of the most often used predominant chords, the subdominant (and the closest chord to the tonic on the circle of fifths spectrum, as well as the dominant) becomes a diminished triad. Most composers like that chord for it's harmonic relationship with the tonic and the common tone it holds with it, so tonal music gravitated toward the use of the scale that allowed for the use of this chord.

Or why is an instrument high in Odd Harmonics considered more consonant than one with alot of Even Harmonics? (Anyone who can do maths and music theory will get this, add 6% to yr base frequency to go up a semitone. Please use 100hz as your lowest tone).

Dunno. Because... it's more awesomer? Sorry, physical acoustics wasn't my strong point.

At 5/30/11 04:18 PM, loansindi wrote: Instrumentation usually isn't the defining feature of a genre.

For some genres it can be - metal being one of them. Without the distorted guitar you're not going to be writing metal. True, that's not all there is to making metal, but it is a pretty basic requirement. I'm not an expert in genre-labeling myself, but unless you're going to imitate the metal guitar by using samples or something then your electronic track will probably be something like 'Industrial' or the like.

Alright, here's something for you guys to chew on for a while - why is it that intervals add up to one less than they should, numerically? For example, wouldn't it make sense if combining two octaves made a 16th? Instead, two octaves make up a 15th. Two unisons make another unison, two thirds make a fifth, etc... It makes no arithmetical sense. Who wants to take a stab at answering that?

There is a reason for it, by the way, but I want to see how well y'all know your theory in here (and music history, for that matter), so I'm not gonna tell :P.

I support #2, as well :P

Quick question - is there going to be a cap on tracks? I don't think it'll be too big of an issue, practically speaking, but if someone produced two (or even three) tracks for an album I don't think it'd be very kind for the other people on the album to get bumped off for someone who wanted more than one track on the CD.

If people make a thread for music theory I'll probably be there - I gotta apply my major field in music somehow. The last one sort of just died, so I wish you the best.

I'm assuming that there's going to be a quality check on the composers here before they're allowed to create music for the albums in question, so I think it'll be up to FatKidWitAJetPack to only allow people that can achieve a particular loudness level in their compositions. As mentioned before, it's easy to turn the volume down on a track, but not up, so if that's one of the barometers used to measure the quality of the composer then there shouldn't be too many problems when a final mastering is done on the album. That's generally part of the process on albums created on OCR, and they seem to work alright, when it comes to volume consistency.

50$/hr/person sounds about right. Some orchestras offer fixed rates on a per minute of music basis, which could be a good deal if you want a large orchestra (generally in the range of 4k-5k per minute of music). Either way, though, it's expensive.

My suggestion, if you're near a university/conservatory - buy drinks for the school conductors and get to know them really well. Then BAM, hit them with a request to perform your music, and you set up recording equipment and capture the sound. Yay.

Well if you've got some room for some trance/techno/electronica you can count me in. Just tell me when to get started.

Sorry for the double post, but I also wanted to mention that from DM7 you could move to G7 (F in bass) to C (E in bass) if you want the chromaticism to keep moving down rather than resolve. Just a quick thought.

At 5/25/11 09:25 PM, NimblekidX wrote: Ok. so here goes:

so i'm trying to make up a good chord progression for myself,right? so i try,and this is what i have so far;

C,Em,Edim,F,??,??,??,??

if you notice,the bass note of each chord slowly descends(in second reversals,at least). the thing is,i don't know where to go from F >< i was thinking logically about Fm,but that only flats the III,which is Ab in this case. so my question is; where do i go from F?

You're trying to continue the descending bassline? Fm will work for that bassline, those if you want to get fancy you could make AbM work, as well (though if you're a counterpoint nut watch out for the parallel fifths that could arise). Either way, the Ab is what you want if you need the bassline to continue (I assume the bass is C, B, Bb, A...) - from the Ab it's easy to have something like C (g in bass), DM(7) (F# in bass) Gsusp - G back to C. That's a pretty clean progression that has a chromatic bassline.

Of course there's other ways to achieve the bassline you want, so you should continue to experiment.

Many good points brought up in here. First, people won't buy it if it's free online on Newgrounds already. Second, people like to purchase relatively cohesive albums, so too many styles on a single CD wouldn't be very good.

I think multiple relatively genre-cohesive CD's with brand new music from a variety of NG composers would be a great idea. If anything gets started with this be sure to let me know, I'd love to help you out.