|
Harmonic mixing: Tunes in major keys (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PivotTechno |
 |
|
|
| Camelot_Sound |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Do the who to the what, now?
Er, seriously - this is the dumbest reason in the world, that even if it were 100% true, would make it no less stupid. |
Why would it be "stupid" if such complexity has mostly disappeared? The less complicated a track is, the easier it is to identify the tonal center, and therefore the key.
Back in the disco era, there were many elements that complicated the harmonic mixing process. Now it's much simpler. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Camelot_Sound
With the exception of modulations, all of that is irrelevant to 99% of mixing situations, because the structure of dance tracks has become rather simple since the replacement of actual musicians with computers. Our system, however does account for modulations.
|
Trance tracks change chords. Whether it is a programmed or not is irrelevant. How does your system account for one track playing one chord progression and the other , another,. If you honestly think people are not using chord changes, you need to open your ears. In fact the initial poster posted songs that all had chord changes.
example
A: i [applied V] to III
B: i VI v
doesn't sound so pretty and it is the same key. And that is a very common and generic progression.
And you system doesn't account for modulations as you don't distinguish whether a modulation actually occurred in the track. This requires a knowledge of theory and any program isn't going to pick it up.
To answer your question, I don't have a system in that I would call my own. I've spent the time learning music theory so I don't have to deal with stupid numbers that mean nothing. Its called learning. I suppose that would be my system. Not this bull you purport. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Camelot_Sound
Why would it be "stupid" if such complexity has mostly disappeared? The less complicated a track is, the easier it is to identify the tonal center, and therefore the key.
Back in the disco era, there were many elements that complicated the harmonic mixing process. Now it's much simpler. |
Most disco would use a minor blues scale which translates rather well to many keys. I don't really think you know what you are talking about. The harmonies used then and now are very similar. I would say there are less chord extensions but it isn't black and white.
And tonal center does not equate the key. You can be in the key of A minor without ever having an A minor chord. A key is merely a framework which is typically demarked by functional harmony using either dominant push or other common place progressions that tend to outline the key. But it doesn't have to be there.
Piston page 121 just in case you need a reference. |
|
|
| Camelot_Sound |
"And you system doesn't account for modulations as you don't distinguish whether a modulation actually occurred in the track. This requires a knowledge of theory and any program isn't going to pick it up."
False. Our system advises, for example, that Cheryl Lynn's "Got To Be Real" modulates from G-Minor to A-Minor. Further, our
system" has nothing to do with any "program." Designed in 1991, the Easymix System is the basis for our 60,000 MUSICIAN-keyed track database!
Evidently you have me confused with key detection software designers. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
So how exactly does your system mitigate these changing chords and keys. How does a simple number translate to when these changes occur , for how long ….
All i've seen above is a number and letter per track.
Anyways, there is no point me arguing here. I think your system sucks for the reasons I've outlined. I think it discourages learning and it makes people lazy. So lets just agree to disagree. Im not sure how I ended up on the dj page. |
|
|
| Camelot_Sound |
Perhaps we should post one at a time.
I agree that "tonal center does not equate the key." However, the tonal center usually INDICATES the key, and is the basis upon which our professional musicians key music. All key detection, whether human or software, is an approximation. Such approximation is valuable in the vast majority of cases.
"The harmonies used then and now are very similar" is a half-truth because so many tracks today have neither melody nor harmony (e.g. rap and EDM). The only tonal information in many tracks is just a monotone pedal tone. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Camelot_Sound
Why would it be "stupid" if such complexity has mostly disappeared? The less complicated a track is, the easier it is to identify the tonal center, and therefore the key.
Back in the disco era, there were many elements that complicated the harmonic mixing process. Now it's much simpler. |
It's stupid because it's a self-fulfilling proposition which dictates that because the music is made more simply a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice. By virtue of your proposition, not only DJ's should be encouraged to dumb it down, but music producers, as well. In so being it is self-fulfilling circular logic which, by its reductive nature, should alleviate any need for your invention in its current state by the year 2014; at which point a 909 four-on-the-floor kick, a fart bass playing a simple yet tortured polka swing on the down beat of each measure, and white noise sweeps will permeate the milieu of clubs, everywhere.
Furthermore, the assertion that 100% of music is made by computers, opposed to musicians, is simply bogus. I use SONAR to produce but it is far from being the machine that did 50% of my workload so well, I purchased two of them. I don't begrudge you or your product until you start pedaling it with conjecture which is, at best, bogus and, at worst, irresponsible. Start making the ethos of making music your high-water-mark, and I might be willing to change that opinion. |
|
|
| Camelot_Sound |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
So how exactly does your system mitigate these changing chords and keys. How does a simple number translate to when these changes occur , for how long ….
All i've seen above is a number and letter per track.
Anyways, there is no point me arguing here. I think your system sucks for the reasons I've outlined. I think it discourages learning and it makes people lazy. So lets just agree to disagree. Im not sure how I ended up on the dj page. |
Our database provides an incoming keycode, and an outgoing keycode when modulation is detected, because these are the points at which mixing usually occurs. Modulation is MUCH less common since the Disco Era.
Yes, let's agree to disagree. Thanks for your input. |
|
|
| Camelot_Sound |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
It's stupid because it's a self-fulfilling proposition which dictates that because the music is made more simply a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice. By virtue of your proposition, not only DJ's should be encouraged to dumb it down, but music producers, as well. In so being it is self-fulfilling circular logic which, by its reductive nature, should alleviate any need for your invention in its current state by the year 2014; at which point a 909 four-on-the-floor kick, a fart bass playing a simple yet tortured polka swing on the down beat of each measure, and white noise sweeps will permeate the milieu of clubs, everywhere.
Furthermore, the assertion that 100% of music is made by computers, opposed to musicians, is simply bogus. I use SONAR to produce but it is far from being the machine that did 50% of my workload so well, I purchased two of them. I don't begrudge you or your product until you start pedaling it with conjecture which is, at best, bogus and, at worst, irresponsible. Start making the ethos of making music your high-water-mark, and I might be willing to change that opinion. |
Sorry, but I never asserted that 100% of music is made by computers, nor did I assert that a "a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice." Recommend you review my posts rather than jumping to conclusions.
As a matter of fact, the "rudimentary analysis tools" represented by key detection software should NOT suffice. A comparison of such software was conducted by DJ Tech Tool (http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/11/...ware-smackdown/), and revealed major shortcomings in such software.
In the absence of comprehensive music education, however, such software is better than nothing. We recommend our customers use this software for a "guesstimate" until Camelot keys the music by musician. Since untold thousands of tracks are released every year, however, only a small fraction will ever be keyed by our musicians.
FYI: http://www.track-finder.com has software-detected keys on over 433,000 tracks.
Rather than using "rudimentary analysis tools," we have been keying music with professional musicians since 1987. Our database now includes over 60,000 records. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| how much do you pay your musicians ? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Camelot_Sound
Sorry, but I never asserted that 100% of music is made by computers, nor did I assert that a "a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice." Recommend you review my posts rather than jumping to conclusions.
As a matter of fact, the "rudimentary analysis tools" represented by key detection software should NOT suffice. A comparison of such software was conducted by DJ Tech Tool (http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/11/...ware-smackdown/), and revealed major shortcomings in such software.
Rather than using "rudimentary analysis tools," we have been keying music with professional musicians since 1987. Our database now includes over 60,000 records. |
I'll give you the 100% remark by about 50%. In stating that music was made by computers and not musicians, literally interpreted that means that 100% of the composition process is carried out by the push of a button. While I disagree with the literal interpretation, music production being thought of as button pushing stems from a well-deserved reputation among a good deal of EDM producers. The fact that this reputation ties in well with the second part of your sentence I went to laborious measure to deconstruct, remains intact.
To the verity of my second argument opposing its supposed conjecture: semantics. Your argument is bogged by the assertion of prevalent simplicity. Music is simple, ergo, you have developed a device, protocol, algorithm, et al which contends with it, simply, ergo...
Duty calls. I have to go. See you, tomorrow. :) |
|
|
|
|
