The Higher Realm of Composition

[CosmoVibe]

Hello everyone, newbie of NG, veteran of music here.

So I'll get right to the point. Though I do realize that Newgrounds is a great place for many artists to start and get their music out, but the problem is that most of the music on the Portal (especially in the electronica section) is much too repetitive and simple. My purpose here is to help people reach the "higher realm" of music and take music to the next level.

Some may criticize me, saying that some people like bad music, or that it's relative, or that I shouldn't be telling people how to compose. If this is the case, I'm sorry but you're sorely mistaken. Just because some people like listening to bad music doesn't mean that you should continue to make mediocre work. If you want to be a successful mucisian, shouldn't you take every chance you can to improve? Also, I'm not here to tell someone how they should make music, but rather give pointers so we can reach our full potential. Finally, music is not as relative as you might think. Much of it is quite objective. That's different discussion anyways.

Yet some others may say that music is subjective, and that my tips may not actually make music better. Yes, but you don't HAVE to take my advice. That is a totally different argument altogether. I'm here to help the people who care about their work and have a passion for music and wish to try this.

With that being said, let's get to the meat of the issue.

Why would you say that the music is simple and repetitive?
The music is repetitive because it plays the same phrase over and over again, without much variation. It would be different if you had a motif and developed it with different variations, such as inversion, retrograde, etc.
The music is simple because the main melody of the music is not very innovative and constructed quite quickly without any real thought. In addition, the same basic chord progressions are used from piece to piece all the time.

So why do people still like the music then?
This is because most people are stupid (UH OH DRAMA!! No offense to anyone specifically but it is generally true) and do not look at the song as whole, but rather judge the song by its tone color. Structure and composition seem almost irrelevant when they listen.
What does that mean? That means that as long as you have beautiful, cool, or intense sounding synths, your audience will love it no matter how generic the song. True, this could make you popular, but it would also give a bad reputation as a composer/artist.

What can I do to improve my music?
For one, don't stick to a simple phrase. Take "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" for example. It uses two distinct phrases, in a structure of ABBA. But even then, there each phrase has a different feeling because of where they are placed in the song, giving you different levels of closure. You want to do that with your music. Create more phrases to connect the piece as a whole, from start to finish, not stretch one phrase throughout 4-5 minutes.
Once you have created a motif or a theme for your song, one option is to create variation. You can switch between major/minor, flip the melody around (retrograde/inversion), add more harmonies, etc. Keep your listener on the edge of his/her seat. Create an "emotional roller coaster" (My band teacher says this all the time).

Of course, even if you have a good structure developed, you still need to have a beautiful melody to begin with. One of biggest factors that determine how good a melody is developed is your chord progressions. Don't stick to simple ones that everyone has used, such as:
[ I vi IV V ] or [ i VI iv V/v]
[ i VI III VII ]
[ I/i - VI VII ]
[ I - IV V] or [ i - iv VII ]
[ I V vi IV ] or [ i v VI iv ]
etc.
If you don't know what the Roman numerals mean, you should study a bit more about music theory before attempting to compose something, since this is extremely basic. The numbers represent scale tone chords; capitals being major and lower-case being minor.
In short, go for something more complex, and lengthen it to create a more complete phrase. Use 8 or 16 chords instead of 4. Or, if you're using a different time signature, use something different.
How can you make your chord progressions more complex? Try to see if you can incorporate chords from all scale tones rather than simple ones like I, IV, V, and VI. Use II, III, or VII, or the accidental thingies in between. Instead of boring major/minor chords, use various 7ths, diminished, half-diminished, augmented, or even build your own unique chords!

Melody is something that's a bit more difficult to give pointers on, since this is usually the main expression of the composer. This is what usually defines your style and how you compose. I usually sing something and play the chords in my head before writing it down on paper/computer and tweak it from there. You might have a different technique. Sometimes I build from the chord progression too, so you could try that. Don't forget that you should try to maintain a varied and appealing rhythm as well. Be sure that when you're making a melody, make it involved, while keeping it as simple or complex as you want it. By that, I mean don't make an extremely simple phrase that just uses the chord notes and repeat that over and over again. Create a set of musical phrases and combine them together to make a musical "paragraph." A simple way to do this is to just create one phrase and repeat it, but changing it up the second time it repeats. A good easy example of this is "Mary Had A Little Lamb." Now your melodies can begin to have depth and feel fulfilling to listen to.

Finally, overall structure of the piece. You can choose to do a variety of things. You can make it really simple and short (such as form of A A' [which means variation of A] or A B A), a rondo (such as form of A B A C A), a rhapsody (form of WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT). Your choice.

These are the basics of the main points, really. Once you can fix these elements of your music, it's somewhat difficult to find too much fault with it, aside from tone quality, which is going to be a different issue altogether. Once you know how to not make generic music, strive for more adventurous techniques, such as modulations (one of the most underrated techniques ever by the way), ornaments, or even more dissonant works.

If anybody has any questions, comments, constructive criticism, post about it.
If you need advice, help, clarification, or want to go even further than this, also post about it.

Hope this helps!
- CosmoVibe

P.S. Small updates from the original thread. I'll continue to make new threads to keep editing this, making sure that everyone only gets the best advice.

[Envy]

Music nowadays is repetitive. It's just what this generation is used to. Laziness has set in. Listen to ANY rock/punk song... The song is generally the same thing over and over again with slight variations. I understand what you're saying, but you'd have to tell this to the whole world of music, not just us. People don't like to think too much when listening to a song... They want it to be catchy and to the point. Too much variation means they have to think :p

[Krank]

i personally say free ball it. make shit you enjoy, and think people will enjoy, then make MORE! make music because you enjoy the process of making it. don't worry about the response to any one particular song. instead, make your songs, and if you get bored, wrap it up and start a new one, or leave it hanging and finish it later.

I only make music i enjoy making

[Darkmaster603]

Well, musical theory is something everyone cannot understand. I've been studying musical theory for a few years now, and I try teaching friends, but it just goes over their heads.

Also, next time instead of saying "accidental thingies" say accidental tones\

While what you wrote may be helpful, I think you're trying too hard to make a musical strategy guide.

[loansindi]

There are a lot of theory resources on the web. Is this really the best venue to try to hand out compositional advice?

[Flash-MX]

I think what we all have to remember is that Music Theory and formal composition techniques are just that; theory and techniques. From certain perspectives, music is either objective or subjective, but its never absolute. You can either choose to look at it as what sounds good, or measure it by some classical/formal guidelines and rules.

[Nintechno]

Meh, I think that most (not all) music should be about having fun and being happy! Why listen to something sad and emo??? This is not restricted to technozez, but thats what I like best.

It's all a matter of opinion.

In terms of music theory: I can only justify using it in classical pieces. Electronica is not about being complicated, but being nice to listen/dance to. Once again though...a matter of opinion lol

[loansindi]

At 10/13/08 12:12 AM, Nintechno wrote:
In terms of music theory: I can only justify using it in classical pieces.

Theory != complicated.

There's nothing wrong with being mindful of song structure and key changes.

[Flash-MX]

At 10/13/08 01:52 AM, loansindi wrote:

At 10/13/08 12:12 AM, Nintechno wrote:
In terms of music theory: I can only justify using it in classical pieces.

Theory != complicated.

There's nothing wrong with being mindful of song structure and key changes.

Same here, in fact I'm personally a huge advocate of the quality of composition>tibre of the piece.
But I won't say that's the right way to do it, because it simply isn't. Nor is it the only way,

[EoD696]

At 10/12/08 11:10 PM, loansindi wrote: There are a lot of theory resources on the web. Is this really the best venue to try to hand out compositional advice?

Funny you should say such a thing. Another question I might ask is, is this really the person you want to take such advice from? I don't mean to point fingers and call names at people, but CosmoVibe is a hypocrite like no other. Have you listened to his two audio submissions? 4 chord progressions, with some slight variation. Not bad pieces honestly, but a far cry from this higher realm of composition which he drones on about.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a certain extent. There is an overabundance of repetitive boring pieces here, but as far as I'm concerned, CosmoVibes pieces sit among their ranks, even if they are slightly more towards the interesting side of things. Musical theory and compositional technique are roots and guidelines, designed and specified for a series of music styles long since outdated and archaic (laymenly referred to as "classical," but to include baroque, romantic, etc.). The last time such guidelines were respected in popular mainstream music was the 70s, when people in general still had some respect and appreciation for the complexity of classical styles. Back then, the way to make it big was go to college, study music, and start playing shows afterward (i.e. the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull; they all went to college, look it up if you don't beleive me)

Something interesting happened in the late 70s though. Some people started playing noise, as it was commonly called by respectful listeners and musicians, but punk as it was called by those who enjoyed it. And it became popular, moreso and moreso, and it branched out, and it mingled with the other genres. Metal was born, and the Seattle grunge movement came about not long after, then the mediocrity of the 90s settled in and we're left with the remains today, trying to enjoy what people call music. If Claude Debussy, or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, or Sergei Rachmaninow were here today, they'd call us all fools for listening to this pitiful excuse for music we all hold so dear.

But they're not here. We've moved on since then, and so have they in a sense.

Like I said, the theories and rules presented by classical music are guidelines. Yes, we should respect them, but not follow them down to the T. Most people here have no clue what's being said regarding the subject anyway; they just click away on the piano roll in FL Studio and find something that sounds cool. Hardly a respectable way to create music, but it happens, and its enjoyed by the listeners. Isn't that why you make music, so people can enjoy it as much as you do?

If people enjoy your music, wtf does it matter how complex or interesting it is to stuffed shirt, classical theorists?

[S3C]

Although I didn't read the guide in it's entirety, it looks pretty much like a copy and paste to me man :/ It still is very vague.

As far as ideas in constructing melodies- without using any particular theory consciously, I'll use my ear/mind to devise a melody that sounds good regarding the purpose and context of the song. But of course, that is of no help to you. I was explaining to this to my friend yesterday on MSN - use scales and their modes and applying them to making melodies that fit in with the mood you want. I'll go back, find out the tonality of the piece and see "ahh its in the dreamy mode of lydian...A rather spacey sound if I do say so myself...Ahhh yes, yes *polishes monocle*". This wont make any sense to you if you know no theory, but its all about finding the root note of the tonality, and what intervals it places emphasis on. (And since chords come from scales, I actually build the main melody theme first, and then build a chord progression in the support structure .) And why this is important is because each of these modes and scales has a particular feeling, the western pentatonic scales and its modes are known in rock and "badass" themes, and commonly found in asian oriented melodies too, harmonic and melodic minor sound "classical", phyrgian is known to sound evil, mixolydian sounds jazzy, locrian sounds like faggotry, etc. But of course, it's all subjective. While the notes C E and G are a objectively a major chord, and lydian is objectively a major scale just like Ionian (Natural Major) and Mixolydian, the specific sounds that connotate with the mode/scale will vary upon the listener. Sure, I could go to wikipedia and find songs with purposes that relate to these themes like I described above, but not every human being is going to feel the same way because are minds operate uniquely So CosmoVibe, modes may be a subject you might want to breach and talk about more indepth. If anyone's interested I could write up a short tutorial on this subject, because I know I havent explained anything yet.

Also, theres some other shit like cadences, dynamics, articulation, but what is always overlooked an explanation of rhythm in music. Very important. I would suggest you look into teaching about this subject as well!

Regards and good luck everyone :)

[DavidOrr]

I agree with most of the points you made, expect for the fact that people like simple music because they're stupid. People like simple music because they don't have developed ears, it's not because they're stupid.

There is a large market for simple music, since the masses typically have little or no substantive musical training. Anyone who is going to try and make a living at making music needs to take in consideration the target audience they're writing for. Hans Zimmer is a perfect example of this. Although all of his music is painfully monotonous to the trained ear, the every day person loves his music because there are few parts, and each part is very distinguishable and full of raw power.

It's very unrealistic to expect to be able to write whatever you want to write and make a livable income on it. Only the artists that have a really well established fanbase have that luxury. Of course, if you're writing for fun (or have free time), you can write whatever the hell you'd like. But if you have goals to make music professionally or semi professionally, it's important to understand what your target audience likes and doesn't like, so you can write music that will sell itself.

[Flash-MX]

Best point made yet ^^^

[S3C]

At 10/13/08 02:18 PM, DavidOrr wrote: I agree with most of the points you made, expect for the fact that people like simple music because they're stupid. People like simple music because they don't have developed ears, it's not because they're stupid.

Not having developed ears = musically stupid sometimes yes?

[Chronamut]

At 10/13/08 05:11 PM, S3C wrote:

At 10/13/08 02:18 PM, DavidOrr wrote: I agree with most of the points you made, expect for the fact that people like simple music because they're stupid. People like simple music because they don't have developed ears, it's not because they're stupid.

Not having developed ears = musically stupid sometimes yes?

the people with developed ears soon wont be able to hear ANYthing if theyre like most of us who listen to a looot of music ..

[CosmoVibe]

At 10/13/08 02:54 AM, EoD696 wrote: Funny you should say such a thing. Another question I might ask is, is this really the person you want to take such advice from? I don't mean to point fingers and call names at people, but CosmoVibe is a hypocrite like no other. Have you listened to his two audio submissions? 4 chord progressions, with some slight variation. Not bad pieces honestly, but a far cry from this higher realm of composition which he drones on about.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a certain extent. There is an overabundance of repetitive boring pieces here, but as far as I'm concerned, CosmoVibes pieces sit among their ranks, even if they are slightly more towards the interesting side of things.

Yeah, sorry, but you're an idiot. I admit I don't have masterpieces, but they do NOT fall in the ranks of most of the other pieces.

I guess I shouldn't be flaming like this but I am slightly annoyed, but you should have a better grasp of music before you criticize.
For one, lightfoot does not use 4 chord progressions, but rather 8. Count them. Also, there's huge variation between each set of 8 since the piece has 4 modulations. On top of that, there's a decently complex harmony line going in the background (which is kinda soft but intricate nontheless). The melody is also one of my more advanced ones, showing quite a range in tone and develops significantly throughout.
Audio Cyanide is one of my more generic works but it's not something to criticize so easily either. If you listen carefully, you can hear secondary chords layered on top of nearly every chord in the first half of the song, creating a sharp dissonance. The melody lines are also interestingly developed, starting out consonant, and the end of the phrase almost all the notes in the runs go out of the scale, while still remaining attached to the piece harmonically. The second half of the song has a repeating basic chord progression as well, but it's also interesting, as it uses diminished chords, and the chord right before the repeat has a secondary chord too. Ends with a "siren" which is constructed out of tritones.

Yeah I'd say these two are extremely interesting considering the music theory involved. Nice try though.

-----

Also, I'm really annoyed about people saying that they shouldn't conform to music theory rules and that they are too technical or whatever bullshit they ramble on about.

Here's the thing. Yes, music theory rules can be broken, and they should definitely NOT be followed strictly. They are very technical, but one must have a basic understanding of BASIC music theory so they can learn new techniques easily and efficiently, hence improving music.

In fact, most of the music you listen to today, especially pop music, is actually very confined to music theory because they are so appealing to the ears despite most of it being generic. If they were not confined to music theory they would sound really bad.

Still with me right?

But here's the thing. I tell people to confine to the rules to start out because this way they can experiment with the rules ONCE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THEM. You can't solve complex equations without being comfortable with basic math operations. This is the same logic. YOU CAN'T BREAK THE RULES UNTIL YOU KNOW THE RULES.

Hopefully this is clear enough.

P.S. @ DavidOrr: I actually agree with you there. I admit I was a bit hasty when writing that section, so I guess it could be misinterpreted. I will change that for the next update though.

[CosmoVibe]

Yes that's right, most pop music confines to music theory rules quite tightly. Don't believe me? Post a link to a song and I can probably explain it. (For those wise-asses who think they're smart and intentionally post something complex you can screw off you should be on my side)

I hope you guys realize that most of you are being hypocrites (not that there's anything wrong with it) and you should try to embrace some of the things you haven't tried. Especially tried and true "classical" techniques. There's a reason why they're so acclaimed and used so widely.

Just like synths. I'm sure most people would think that synths are "bad" to listen to because they're artificial, right? Well most pop music is mastered and produced etc using fancy electronic equipment so it's almost the same thing. Embrace it and try it if you're interested.

[KgZ]

At 10/13/08 12:12 AM, Nintechno wrote: In terms of music theory: I can only justify using it in classical pieces

You are always using theory, even when you don't even know it.

[KgZ]

By the way, music is music. It can be anything you want it to be.

As long as you're having fun, people enjoy it, and you're making the money, it's the perfect dream.

[stargroup100]

For many this is true. But I'm sure there are others who want to take their music further and beyond.

[Nintechno]

At 10/13/08 10:37 PM, KgZ wrote: By the way, music is music. It can be anything you want it to be.

As long as you're having fun, people enjoy it, and you're making the money, it's the perfect dream.

This is absolutley true! Even without the money, as long as your having fun and can share it with others that's all you need! Why try and inject theory into your music when you could be out partying and havin' a great time with your repeditive "unce unce unce"?!!?

Not saying that theory is bad in any way, hell, it's what music is built on, just saying it is not essential and not for everyone.

[loansindi]

At 10/13/08 10:06 PM, CosmoVibe wrote: Just like synths. I'm sure most people would think that synths are "bad" to listen to because they're artificial, right? Well most pop music is mastered and produced etc using fancy electronic equipment so it's almost the same thing. Embrace it and try it if you're interested.

Wait, what?

You believe 'most people' don't like synths? I don't think I understand where this belief stems from.

You then go on to say that mastering with 'fancy electronic' equipment grants what you're mastering this magic undesirable artificial sound, yes? Does this mean if I use old, not fancy electronic equipment it won't be artificial anymore?

I'm not being hostile, I'm just really confused by what you're trying to say.

[Krank]

let me clear all the bullshit surrounding this topic.

people don't like simple music because they have undeveloped ears. the simplicity or complexity of music is irrelevant.

people know when something sounds good and when something sounds bad. good music evokes states in people, be it sadness, excitement. that's why people listen to music. if a song makes someone feel a certain way but is the same riff over and over again, it still evokes the state, they just get bored quicker

if a complex song has a crappy melodic progression and off keynotes, they listener will notice these and know intuitively something is off, aand the magic is lost.

if a person here's ocean waves, that could even evoke a state.

in fact the ONLY people who ever care about the complexity or originality of a song are the musicians themselves, and whoa re we trying to get as fans here. focus on making good music, not impressing your music butt buddys

[Nintechno]

lol, nice.

It's all a matter of opinion. Just because a song is complicated, doesn't mean that it is good.

[Nav]

At 10/13/08 10:06 PM, CosmoVibe wrote: Just like synths. I'm sure most people would think that synths are "bad" to listen to because they're artificial, right? Well most pop music is mastered and produced etc using fancy electronic equipment so it's almost the same thing. Embrace it and try it if you're interested.

The irony is that the majority of popular music is created mostly with synthesizers and vocals. People don't care because it sounds good to them.

[KgZ]

At 10/14/08 10:27 PM, stargroup100 wrote: For many this is true. But I'm sure there are others who want to take their music further and beyond.

music is a business. How much further can you get after making profit?

[black-diamond]

I never use music theory, i just do it all on ear.
My opinion is that you should do it your own way, just use creativity, don't let the rules stop you from realising your dreams. (ok, that sounded pathetic, but you get the point)

about repetetiveness in electronic music, it's kinda neccesary.
in almost all my melodies i use the same piece twice, the second time slightly altered. if you don't, it will al sound like a big mash-up, it needs to be constant. i would have to switch counter melodies every 4-8 bars, 5 at a time coz that's what i mostly need to make it sound full.

i can't critique on the chord progressions, since i always use perfect 5th duplicated one actave higher, but your right that it should be 8+ long.

[DavidOrr]

At 10/14/08 10:54 PM, Bjra wrote:

in fact the ONLY people who ever care about the complexity or originality of a song are the musicians themselves, and whoa re we trying to get as fans here. focus on making good music, not impressing your music butt buddys.

Well said. I think people also fail to realize that much of music theory (beyond the fundamentals) is based off of what "sounds good" at one point in history. The rules of voice leading, for example, are largely based on how Bach and his contemporaries wrote music. They themselves didn't follow "the rules", because the rules didn't exist at that point. Bach's 350+ chorales were written around what sounded good to Bach. These chorales are extremely popular examples of voice leading. We base our studies around his work because it was genius, but his case is a perfect example that music that "sounds good" but doesn't follow the theory of today can still be moving, and is perfectly viable.

This is why I believe that theory should be used as a tool, not as a end all be all way to write music. Some composers swear by following rules all of the time, and this won't help music progress at all. Music theory is VERY important to a serious composer as it provides the musical foundation for a composer. But if something sounds good, there is no reason not to use it.

[Phyrnna]

I suppose it all depends on what sounds good. One of the most famous bands in history, the Beatles, were highly criticized for their bad mauling of what should be correct chord progressions. And it's quite true, if you analyzed some of the Beatles song from an 18th century music theory perspective, there is a lot wrong about it. However, it goes to prove that it really doesn't matter how well written the song is at all. Some of the most popular songs have only 3 chords in total, and the structure of the song comes out to something like A-A-A-B-A-A-A-C-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A. In other words, very boring. However, it sounds good.

All in all, my main point is that whatever sounds good, should be what is put into our music. If it is your style, then use it. And maybe you can find something new that works for you. I don't see the point in belittling other's music.

Music is for fun and enjoyment. Let's all enjoy it as much as we can. ^_^

-HFX ^_^

[VegetarianMeat]

I just try to make stuff that I like listening to. If somebody else enjoys it as well, that's cool.