Overambitious music-making

I was thinking about the New Order album - Power, Corruption and Lies. It's one of my favorite albums. I love it to death.

The first track, Age of Consent, has 2 chords. D Major and G Major. It's a I-IV progression over and over again.

Another track, The Village, has 2 chords - C Major and F Major. Again, a I-IV progression.

Another song of theirs i like is Ceremony - 2 chords. Fmajor to CMajor. I-V. Over and over again.

This is their earlier stuff, and over time their music adds more complex progressions (maybe up to 4 chords!). But the thing that strikes me is that I probably listen to a lot of stuff like this without ever thinking about how simple it is.

Do you find that when you're writing music that you try to put more into it than necessary, or do you try to stop yourself from ruining what you've got with too much? Do you need to save your music from yourself?

I ran FOH for a friend's band a few times. Their most popular song was very catchy, and filled the floor (moshers, as they were a metal band). After doing FOH a few times, the one guitar player/singer came up to me laughing, and asked if I could tell him what was so odd about their "hit song." Dumbfounded, he said he would give me until after the next performance to figure it out. Hearing it again, I listened intently, looking for this mysterious "uniqueness" it had. I was completely at a loss.

After the next show, I brought him aside and asked. He laughed again, and told me it was the simplicity of it. The entire song is built on ONE CHORD, and one chord only. In parts, it was only the root, E, being played even. What made the song what it was was the rhythm and the energy the band put into it, and of course, the stupid one chord hook. All they did was use different inversions of E, but they ALWAYS had an E, E5, or Em going, nothing else. No 7, 11, 13 aug, dim, M, or anything else. And I am not even sure there was an Em; maybe the tonality simply (pun intended) suggested it at points with the E5 being played.

I would smile and sometimes laugh everytime I heard it thereafter. Complete genius...

Do you need to save your music from yourself?

ALL THE DAMN TIME.

That's why I don't do final mixes on my stuff any more unless I absolutely have to. I'm usually sick of my stuff by the time I'm 'done' writing (and, I spend wayyyy too much time 2nd guessing stuff).

That's one thing that deadlines do for you. You work faster and smarter. You tend NOT to over-produce stuff. Of course, I still nit pick over EVERY DAMN NOTE

The hardest thing you ever have to do is say 'ok..it's good enough'.

But the thing that strikes me is that I probably listen to a lot of stuff like this without ever thinking about how simple it is.

 

Do you find that when you're writing music that you try to put more into it than necessary, or do you try to stop yourself from ruining what you've got with too much? Do you need to save your music from yourself?

I have also had the "wow this is simple" epiphany when listening to some of my favorite bands. Some drummers will play simplified beats through a whole album, using the same or very similar beats in several songs. When you listen for talent, your first instinct is "how hard is this to play", although I think many times a better measure of talent would be "how well did this musician write his part to fit the song".

Over the years, I've learned that one of the most important rules to stick to, is that you have to write each instruments part "for the song" rather than for its own amusement. If anything gets too showy, it distracts. I've taken notice in my own music that this seems to really create a better response from fans. I used to write more intricate stuff ( www.myspace.com/fumunda "whisper girl" and "last chance to forget") but the songs that I get better feedback from are more reserved (www.myspace.com/meridianca "dissociate and dissapate" and www.myspace.com/fumunda "blacksmiths daughter")

BUT!!! .... Who doesn't love a good shred here and there?!

Why do you call them I-IV progressions instead of V-I? Not that it matters, it's just that without a third chord, the music doesn't tell you exactly what key it is... the vocals and the bass might, though.

I read a quote from Paul McCartney where he said something like if he was really doing well at composing he'd write songs that featured one note. Anyway that got me to start thinking about composing with doing less- intentionally or not. If you have a limited choice of chords or notes, say, you'll start reaching for other things to make a composition interesting, rhythm, lyrics, or the all important "attitude".

Try it out- play one chord or two notes and limit yourself in that way- and then, after a time, allow yourself a third note and notice how it seems as if a really big thing has occurred within the space of that song. Smoke a little marijuana, too, if you have it, and be sure to get the girlfriend high too- she'll need it for your three note in an hour experiments.

I love New Order, my favorite is the rhythm guitar breakdown in "All the Way"- beautiful. But when I was a young man and learning guitar, I was presented with all this jazz s#!+, and it was at the tail end of shred- Nirvana hadn't came along quite yet. I couldn't play 11th chords, and I couldn't do faux-classical inspired shredding. And then one day I heard Iggy and the Stooges Raw Power, and that was it- I'd heard the coolest, sexiest music I was ever gonna hear... and I didn't care if I couldn't play augmented 13th chords or solo in the Assholian mode anymore.

Why do you call them I-IV progressions instead of V-I? Not that it matters, it's just that without a third chord, the music doesn't tell you exactly what key it is... the vocals and the bass might, though.

On The Village and in Age of Consent? Because the root of those I chords are the tonic for the song. D for Age of Consent, C for The Village. There just isn't a V chord, but there is an established key in all those examples.

At least that's what my ears tell me. I have big ears.

It is possible for a key to be established with little or no harmonic progression. Just listen to Terry Riley's In C.

Tonality can be implied with very few pointers.

You don't need loads of chords.

Tonality in Arabic and Indian music is very apparent while using little or no chordal progression.

It's the unamiguity of the patterns that point to the home or tonic.

Atonal has no home.

Why do you call them I-IV progressions instead of V-I? Not that it matters, it's just that without a third chord, the music doesn't tell you exactly what key it is... the vocals and the bass might, though.

The music does tell you what key the song is in. You don't call a IV chord a V chord, nor do you call a IV chord a I chord because they simple aren't. They function differently. C feels like the tonal centre, and F feels like a departure from C then C is the tonal centre.

Often the tonality of a piece of music is determined by the melody. A piece still has a root movement even if there is no harmonic elements underlying it. The melody alone can imply harmony eg. the nursery rhyhm 'twinkle twinkle little star' as sung by your ma or pa still has a harmonic foundation, even if your parents didn't sing 2 part harmony. See 'Ah Vous Dirai-je Maman' by Mozart.

Note, that if somebody was to re-harmonize one of the afore mentioned New Order tunes, or arrange for big band or orchestra they would base they're harmony/arrangement on I-IV, not V-I. not to say they couldn't, but the affect would be totally different.

Do you find that when you're writing music that you try to put more into it than necessary, or do you try to stop yourself from ruining what you've got with too much? Do you need to save your music from yourself?

All the time. My natural instinct is to put in too much. I guess your ability to decide what is best determines your merit as a composer.

That being said, if people didn't push the boundaries of complexity we wouldn't have all the beautiful music we have today.

I think peoples ability to appreciate more complex music is not as strong as their ability to accept simple music. Sometimes even those of us who delve in dissonance need a consonant break every now and then. Its just the way were wired.

This thread has been inspiring to me. I suffer from the complexity issue like I think a lot of people do. One of my favorite artists is John Mayer (flame me all you want). But when you get down to it, the guy can play. Not to mention some of his songs just have a lot going on. So when I write some times I try to emulate that and though I like to listen to it, it's not my style to play that way. Truth be told, a lot of it is just beyond my ability right now.

I've gotten some of the best responses from simple I-IV-V stuff that uses a ii in the chorus. It just sounds and feels good, and it elicits a good response from people. I started penning something the other day on my keyboard that modulates a I-IV (C and F) in the verse and goes to a ii-V for the chorus. So simple, but I love the way it sounds. It opens the door for other instruments or sounds to come in and make it unique and interesting.

So I went digging through the soft synth library and pulled up a solo cello and put a 4 bar melody over a break and it really started to take on its own identity. I think discussion like this helps too. I'm sure every singer/artist/songwriter out there suffers from the same issue. I think for a while I just need to get back to basics.

Do you need to save your music from yourself?

desperately and constantly!

I once did a live guitar solo in the studio which lasted about 30 seconds to a minute, the other band members were outside but could hear what was going on as we had miked up the guitar amp at full volume in another room.

After the take they burst into the room full of uncontrolled excitement whooping about how absolutely amazing it sounded.

The entire solo was made up of just 2 notes. A full minute of just 2 notes. It sounded good and non repetitive due to a combination of playing the notes in different octaves, using overdrive, echo, a phaser, use of the tremola arm etc. etc.

Its not how compliated how cleaver muscially something is IMO that counts, its whatever sounds good.

Cool thread ... if only I could start our singer thinking like this ....

Hm. Let me guess. He's a scat singer?