|
The concept of Form (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Robby Rox |
Well the real issue here is he brought up a topic, assuming that most of us knew about it because apparently we all learned about it in English class one time when he were 8.
For Brads sake however, the mistake that we made is that we actually expected this thread to be educational. I think all he wanted to say really was "form is important, now go learn about it".
Just another skill to add to the neverending list of things I still haven't mastered in music. |
|
|
| theterran |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
. I think all he wanted to say really was "form is important, now go learn about it". |
Fair enough I guess. |
|
|
| JEO |
:conf:
Of this once almost informational, great thread, enjoy I. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
Of course from has a place - like a good garden - it will have a theme and echoes of that theme throughout rather than be a random plantsmans pallete.
However on the whole subject of musical knowhow, it strikes me there are hundreds of thousands of classicaly trained musicians in this world, yet in the final analysis this possession of facts does not in any way entitle them to any particular proclivety as far as composition / production is concerened.
Similarly there a million folk that have sat cooking courses, yet this grounding in theory does not enable many to be top chefs. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
However on the whole subject of musical knowhow, it strikes me there are hundreds of thousands of classicaly trained musicians in this world, ye tin the final analysis this possession of facts does not in any way entitle them to any particular proclivety as far as composition / production is concerened. |
Cheers Rich
You could have at least insulted me in private :p |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
Cheers Rich
You could have at least insulted me in private :p |
No insults man, just reflecting on reality. I've met many a talented knowledgable muscisian that cannot produce a decent original work.
That's not to say we ignore form and classical structures.
I have to say I try and keep a form with a track but am a little scitzo and end up going down random paths too much so I get what Brad means and why it's important. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
No insults man, just reflecting on reality. |
I know ;)
Having thought about it, this is what I consider to be the ultimate in 'form' within the realms of dance music. The entire Chainsaw EP is stunning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIRmRwW00o |
|
|
| daeus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
organicism as I described has nothing to do with how it sounds but rather how it comes about. WHem something is derived from a source motive, you could say that is organic as it comes from the actual composition. It has nothing to do with the actual quality or timbre of the sound.
Just forget about it. There was only one person that actually had a clue as to what I was talking about. It says much about the musical maturity of most here and it is rather frustrating.
Didn't you people study English at school ? Did you not study form ? I would of thought anyone that had taken an intro lit , film or music class would start to see a piece of work no only as something to listen to but also a logical and aesthetic piece of art. |
I understood the way you described hence saying "I'm talking organic in the sence of how it sounds, and how a sound evolves."
Its a great way of moving a track along and making it sound alive. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Guys, he is talking about overall logic and architecture of your track, not whether the melody makes somebody "feel" something or the decay phase of your hi-hats.
:haha: |
so all that typing robby rox was doin is bul? |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
However on the whole subject of musical knowhow, it strikes me there are hundreds of thousands of classicaly trained musicians in this world, yet in the final analysis this possession of facts does not in any way entitle them to any particular proclivety as far as composition / production is concerened.
Similarly there a million folk that have sat cooking courses, yet this grounding in theory does not enable many to be top chefs. |
I think getting a masters degree in music, being a child prodigy at violin and piano, having done studio work with drums , guitar and piano at the age of 16, work professionally in the field having done work for feature films, title theme for a syndicated tv show somehow puts me a little bit above someone that took a few piano lessons. EVeryone says they are classically trained but it means nothing. In fact I would say I was trained in classical music but there was nothing classical about the training. Most of it I learnt my self.
Anyways, I do consider myself a more reliable arbiter and judge of music simply because I know more about it. I know more types of music. I've read more about it. I've created more kinda of music.
Would you argue with someone that has a phd in nuclear physics about nuclear physics ? And before you say science isn't art, ask the top research scientists and they will disagree. When you are at a certain level, science becomes an art-form.
I only bring up this I know more than you douche card when some twat pulls the show me your credentials twat card. I was trying to help people. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
I understand "form" in English, and I also understand/appreciate form in lifting/running, so I can tell you from that aspect if your form is off you might as well drop out of school/quit working out.
I've also had a music theory class, however I don't remember talking about form at all in it. The problem is when I apply the concept of form to music, my mind draws blanks.
Jive said its the "logic and architecture" of music, so I try to apply that to building. You draw out what you're going for, figure out how much wood you need, the angles of everything, flooring, walls, etc. But I can NOT apply that to music simply due to how much I'm always changing things around.
Thats why the concept of form seems useless. Say hypothetically I work out the architecture of a track, I can NOT be sure that logic is going to work untill I hear it. Maybe its different for more experienced people. But the way I see it is if I plan out the logic, I'm going to wind up changing that logic around 180 degrees during the actual mixing phase.
That chord I planned didn't work, that fx I made from from my bass failed completely, the ENTIRE "logic" to me then seems pointless as it would seem that form in music would always change right up untill before the mastering process.
Or am I wrong?
Maybe its my specific style of working that clouds my ability to understand it, but I don't see the "logic". It seems to me like the concept of making music in your head/on paper, planning it out untill the outro, then putting that logic into a sequencer and finding it didn't work.
Am I still not understanding form?
If not I might as well just leave this thread alone.. |
You're over thinking it. Everyone here making tracks, is already using the idea to some degree. The idea that you start out with just a kick and percussion, is an idea of form. Every song pretty much start out with just a few elements and builds up from there to keep interest and build up energy.
Part of form is just energy. How does the energy changed through the song? Is it just an upward? Does it have dips and peaks?
How does the overall groove of the song change? Does it get more synchopated or less? Are the patterns getting faster or slower? How is the harmony changing? How is the spectrum changing?
Most arrangements, even basic ones, will exploit expectation to one degree or another. Human beings are constantly try to predict what is going to happen and when we know exactly what's going to happen, its boring. So if a producer can change it up a little, and give a person what they expect, but delay their sense of conclusion its more interesting. I guess you could call it dramatic, or teasing.
Here's an example:
None EDM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVW8tgGY_w
There's that famous first part, then the second part. Then he teases in the first part again. Then it finally comes.
Nobody should be allowed to remix a Daft Punk track, except Daft Punk. Every remix I've heard sounds worse. If you listen to Alive 2007, they do an excellent job at mixing things up, but also giving people exactly what they want. They used things like beat repeat to make their tracks sound more syncopated, but what happens towards the end is that they eventually get around to playing the old song everyone loves.
Daft Punk - Da Funk / Daftendirekt - Alive 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FjmWuy9w2c
First they play part of the Da Funk intro, they it goes into a more synchopated beat. The synth that gets glitched up it also straight from Da Funk. It keeps getting mangled until they drop the main beat again, and that's where Daft Punk delivers exactly what people were expecting and everyone goes nuts.:)
Pryda - Melo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05CWBsuBgLM @6:19
He sustains the pad for a bit, and then drops back into the melody that he had going on earlier. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
M4B is talking not so much about the content at a single moment, but the way the content varies as the piece progresses, according to some internal architecture that the audience will perceive if they are attentive.
To give a simple example, many pieces of music will have something at the beginning that is recapitulated at the end. That is one aspect of form, the various points at which the same (or similar) content appears and reappears in a single work (or within parts of a multi-part work, like movements that make up a symphony). Composers often like to partially disguise reappearance in some way, or to anticipate it with short or cryptic hints.
For a more concrete example, you could have a piece with a synth in the beginning that is repetitive and kind of in the background due to being filtered down low. As you add elements to the piece, you might gradually bring the synth up in volume, let higher frequencies in, make it less repetitive and play some more elaborate melodic lines with it. Then have it recede and once again become a backing element, or drop out entirely to be replaced by something else.
Not really thinking about form can cause people to either endlessly repeat the tried and true -- intro, buildup, breakdown, second buildup, second breakdown, build-down, outro -- which can get rather boring -- or simply have an amorphous blob of musical material that is hard to remember because it has no real direction to it. |
|
|
|
|
