|
Suggestions on two topics. 2 Handed Piano playing, arranging a track (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ravist |
| quote: | Originally posted by Energy_3
are you after a book on piano theory, or a book on musical composition, or something else mate?
check this link out, its a not bad read, click where it states here as its a link to the online PDF of the book
http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/personnel/belkin/bk/
It has a fair bit of information and may well be worth a read |
server not found |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
hey bud yeah i just tried it myself and no go, not sure why? I went back and its still up and running the website.
you can find it simply by typing musical composition into google its titled a practical guide to musical composition by Alan Belkin if you cant find it let me know as you can download the book as a pdf and i will email it to you.
I think its a great read - let me know if you find it - bugger that link!
try this one, it worked for me, its a direct link to the Book. fingers crossed
http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/per...belkin/bk/F.pdf :nervous:
Here i took a fragment of its introduction:
This book arose in response to a specific, personal need. In many years of composing and teaching musical composition at various levels, I was repeatedly struck by the dearth of practical information about how music is constructed. There are good texts available on harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration, but useful principles of musical form, explained from the point of view of the composer, are oddly neglected. By "practical principles of musical form" I do not refer to the labeling and categorizing of structural units - useful though that may be - but to the ways musical ideas are organized and connected in time, so that their evolution is compelling and convincing. Even students quite experienced in analysis often have little idea about how to construct a transition, how to build a climax, or how to create a satisfactory sense of conclusion |
|
|
| owien |
| quote: | Originally posted by Energy_3
hey bud yeah i just tried it myself and no go, not sure why? I went back and its still up and running the website.
you can find it simply by typing musical composition into google its titled a practical guide to musical composition by Alan Belkin if you cant find it let me know as you can download the book as a pdf and i will email it to you.
I think its a great read - let me know if you find it - bugger that link!
try this one, it worked for me, its a direct link to the Book. fingers crossed
http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/per...belkin/bk/F.pdf :nervous:
Here i took a fragment of its introduction:
This book arose in response to a specific, personal need. In many years of composing and teaching musical composition at various levels, I was repeatedly struck by the dearth of practical information about how music is constructed. There are good texts available on harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration, but useful principles of musical form, explained from the point of view of the composer, are oddly neglected. By "practical principles of musical form" I do not refer to the labeling and categorizing of structural units - useful though that may be - but to the ways musical ideas are organized and connected in time, so that their evolution is compelling and convincing. Even students quite experienced in analysis often have little idea about how to construct a transition, how to build a climax, or how to create a satisfactory sense of conclusion |
well it worked for me ok so thanks will look forward to reading this:D |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by owien
well it worked for me ok so thanks will look forward to reading this:D |
no worries i think that the principles that are contained therein will be most useful |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ravist
what would you guys recommend a good book to start reading and learning about music theory? (Diginut, your reply will probably be most valuable here, since you seem to have the most experience out of anyone I know on this board) |
Unfortunately, the fact that I learned this institutionally (first conservatory, then university) means that I haven't really read retail books on the subject.
In general though, I would say make sure you find one that goes into depth (no "for Dummies" crap that's only 100 pages), and make sure it has sections on both the basics (rudiments - notes, keys, scales, etc.) and advanced topics (harmony and counterpoint - modes, chords, progressions, voice leading, etc.) The fact is, you'll be far less frustrated if there's too much detail than too little.
I took a peek inside some of the books on Amazon and found a few that looked like the content was reasonably complete, but be forewarned, I'm mostly looking at the TOC and first few pages and can't really vouch for overall quality (read the reviews!):
- The Music Theory Handbook
- Edly's Music Theory
- HarperCollins College Outline
- Music in Theory and Practice ($$$)
That's just on the first page, and searching for "music theory" - you might find others searching for "music composition", but the only concern there is that it might assume knowledge of concepts you aren't already familiar with if you don't know at least some of the theory.
I hope that helps a little. I wish I could be more specific with a recommendation but, as I said, I would have had no reason to go exploring on my own.
There might also be web sites, eBooks, etc. that offer free/cheap courses or tutorials, but I can't really say anything about those. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
:stongue: @ 2 handed piano playing.
2 handed key playing is a phenomenon in music making? really?
In electronic music, relationships and the needs between melodies, chords, and progression is not the same as Pop or other genres. Right handed chordless melodies are very much the norm. Ridiculous thread as usual by Stevo.
Besides, playing Piano with 2 hands wont save anyone from making mediocore electronic music. The dynamics of electronic music are vast enough that traditional music theory or traditional ways of playing and creating music can be thrown out the window and replaced with more abscract means of expression through sound and melody. Playing melodies without the need for accompanying chords is one of them.
Music Theory will only get you so far in Electronic Music... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
In electronic music, relationships between melodies, chords, and progression is not the same as Pop or other genres. Right handed chordless melodies are very much the norm. |
Right-handed chordless melodies are the norm in almost every kind of music, including pop, rock, classical, electronic, and what have you. Doesn't mean you can't have anything more complex. Guitar and piano tracks especially tend to deviate from this norm often.
| quote: | | The dynamics of electronic music are vast enough that traditional music theory or traditional ways of playing and creating music can be thrown out the window and replaced with more abscract means of expression through sound and melody. |
This is true, but also irrelevant. Simply because traditional knowledge and practices are not required does not mean that they have no utility. It depends entirely on the kind of music one is aiming to produce. |
|
|
| floyd741 |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Press a key, skip 3 keys, press the next, skip 2, press the next. Major Chord.
Press a key, skip two, press the next, then skip 3, press the next, Minor Chord.
|
Now try skipping another 3 keys for the Major, and skip 2 more keys for the Minor. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Right-handed chordless melodies are the norm in almost every kind of music, including pop, rock, classical, electronic, and what have you. Doesn't mean you can't have anything more complex. Guitar and piano tracks especially tend to deviate from this norm often. |
Right, in Electornic Music, its actually THE norm to have chordless melodies. Other genres are far more chord dependent, and often write their main melodies around the chords.
I dont think writing melodies to chords makes things anymore difficult for the producer, it actually makes things easier. For me, chords become a platform that ideas jump off from, so its actually easier for me to write melodies to chords. However, the complexity of chord+melodies dont exactly net good results in electronic DANCE music. Like I said Electronic Music has dynamics that allow a track to be enjoyable, outside of melodies that follow chords, and this very much the norm. So what im saying, sure a good melody+chord relationship can be nice and useful at times, but not a sure bet towards making great electronic music, and its nothing to make fun of Producers who use right handed chordless melodies.
In my opinion, knowing music theory wont help you much with electronic music as it might with other genres. Because there are more ways to create a track in Electronic Music, outside of melodies and chords that are married to eachother. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Right, in Electornic Music, its actually THE norm to have chordless melodies. Other genres are far more chord dependent, and often write their main melodies around the chords, and if there is a progression section they change the melody accordingly. |
This is complete and utter nonsense. For every non-filler track you can find that isn't based entirely around a repeating chord progression or a single chord, I can find you 10 that are. You also seem to be confusing melody with harmony; almost every genre uses "chordless melodies" as the norm, and the fact that there are chords does not mean that they are part of the melody.
| quote: | | And then, complexity of chord+melodies dont exactly net good results in electronic music. |
You haven't defined what you mean by "complexity", but again, this is pretty ridiculous. The most popular tracks I've personally made, by far, have generally used harmonic structures that are almost straight out of a theory book, and the same can be said for many of the most popular trance tracks.
| quote: | | In my opinion, knowing music theory wont help you much with electronic music as it might with other genres. |
Here's my question: have you actually taken any theory? Do you have any experience with which to base this opinion on, or do you just assume that anything you don't already know can't really be useful?
You really have to wonder at the kind of mindset that tries to discourage other people from learning things that they're interested in learning. |
|
|
| floyd741 |
| quote: | Originally posted by floyd741
Now try skipping another 3 keys for the Major, and skip 2 more keys for the Minor. |
And you get something like this:
Quick Tune |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
This is complete and utter nonsense. For every non-filler track you can find that isn't based entirely around a repeating chord progression or a single chord, I can find you 10 that are. You also seem to be confusing melody with harmony; almost every genre uses "chordless melodies" as the norm, and the fact that there are chords does not mean that they are part of the melody.
You haven't defined what you mean by "complexity", but again, this is pretty ridiculous. The most popular tracks I've personally made, by far, have generally used harmonic structures that are almost straight out of a theory book, and the same can be said for many of the most popular trance tracks.
Here's my question: have you actually taken any theory? Do you have any experience with which to base this opinion on, or do you just assume that anything you don't already know can't really be useful?
You really have to wonder at the kind of mindset that tries to discourage other people from learning things that they're interested in learning. |
I can find you plenty of rather ty music that follow complex chord progression, and 10 brilliant electronic tracks that dont.
Why would I have to define complexity, you were the one that brought it up first? So why don't you define it for us.
The most popular tracks you've made could be straight out of a Theory Book, but how do you know they are popular based on the harmony structure? Thats amazing talent you have. And its ridiculous to think that the popularity of music comes from harmonic structure that could be found in a theory book.
I'm not discouraging people from learning music theory, i'm actually encouraging producers who DONT know music theory, to keep making electronic music, because they probably can without it, and there are other important dynamics to electronic music. And there are plenty of producers who likely dont know about music theory, and have made the worlds best electronic music, and are others that likely know it, and make cant make electronic music for . So what does me knowing music theory or not have to do with my objective evidence backed opinion?
To kick the ball furthur into the goal...imo a class in psychology or phillosophy is more valuable than a class in music theory for making great electronic music, due to the dynamics of the music. If anything this threads makes people feel as if their skills are insufficient by not knowing "2 handed piano playing", and im saying, nah that is bull. My favorite producers might not be able to play piano at all, so like I said this thread is ridiculous and doesnt help the producers as much as it poses to do. That said, to kick the ball a bit more...i'd OWN anyone here who is deep in music theory knowledge in a electronic dance music production competition, if anyone wants to step up, to show people that music theory knowledge ain't all that, and the dynamics of good electronic music is far more vast than just music theory knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
