Shnurgle, THANK YOU for that perfectly stated post! I agree with you 100%! And I'm sorry to both you and James for getting Rambo-like there. You both have proven with your post that your able to think outside the box, and are willing to at least consider another point of view, which I sincerely appreciate.
shnurgle said:
Although I don't think these forums are the best place for going "round for round" with someone,
Agreed. I'm sorry again. For me, forums are a terrible way to discuss something. But it's all I have so I gotta make due. But it takes 5 pages to resolve something that should take seconds.
2. You seem to think that I'm a "Theory Nazi" and am so bogged down in the mathematics of composition that I've lost my way in terms of emotional connection with the music. You couldn't be further off man. I hate the actual process of theory (I'm terrible at math), I was never "classically trained" on any instrument (although I did study theory and composition at school), and my original approach to music and all art, and the way I approach it today is chiefly from an emotional perspective. That said, I value theory on a very high level. A wiser man than myself once said, "At the essence of all art is craft." You can't build a house without the blueprints. If you try, you'll have something unique yes, but the structure will fall. If you use blueprints, you can be as unique as you want, and you'll have confidence in the stability of the house. (I use metaphors not to belittle you, but rather because I find it easier to express what I mean that way). Anyway, most of the "deep theory" I learned has been self taught, as well as playing piano. At school I studied jazz piano performance, but not classical to any extent. Where I've developed my knowledge of classical (and modern) theory is by extensive study of scores...and hours, rather years of my life dedicated to listening, transcribing and analyzing--again, a VERY difficult proces for me as I hate the mathematical element. The whole point here is I did and do this all for the sheer purpose of "having the tools." When I sit down to write music for any instrumentation, I don't approach it from..."Hmm, lets see now, I want this to be in E major in 7/8 time, with counter lines in the horns and a brief pic. feature at bar 108." My approach to composition is very intuitive. I establish an emotion I wish to convey, and then I hit the piano. Once I've got my themes worked out, THEN I begin to apply the theory, to fill in the blanks, always keeping that original emotional idea at the forefront. I believe that art is mostly "successful" when it's a manifestation of human emotion, and is realized as such by its audience. People respond to emotion and if music can move an audience emotionally or simply convey emotion, it has reached it's highest purpose.
I believe theory enables the composer to achieve this more consistently. There may be some composers who may achieve total control over their music's emotional output without theoretical understanding, but I would guess it would have to be a rare case. Many composers who don't know theory and try to compose may have extrordinary talent and know exactly what they want to convey, but they become stifled in the process because they don't have the tools necessary to achieve what they want.
Absolutely, perfectly said. I agree with 100%
Much like a writer needs a vast vocabulary to convey what he wants to say exactly, so to should a composer have a vast theoretical and harmonic vocabulary in order to convey exactly what he/she wants to say. (I don't think Shakespear would have been so successful without his vocab)
o.k. I understand what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. I think the vocabulary metaphor is a good one, and it (to me) goes along with a point I was trying to make - the words are not the meaning. A person from China and a person from the US have different words for a Blue Jay, but both people still understand what a blue jay is. The word does not equal the real item, it's just a tool to describe it to others that know that same word. BUT when people start believing that not knowing the vocabulary is equivelent to not knowing the item, I disagree with that.
I think a lot of people who don't know theory and realize how much there is to learn say "Well I don't need it" Then they jump behind the defense of, "Well theory is just for mathematicians..I want to be emotional and artistic." Or, "Everybody else uses theory and they all sound the same, I want to be different." To me this is some serious bullsh*t. I'm all for being unique, and with theory as a foundation you can be as unique as you want. These people just aren't willing to put in the time because it's hard work, and their work will undoubtedly suffer for it.
I understand that and I'm not condeming theory in such a way at all. It's true, I personally started getting into a weird place in the days when I studied theory all the time, but that's just me, could have been other factors etc. And for the record, I HAVE studied theory and I graduated from music school!
I know I don't know as much as you guys about it, but I'm not a complete n00b either. I had a Jazz and a Classical teacher when I was 15, and at school I studied as hard as I possibly could. I am also a guitar teacher, I have 10 students now, but I have taught music since I was 18 (I'm 33 now). Again, I'm not claiming to be as advanced as you guys, but I'm no slouch either.
Also, for the record
, I only started sampling 6 months ago! I have played music for 19 years, graduated music school, can play multiple instruments, and because I tried sampling out and thought it was cool, folks like J-Traxx feel like they have the right to bash me as a non-creative sampler all the sudden!
3. You posted a quote of mine regarding a specific chord and it's spelling. You failed however to reference the context of the post. The guy was writing a chart and he wanted to know what chord symbol to put down for the piano player. I answered his question and explained why it was correct. I'd be happy to do that again for anyone. I think these forums could use more folks with a solid understanding of theory.
Agreed. I didn't mean to take you out of context, as I really did think you were a Theory Nazi at first
but I was wrong about you.
4. Finally, to hit on the sampling issue. I think I understand the point you're trying to make that "sampling" doesn't just include pre-recorded music, but also encompasses "pre-recorded sounds and single notes, or single hits on one drum or cymbal as well as fullt recorded beats."
Sweet Jesus!!
Someone who's willing to empathize even if they disagree!
this may be true if you're talking about the strict oxford dictionary definition of "sampling"
Stop right there! I AM talking about the "definition" of sampling (and the lack of consensus about it's definition).
Is it MY problem that some people refer to stealing as sampling? Does Akai make instruments called the S1000 MIDI Digital
Robber? No! There is a whole forum on this site dedicated to Sampling. Sampling does not have to equal stealing.
but, come on lets get real. you can't honestly believe that it's the same thing. If you take a sampled beat, or a sampled line you didn't compose that music, if you take a series of recorded individual notes and compose something with them..it's original music. It's the same as playing Steinway's pianos, or selmer's sax's. You wouldn't argue that playing someone elses piano and composing with it is sampling. well thats how I'm looking at it. yes, technically, the notes have been recorded, but the SEQUENCE of notes hasn't..that's up to the composer. So the difference between sampled music and sampled notes seems very clear to me. I'm sure you have respect fo yourself musically jizzer, and that's why I can't imagine how you can't see the difference between the two. Original is original and ripped off is ripped off. You might want to get into the symantics of "Doesn't the word "music" refer to individually recorded notes as well?" or "What does "original" mean if you didn't actually play that single recorded note on the oboe that you used in your composition?" If you feel this way, you're just not hearing me on this, and thats fine. To me it's as clear as crystal the difference. When you compose music, you utilize intruments in the performance to play a series of single tones and rhythms. The acoustic piano and a sampled single note from an oboe serve this purpose in the same way. If the sampled oboe was playing a line however, and I inserted that sampled line into my piece, that would not be original--unless of course you composed that inserted line originally. And why shouldn't you write it yourself? If you can't write it in the first place, don't use it. It wouldn't be true to your music, it wouldn't be an honest representation of your abilities as a writer of music. It's a cop out, and calling it your music, just because you dumped it in your track is criminal in my opinion. The object is to maintain creativity and integrity...right? I mean as musicians, shouldn't people using sampled lines and beats care about how other people view them creativily? If a guy came into my studio and said check out MY new track, and proceeded to play me a collage of other peoples drum beats and lines to his tempo, I'd say, "Nice cut-and-paste job there, NEXT!" I would find it very hard to respect him as a composer or even as a creative force.etc. etc. etc.....
I COMPLETELY agree with you! And I DO see your point, please believe me! I am NOT trying to defend people that take snippets of other people's music! At all. No way. I think that is as weak as it gets!
Again, I just started sampling a little while ago, so I'm not "stuck" with samples or anything. I have full faith I can write my own music! Really, just because I'm talking of the merits of sampling, doesn't mean I can't blow the doors off of J-Traxx with my playing
Basically, I got hooked on sampling by trying 1 thing. I used to view sampling as most of you do. But there was this guy in the Hip Hop forum talking about how "hard" it was to turn Joe Simon's "It Be's That Way Sometimes" into Lil Kim's "Magic Stick". I was intrigued so I decided to give it a try. The 2 songs sound nothing at all like each other, but since I knew that song B had come from song A, I just kept geeking with it until I figured it out - and when I did I must say it sounded freakin'
sweeeet.
I never said I was going to throw my guitars, bass and keys away, and try to forget my years of music training though!
And here's what I see....people will readily jump on the sample-hating wagon because it's non-original, as if what they do is so enlightened.
To that I say, what aboout using Quantize? Isn't that being fake too? What about using Sample CD's? That's o.k. to you, but do you think real players think of sample CD's as being as good as them? Do drummers appreciate drum machines as being as good?
I mean, Prince can play drums, guitar, bass etc so how come J-Traxx gets to SEQUENCE with his Motif string sounds, and he feels justified that that's "real music". Real to who?
Now I use ALL the tricks, quantizes, sample CD's, sequencers I can get my hands on, so I'm all for using the tools, but you'll NEVER hear me take credit for eveything as if I'm some musical genius beyond reproach. I've got a little help from Roland
and Akai
and Logic etc.
So my whole point in a nutshell is (thank god this is over right?) - be open to new ideas! Don't be so "sure" of your musical knowledge, because the older I get I find much more that I don't know.
(Aside from making music with samples, sampling also encourages listening to music you've never heard, which in itself is great to me.)
Anyway, thanks Shnurgle and James for the discussion
Sorry again to bring you into this symantics argument. I respect both you guys work ethic towards music, and I like to think I'm just as dedicated. I was never trying to get you guys to say stealing someone else's music is acceptable. I just don't like people thinking because they have a MIDI studio that makes all the magic for them, that they can condemn other musican's. If anybody has the right to feel that way and act like a snob about it, it's me (and others here who have dedicated their lives to this craft). But snobbery doesn't teach anybody anything.
Also...really...why is the question "what's the difference between a chord and triad" such a dumb one? I doubt the kid is calling himself a producer is he? I was taught that a chord, by definition, must have at least 3 notes. A triad also has 3 notes. Can no one understand why a beginner in music might need further clarification? I think this site is more about teaching future producers than it is about learning from the best producers. There's other sites for that (for me at least). I rarely have a question that can be answered on this forum, but it's still fun cuz I know Mano and his wife, and because he allows all these people to congregate who would NEVER otherwise cross paths
o.k.! I'm done! Peace all
