AutoTheoryByMozaic
New member
In its first three months on the Propellerheads RE market, AutoTheory has proven to be a very valuable asset to Reason users. Over that span of time no other RE has graced the “most popular” (top 4 sellers) column as often as AutoTheory, despite numerous sales and other new releases. The innovative process implemented within AutoTheory (patent pending) has provided many with musical abilities far beyond what they were previously capable of. In our continuing attempts to promote AutoTheory, this blog will answer some of the questions and concerns that potential users might have regarding the product.
I don’t know anything about music theory, so how would I even begin to use AutoTheory?
It is our continued goal to provide users with the right tools to educate themselves about Music Theory and its implementation within AutoTheory. With that in mind we have created a page on the AutoTheoryByMozaic website dedicated to learning the basics of music theory. With a little bit of study, the detailed diagrams provided on the webpage should provide a solid foundation from which to work from. Also included on the website are multiple video tutorials which relate to different facets of the AutoTheory implementation within Propellerheads Reason. In reality music theory is not as complicated as one might think, and its implementation within AutoTheory is extremely straight forward and user friendly. If you make it a point to learn how to use AutoTheory, it won’t be long before you are creating music that reaches far beyond what you would have thought possible.
Music Theory is too restrictive of a framework, wouldn’t AutoTheory limit my creativity?
For many Producers, learning music theory is not something that rates at the top of their agenda. The perception is that music theory involves structure and restrictions that could potentially limit one’s creativity. I tend to believe that this perception is related to a lack of understanding about scales. If AutoTheory only provided one scale to play from, I would agree with this perception of limitation. In reality however, AutoTheory provides users with a totally open ended amount of scales to easily play chords and melodies from. For any combination of tones that you could potentially use to form the melody and/or chords within your track, there is a preset that would define that as a scale. All of these potential scales can easily be played from any key. After working within the AutoTheory framework for a while, we have taken this approach a step further by creating a new method of defining scales called “chord-based scales”. This approach defines the scale by the chords contained within it, and allows the user to define whether each of the primary chords is a major or minor chord; a major scale is defined as either I-IV-V or I-ii-V. A Dorian scale is defined as either i-ii-v or i-IV-v. By understanding the characteristics of the primary chords found within a scale, a producer can take much more command over the coloring and mood of their tracks.
A lot of great musicians weren’t even taught music theory, so why should I implement AutoTheory?
It is no lie that many great musicians did not learn music theory. They let their natural artistic ability and countless hours of practice steer them in a direction of what they felt was a pure aesthetic. With that being said, those artists were still playing melodies and chords based off of key signatures and scales. In many instances, the keys and scales that they played from might have been a little bit different than what was typically being played at the time by their contemporaries. This element is what made them uniquely great. So although those great musicians were not necessarily taught music theory, they essentially created their own music theory… Which is pretty much what AutoTheory empowers it’s users to do.
I am already pretty nice with music theory and playing my keyboard, how is AutoTheory going to help me?
Although my perspective on playing the keyboard in a traditional manner is limited, I would imagine that AutoTheory could still be a helpful tool for someone who is very proficient with their current playing ability. I say this because of the wide range of Key signatures and Scales that AutoTheory allows one to easily play within. I don’t really have the perspective to know this for sure, but it would seem that many trained players tend to play out of a small scope of scales. From my own experience, it was hard enough learning to play one scale over multiple keys. So for someone who is already proficient with playing music theory, I would tell them that they could use AutoTheory to potentially broaden their scope of content. In reality, I would say that no one is in a better position to take full advantage of what AutoTheory has to offer than someone who already knows how to play at a high level. Instead of having to take the time to figure out how to play something abstract that you think might sound good, AutoTheory will enable you to check it out instantaneously. I would think that those with a high level of music theory proficiency would have a much better foundation of knowledge to work from when testing out ideas on AutoTheory.
I am not trying to implement a high level of musicality into my tracks, so how would AutoTheory help me?
With the continued technological advancements in effects and synth programming, the music theory contained within a track may seem like an unimportant element to many. For those who fall into this category, I do believe that AutoTheory can still be a very valuable asset in the regard of providing a producer with a much wider range of key signatures and scales to play from. If you are not making use of music theory, you are probably playing a lot of your tracks from similar key signatures and scales while relying on effects and modulation to provide diversity from track to track. My suggestion would be to view the theory within your track as another parameter with which you can provide diversity, without having to necessarily change the level of musicality present in your style. This would present a very easy way to approach your productions from different angles while maintaining the core elements of what you have been successful with in the past. In essence, implementing AutoTheory would provide you with many more colors to paint with.
Won’t AutoTheory make everyone’s tracks sound the same?
For many producers, the thought of taking a cookie cutter approach to making music is about the worst thing you could think of. With that in mind, I could see where many would by highly resistant to the thought of a product such as AutoTheory. It would not be unreasonable to initially view it as a substitute for creativity. When you really look at what it does however, I think that you begin to realize the open ended nature of its function. Although it empowers anyone who uses it to greatly improve their abilities to compose music, it does not point potential users in any type of aesthetic direction. It also doesn’t guarantee that a producer will be able to make great tracks. Music Theory is an important element to many forms of modern recording, but there are many other elements that have a major impact on the quality of a track as well.
What impact if any, will AutoTheory have on the role of live musicians?
I could see AutoTheory being a powerful sketch pad for producers of music that requires live musicians. It could provide for a much more efficient work flow, where a producer figures out exactly what he wants via MIDI prior to a recording session. He can then play the MIDI tracks that he has created for the musicians to replay. This could possibly save a lot of time and money in a process that is often very inefficient. It would also probably force musicians to step their game up a bit, as the Key Signatures and Scales used within AutoTheory are so open ended.
Without “note to track” capabilities in Propellerheads RE’s, isn’t AutoTheory kind of limited?
One of the primary complaints about the AutoTheory implementation within Propellerheads Reason, is that there is no “note to track” option. As of now, the Reason RE SDK does not allow for “note to track”. After talking with PH however, they realize that this is something that needs to change and they are planning on implementing it in the future. When that happens, AutoTheory will add this option. With that being said however, I don’t really see where the CV implications of AutoTheory create any problems in terms of functionality. It does kind of force you to rethink your workflow a little bit, but I think the payoff is well worth it. Once you get the workflow down, I tend to think it becomes a more efficient process. It reduces the clutter within your sequencer, and allows you to focus more on automation or modulation. I also tend to think that the relationship between the Melody Lock and Chord Generator is much more conducive to functioning in the CV manner when the Chord Tones and Dynamic Scale functions are being used.
You can find helpful blogs like this along with product information at the official AutoTheoryByMozaic website.
I don’t know anything about music theory, so how would I even begin to use AutoTheory?
It is our continued goal to provide users with the right tools to educate themselves about Music Theory and its implementation within AutoTheory. With that in mind we have created a page on the AutoTheoryByMozaic website dedicated to learning the basics of music theory. With a little bit of study, the detailed diagrams provided on the webpage should provide a solid foundation from which to work from. Also included on the website are multiple video tutorials which relate to different facets of the AutoTheory implementation within Propellerheads Reason. In reality music theory is not as complicated as one might think, and its implementation within AutoTheory is extremely straight forward and user friendly. If you make it a point to learn how to use AutoTheory, it won’t be long before you are creating music that reaches far beyond what you would have thought possible.
Music Theory is too restrictive of a framework, wouldn’t AutoTheory limit my creativity?
For many Producers, learning music theory is not something that rates at the top of their agenda. The perception is that music theory involves structure and restrictions that could potentially limit one’s creativity. I tend to believe that this perception is related to a lack of understanding about scales. If AutoTheory only provided one scale to play from, I would agree with this perception of limitation. In reality however, AutoTheory provides users with a totally open ended amount of scales to easily play chords and melodies from. For any combination of tones that you could potentially use to form the melody and/or chords within your track, there is a preset that would define that as a scale. All of these potential scales can easily be played from any key. After working within the AutoTheory framework for a while, we have taken this approach a step further by creating a new method of defining scales called “chord-based scales”. This approach defines the scale by the chords contained within it, and allows the user to define whether each of the primary chords is a major or minor chord; a major scale is defined as either I-IV-V or I-ii-V. A Dorian scale is defined as either i-ii-v or i-IV-v. By understanding the characteristics of the primary chords found within a scale, a producer can take much more command over the coloring and mood of their tracks.
A lot of great musicians weren’t even taught music theory, so why should I implement AutoTheory?
It is no lie that many great musicians did not learn music theory. They let their natural artistic ability and countless hours of practice steer them in a direction of what they felt was a pure aesthetic. With that being said, those artists were still playing melodies and chords based off of key signatures and scales. In many instances, the keys and scales that they played from might have been a little bit different than what was typically being played at the time by their contemporaries. This element is what made them uniquely great. So although those great musicians were not necessarily taught music theory, they essentially created their own music theory… Which is pretty much what AutoTheory empowers it’s users to do.
I am already pretty nice with music theory and playing my keyboard, how is AutoTheory going to help me?
Although my perspective on playing the keyboard in a traditional manner is limited, I would imagine that AutoTheory could still be a helpful tool for someone who is very proficient with their current playing ability. I say this because of the wide range of Key signatures and Scales that AutoTheory allows one to easily play within. I don’t really have the perspective to know this for sure, but it would seem that many trained players tend to play out of a small scope of scales. From my own experience, it was hard enough learning to play one scale over multiple keys. So for someone who is already proficient with playing music theory, I would tell them that they could use AutoTheory to potentially broaden their scope of content. In reality, I would say that no one is in a better position to take full advantage of what AutoTheory has to offer than someone who already knows how to play at a high level. Instead of having to take the time to figure out how to play something abstract that you think might sound good, AutoTheory will enable you to check it out instantaneously. I would think that those with a high level of music theory proficiency would have a much better foundation of knowledge to work from when testing out ideas on AutoTheory.
I am not trying to implement a high level of musicality into my tracks, so how would AutoTheory help me?
With the continued technological advancements in effects and synth programming, the music theory contained within a track may seem like an unimportant element to many. For those who fall into this category, I do believe that AutoTheory can still be a very valuable asset in the regard of providing a producer with a much wider range of key signatures and scales to play from. If you are not making use of music theory, you are probably playing a lot of your tracks from similar key signatures and scales while relying on effects and modulation to provide diversity from track to track. My suggestion would be to view the theory within your track as another parameter with which you can provide diversity, without having to necessarily change the level of musicality present in your style. This would present a very easy way to approach your productions from different angles while maintaining the core elements of what you have been successful with in the past. In essence, implementing AutoTheory would provide you with many more colors to paint with.
Won’t AutoTheory make everyone’s tracks sound the same?
For many producers, the thought of taking a cookie cutter approach to making music is about the worst thing you could think of. With that in mind, I could see where many would by highly resistant to the thought of a product such as AutoTheory. It would not be unreasonable to initially view it as a substitute for creativity. When you really look at what it does however, I think that you begin to realize the open ended nature of its function. Although it empowers anyone who uses it to greatly improve their abilities to compose music, it does not point potential users in any type of aesthetic direction. It also doesn’t guarantee that a producer will be able to make great tracks. Music Theory is an important element to many forms of modern recording, but there are many other elements that have a major impact on the quality of a track as well.
What impact if any, will AutoTheory have on the role of live musicians?
I could see AutoTheory being a powerful sketch pad for producers of music that requires live musicians. It could provide for a much more efficient work flow, where a producer figures out exactly what he wants via MIDI prior to a recording session. He can then play the MIDI tracks that he has created for the musicians to replay. This could possibly save a lot of time and money in a process that is often very inefficient. It would also probably force musicians to step their game up a bit, as the Key Signatures and Scales used within AutoTheory are so open ended.
Without “note to track” capabilities in Propellerheads RE’s, isn’t AutoTheory kind of limited?
One of the primary complaints about the AutoTheory implementation within Propellerheads Reason, is that there is no “note to track” option. As of now, the Reason RE SDK does not allow for “note to track”. After talking with PH however, they realize that this is something that needs to change and they are planning on implementing it in the future. When that happens, AutoTheory will add this option. With that being said however, I don’t really see where the CV implications of AutoTheory create any problems in terms of functionality. It does kind of force you to rethink your workflow a little bit, but I think the payoff is well worth it. Once you get the workflow down, I tend to think it becomes a more efficient process. It reduces the clutter within your sequencer, and allows you to focus more on automation or modulation. I also tend to think that the relationship between the Melody Lock and Chord Generator is much more conducive to functioning in the CV manner when the Chord Tones and Dynamic Scale functions are being used.
You can find helpful blogs like this along with product information at the official AutoTheoryByMozaic website.