Creating Original Musical Ideas

[FoolsGold]

I make house music, do you guys have any tips of creating original music?

 

I tend to study other songs, and emulate elements, because i know they work in there respective songs on/off the dancefloor.

 

Yet its hard for me to Develop new ideas that haven't been used and have confidence in them working. Any ideas/work arounds/ways of thinking to help me produce more original ideas are appreciated

[Scott Jackson]

I tend to study other songs, and emulate elements, because i know they work in there respective songs on/off the dancefloor.

 

Yet its hard for me to Develop new ideas that haven't been used and have confidence in them working. Any ideas/work arounds/ways of thinking to help me produce more original ideas are appreciated

 

Close your eyes.

 

Remember everything you learned and emulated from others.

 

Now forget everything you learned and emulated from others.

 

Open your eyes.

 

Experiment and make something that's yours.

[camillo jr]

Close your eyes.

 

Remember everything you learned and emulated from others.

 

Now forget everything you learned and emulated from others.

 

Open your eyes.

 

Experiment and make something that's yours.

 

+1

 

To which I might add, sounds like you could stand to just jam more. Everything you've learned from other songs will still be there when you're trying something new. Make some whacked adjustment to a filter. Throw on an effect you haven't tried before. Set up some arps without knowing how they'll sound. So many ways of generating new material, it's just a matter of jumping in the pool and swimming around.

 

Above all, while you're making up stuff, avoid the temptation to judge it against commercial tunes - the whole point is to get some flow going and judgement is a flow-killer. Later on, you can weed through what you've done and then try and fit in some standard production techniques.

[peachboy]

I see creativity as an evolution of three stages: Observation, Imitation, and True Creation.

 

First we passively observe. (e.g Listening to music on the radio etc. Most people in the world are passive observers, unless they actually produce their own tracks).

 

Then we imitate. (We sit at a DAW for the first time. What are we going to produce? Well.....everything we have already observed and heard. We imitate. It's a challenge for us all at first.)

 

Finally after years of imitating, we truly are now gods of experience. We can now successfully imitate with our eyes closed while standing on our heads, and so we enter the final realm of True Creation - that enlightened blissful moment where everything you do is defined not by what has come before, but by an overwhelming curiosity and desire to experiment into new fields without limitation nor concern of what is deemed to be normal or acceptable.

 

So I guess, the bottom line is, just keep churning out those tracks and soon everything will fall into place.

[efiebke]

Don't forget theory!

 

I am surprised that no one mentioned this up until this point. Learning and understanding music-compositional theory goes a LONG way to "Creating Original Musical Ideas". I would argue that understanding what makes up a four-part fugue will ultimately help in creating that original electronic beat sound. Seriously. It's ALL helpful.

 

Every profession has a theoretical base. This includes that profession of music-making. What is cool about music theory is that once learned, it can be ignored!! But one has to KNOW it to ignore it.

 

Just sayin'. . . .

 

May the gods of original music composition be with us all.

[tristancalvaire]

Don't forget theory!

 

I am surprised that no one mentioned this up until this point. Learning and understanding music-compositional theory goes a LONG way to "Creating Original Musical Ideas". I would argue that understanding what makes up a four-part fugue will ultimately help in creating that original electronic beat sound. Seriously. It's ALL helpful.

 

Every profession has a theoretical base. This includes that profession of music-making. What is cool about music theory is that once learned, it can be ignored!! But one has to KNOW it to ignore it.

 

Just sayin'. . . .

 

May the gods of original music composition be with us all.

 

Thing is, once you've learned your basic triads and harmonies (and of course your major/minor scales and note names) the rest of theory is a bit of semantics. It's possible to say, create a deceptive cadence deliberately without even knowing it's called a deceptive cadence. Besides, being constrained to chord arrangements allowed by classic theory and having to follow silly rules like accounting for an anacrusis's value in your last measure is no fun.

 

I'd say just learn your basic harmonies, and from there simply do what sounds good.

[camillo jr]

Don't forget theory!

 

I am surprised that no one mentioned this up until this point. Learning and understanding music-compositional theory goes a LONG way to "Creating Original Musical Ideas". I would argue that understanding what makes up a four-part fugue will ultimately help in creating that original electronic beat sound. Seriously. It's ALL helpful.

 

Every profession has a theoretical base. This includes that profession of music-making. What is cool about music theory is that once learned, it can be ignored!! But one has to KNOW it to ignore it.

 

Just sayin'. . . .

 

May the gods of original music composition be with us all.

 

Thing is, once you've learned your basic triads and harmonies (and of course your major/minor scales and note names) the rest of theory is a bit of semantics. It's possible to say, create a deceptive cadence deliberately without even knowing it's called a deceptive cadence. Besides, being constrained to chord arrangements allowed by classic theory and having to follow silly rules like accounting for an anacrusis's value in your last measure is no fun.

 

I'd say just learn your basic harmonies, and from there simply do what sounds good.

 

Yeah, really!

 

If someone were trying to make music that sounded like Bach, then yeah, there might be some call to learn some theory. Otherwise, it makes more sense to just imitate things you like until you hit on a nice twist on the same idea. IMO, it's more useful to cultivate an attitude of observation about music than it is to apply theory before you start writing (or listening). You can find out a LOT of stuff about a certain style or genre just by doing things like counting the bars until the next major change and finding out how the whole tune is structured. Or noticing that a song only has one repeated four bar chord progression. Or noticing the direction or flavour of the chords. Picking apart a song or a sound to find out what it's made of is not theoretical; it's a hands-on exploration.

[ski]

The important question to ask is, where do other people get their original ideas from? Well, it comes from six places... imitation, experimentation, study, inspiration, confidence, and finally, talent.

 

I make house music, do you guys have any tips of creating original music?

 

Yup.

 

Study music, i.e., take some lessons on an instrument (keyboard or guitar). Do that in combination with learning some basic music theory which will teach you about chord qualities (major, minor, etc.), scales, and so on. Music theory is so very important because it will teach you how to identify different aspects and constructs of what other people have done, and will give you ideas of what you can do yourself. Once you learn about some basics of how most music is constructed, you can start to break the rules. But that comes later. Much later.

 

Yet its hard for me to Develop new ideas that haven't been used and have confidence in them working.

 

Building up your confidence will take years. That's just the way it goes, unless you happen to get lucky and stumble upon some kind of approach or style that gives you (and perhaps your audience) the kind of creative gratification you are looking for. But in short, there are no workarounds.

[efiebke]

Just wanting to add to the conversation a bit. . .

 

I can never understand the reluctance by many musicians to take time to study music composition & theory. Although it does include these, it really is more than just learning how to voice lead chord progressions or write a 4-part fugue. I think of learning any amount of music theory/composition (including different genres of music) as additional musical "colors" that can be added to one's palette available to blend as one sees fit. With a certain amount of learning and practice one blends those "colors" as Monet or Van Gogh blends their colors to their paintings; or as Sondheim or Bach or The Beatles or Frank Zappa or Miles Davis or Jim Croce or Beethoven or Charles Ives or Pat Metheny or Gentlle Giant or Sting write and perform their music (throughout the years).

 

The original poster to this thread requested suggestions on creating original musical ideas. He or she is not the first to ask for such suggestions nor will be the last. Learning music theory really should be an option to consider to help one's creativity. Of course anyone can take it or leave it. Just don't discount it. Sadly, all too often I find that it is discounted and minimalized.

 

I mentioned that learning a four-part fugue can help a composer write an electronic-style music. It can. A fugue is a form with a fairly recognizable set of "rules" to keep or break. One of the most interesting fugues that I've heard was done to a set of words. No pitches, just words. The form was there, though. So if one can write a "fugue" just using words, one can utilize the fugue-form to any genre of music. Here's a thought. For those interested in electronica (and admittedly its a genre of music that I don't know well), how about considering the basic form of a fugue in your next compositional project?? Without having to worry about pitches, one can use the basic form of the fugue as a guide in modulating and/or changing sounds (similar to how the fugue-form was used to develope a repeating set of words). With an open mind and a good amount of creativity, I'm sure such a composition can be written and performed. To be honest, it is my opinion that anyone who thinks otherwise only denies him or herself an opportunity to be "original and creative". And yes, it might mean that it takes some time and energy to study up on the fugue form. Just think of the possibilities, though! (I LOVE possibilities!)

 

I care very much about the "creative process". It gives me great satisfaction to sit down and compose music. (Realize that I am a full-time ICU nurse and usually don't have the time and energy to do what I love to do.) In recalling past "conversations" on similar topics like this one (on other music-focused bulletin boards), I understand that we all have our own agendas and priorities in life. We also have our own preferences in how we learn and grow as individuals (inside and outside the world of music). However, I've grown to learn and value that if one really wishes to collect more "colors" to create more interesting and "original" music of any genre, one should strongly consider learning some theory (at least specific to the genre you wish to write). It's only a choice, but one well worth the consideration, time and energy.

 

Peace. . .

 

 

Edited to Add: Here's the Fugue that I was talking about. It's titled "Trinidad". ENJOY!!

 

 

:

[peachboy]

Let's have a Fugue competition!!

 

p.s What's a fugue? :-s

[peachboy]

On a serious note, I can't quite decide on the music theory vs no music theory situation.

 

To be honest, some of the most emotionally charged pieces of music (and ultimately music is ALL about emotion) has arisen from a relatively "proletarian" background, and some of the most anonymously sterile pieces of music haven arisen from a musical theory background.

[ski]

On a serious note, I can't quite decide on the music theory vs no music theory situation.

 

(Extremely loosely based on a somewhat true story)

 

Let's say your girlfriend went to a dinner party. You were invited to go too, but you made up some lame excuse to stay home, something about wanting some time for yourself to debate the merits of music theory. Anyway, she comes home from the party a few hours later with a tall plastic cup filled with the party host's homemade tiramisu. You're like, "what the hell is that?" She tells you it's Cheryl's homemade tiramisu, and that it's to die for. You're thinkin', "yeah, I'm kinda hungry", but to your eyes it looks absolutely disgusting. And at first glance, yeah, it does.

 

Now, ordinarily you totally trust your girlfriend's taste in things, like her taste in the clothes she buys you, the restaurants she recommends, and she can even tell you a thing or two about how to adjust the air/fuel mixture in your dirt bike for the best performance. But now, with a simple cup of goo in front of you, you become all circumspect and stuff. She see's the puzzlement on your face but insists you try it anyway because, as she puts it, it will change your dessert-eating life forever.

 

So now you have an agonizing choice... trust what she's telling you and hoist a spoonful of the moussy muck up to your pie hole and try some, or, hurt her feelings (after all, she brought you home a present), tell her that it's all hers alone to enjoy, and never know what you were missing...

 

 

[denitronik]

I will choose knowledge against ignorance any time. Our brains are made to learn, remember, experiment, create, evolve, survive...

[peachboy]

On a serious note, I can't quite decide on the music theory vs no music theory situation.

 

(Extremely loosely based on a somewhat true story)

 

Let's say your girlfriend went to a dinner party. You were invited to go too, but you made up some lame excuse to stay home, something about wanting some time for yourself to debate the merits of music theory. Anyway, she comes home from the party a few hours later with a tall plastic cup filled with the party host's homemade tiramisu. You're like, "what the hell is that?" She tells you it's Cheryl's homemade tiramisu, and that it's to die for. You're thinkin', "yeah, I'm kinda hungry", but to your eyes it looks absolutely disgusting. And at first glance, yeah, it does.

 

Now, ordinarily you totally trust your girlfriend's taste in things, like her taste in the clothes she buys you, the restaurants she recommends, and she can even tell you a thing or two about how to adjust the air/fuel mixture in your dirt bike for the best performance. But now, with a simple cup of goo in front of you, you become all circumspect and stuff. She see's the puzzlement on your face but insists you try it anyway because, as she puts it, it will change your dessert-eating life forever.

 

So now you have an agonizing choice... trust what she's telling you and hoist a spoonful of the moussy muck up to your pie hole and try some, or, hurt her feelings (after all, she brought you home a present), tell her that it's all hers alone to enjoy, and never know what you were missing...

 

 

 

About 12 years ago, In my younger drug taking days, I remember being at a warehouse party completely "off my head" on vast amounts of Ketamine. As I lay there in a dystopian techno apocalypse devoid of any intellectual process be it conscious or subconscious, and without knowing who I was or what my name was or even what species I was, I suddenly experienced the sound of a dog barking - I later found out as I started to "come down" that it was a real dog that someone had brought to the party. However, before this point, I was completely unable to form any kind of intellectual analysis about what I was hearing, whether conscious or subconscious. It wasn't a dog barking, but a completely abstract (and amazing) sound, and yet it was the same sound. Can you imagine hearing the bark of a dog and not knowing what it is? It's amazing. For the first time, I could actually hear the sound of a dog barking without my brain rudely stepping in and automatically declaring "that's a dog that is".

 

A friend of mine overloaded on music theory admits that he can't really enjoy a piece of music in the way that others (perhaps) do. He sits there in the concert hall, and all he can hear and see is the matrix of music theory; a 4-3 suspension here, a II-V-I cadence there, a Lydian mode etc etc. The deadened pedestrianised rationality of the theory has replaced the infinitely mysterious abstract nature of the sound, forever.

 

I don't mean to promote ignorance here, and perhaps it's not the best analogy in the world. But once you've learned that a dog is a dog, you can never go back. Once you've tried the tiramisu, you can never have those pre-tiramisu days back again.

 

[tristancalvaire]

Oh, I'm definitely all for studying music theory. I'm personally enrolled in the AP Music Theory curriculum as we speak. However, I don't really feel it's helped me to be more creative- rather, it's just enabled me to recognized what's already been going on in my music. "Oh! That thing I did was a deceptive cadence." or "Oh, I went into a Dorian Modal scale for these 16 bars".

 

I just don't think it's a good idea to feel constrained by the rules– don't get too caught up in 'legitimate' progressions or wether you call a note D double sharp or E or Fb.

[ski]

Tristan, I think it's great that you're studying theory. And one of the things you wrote absolutely pinpoints the purpose of studying it and the need for any musician who wishes to explore music beyond the amateur or hobbyist level to indulge in at least some theory study...

 

You mentioned the deceptive cadence. OK, let's say that prior to studying theory, and totally by using your own instincts, you wrote or improvised a chord progression that had a deceptive cadence in it. You didn't understand the chordal relationships at that time, but it created a certain kind of mood that you liked. OK, now let's say that at some point in the future you were writing a new piece or a song and you thought to yourself, "y'know, I'd like to do that same kind of move as I did in that other song". With an understanding of how a deceptive cadence is constructed you will spend a whole lot less time trying to create a suitable chord progression in the new song. There'll be less trial and error involved, etc. Thus, learning about the constructs of a deceptive cadence becomes a tool you can use. Simple. Elegant. Time-saving. And it's just damn interesting stuff to know too!

 

But so many people think that learning about this kind of thing is bound to constrain them to follow that formula in the future. Well, they'd be 100% wrong. Most musicians are rebels at heart, looking to do something new and to break the rules, searching for a new voice amidst millions of others. But note that this kind of drive can swing both ways... a person might set out to use his/her knowledge of advanced theory and set out to write a fugue to rival anything that Bach ever wrote. Or they might take what they've learned about constructing a deceptive cadence and seek out some new way to create a musical deception.

 

So while it's true that after learning about this and other musical constructs via theory studies, you may not be able to "put the tiramisu back in the bag" or "disembody the bark from the dog" any longer, but unlike Peachboy's friend, I'd say that very few people get so hung up on theory that they can no longer listen to music in the same way.

[tristancalvaire]

That does make perfect sense, Ski. I guess some of what helped me as well was taking guitar lessons when I was younger- even thought my teacher was a rocker and in the true rocker sense avoided the grand staff and theory in anything but the earliest lessons, he inadvertently taught me some theory via learning of things like power chords (a fifth harmony), tuning to drop D and holding down the bottom three strings on a note (root fifth and octave), teaching me a ladder-like blues pentatonic scale along the six strings, etc. Guitar also taught me note names.

 

My small town's schooling system was also surprisingly quite musical- from as early as kindergarten, every student took a general music class that incorporated learning the basics of arrangement like rounds, call and response patterns, how to play hot crossed buns on the glockenspiel, and so on. In high school, nearly every student was in the band, there were no 'band geeks' per say– likely a product of us all being taught music quite vigorously at a young age.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I've inadvertently learned some foundations of theory without realizing it- so that my own compositional creativity wasn't entirely from hearing music alone, but also from early childhood lessons.

[CarlosUnderground]

Let me point out that, the point of theory knowledge is to have it be second nature.

To not think about it and, just have it happen. To get to a state of mind where, theory is

The drug and music is the bark of the dog. You don't think about the object producing that

sound, you just know its beautiful to you so, you want to share it with others.

I've always thought of music as a quantum art. The way that sound can transmit so much

emotion is mind boggling. Couple that with words and, it's quite an assault to the psyche.

So, like a surgeon, it helps to know where and when to cut:-)

[efiebke]

Let me point out that, the point of theory knowledge is to have it be second nature.

To not think about it and, just have it happen. To get to a state of mind where, theory is

The drug and music is the bark of the dog. You don't think about the object producing that

sound, you just know its beautiful to you so, you want to share it with others.

I've always thought of music as a quantum art. The way that sound can transmit so much

emotion is mind boggling. Couple that with words and, it's quite an assault to the psyche.

So, like a surgeon, it helps to know where and when to cut:-)

 

CarlosUnderground - Very well put!!

 

As you know. . . as many people here realize. . . as many people make $$$$$ because of this, the emotional effects of music is profound! The "visual image" of almost any scene that music can create is equally profound. Film-composition is a fine example of this. I think that what's important to keep in mind is that there is more than one or two or three ways to musically create and elicit the feelings of happiness or sadness or excitement or wonder or fear or calm (etc., etc.). I believe that any amount of study in music theory only HELPS to add more choices to create these things during the process of composing. And to be clear, music theory can be more than just the study of chord progressions, melodic development and form. It also includes ear training, learning the timbre and ranges of different instruments, as well as learning to when to use the "rules" and break the "rules". (For the record, I hate the term "rules" when applied to music theory.)

 

Learning Music Theory. . . the operative word is "learning". It's a value that I cherish. In the world of music composition, I believe that the more one learns, the more color one can add to one's composition. Although very sonic in nature, music is also very visual to me. I love colors and I enjoy learning to blend them together.

 

There's a lot of good dialogue found in this one thread. Very cool!

[CarlosUnderground]

I'd like to add that, while I find immense value in musical theory education,

I still think there is a big gap in it. Like all art forms, there is a emotional and

"spiritual"(for lack of a better term) involved that is ignored in its higher education.

Also, new forms of music (electronic based)lead me to believe that, a paradigm shift

in education is on the horizon. This will only come to pass if electronic musicians, pride Ourselves

in learning traditional theory, use it as bed rock for, new theory. Just think of the Theorical

Implications of filter sweeps, glitch and, superimposed tempo. Not all children of electronics but, very

much brought to the foreground.

[denitronik]

Very interesting thread indeed!

 

Let me add that music history is something to consider, learning what's been done before. Listening to different kinds of music also. And the more you learn, the more you listen the more you realize that ALL HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY!

Coming back to "Creating Original Musical Ideas", the" original" part is the most difficult here if not impossible.

I have come to terms with this and to me creation if more like taking the musical puzzle apart and reassembling the pieces in a different way that may be pleasing to others.

[ski]

I'd like to add that, while I find immense value in musical theory education,

I still think there is a big gap in it. Like all art forms, there is a emotional and

"spiritual"(for lack of a better term) involved that is ignored in its higher education.

Also, new forms of music (electronic based)lead me to believe that, a paradigm shift

in education is on the horizon. This will only come to pass if electronic musicians, pride Ourselves

in learning traditional theory, use it as bed rock for, new theory. Just think of the Theorical

Implications of filter sweeps, glitch and, superimposed tempo. Not all children of electronics but, very

much brought to the foreground.

 

Hmmm... the repetitive and recursive patterns seen in the edges of a maple leaf can be explained by fractals, but being aware of the basis of fractals doesn't detract from the visual marvel of the leaf itself. There is as much spirituality in the math as there is in the leaf, but if you're prejudiced against, or (more simply) not predisposed towards math -- for whatever reason or to whatever degree -- then it would be hard to appreciate that aspect of mathematics. But math is as natural as the leaf itself.

 

As far as filter sweeps, glitches, and other devices of electronic music, these are elements used in an arrangement to provoke certain kinds of emotional responses. But music theory doesn't set out to describe or codify arrangement elements or devices.

 

Sure, a chord progression using all major chords evokes an emotional response that's different from one that uses all minor chords. Likewise, a filter sweep is going to propel the listener towards an emotional response of "transition" or "motion", depending on how it's used and what is being swept. And while it's an interesting notion that electronic music elements could codified in an very academic sense to dispassionately explain their functions in an arrangement, it would be a mistake to assume that music theory makes any attempt to ascribe the emotional impact of any scale, mode, or chordal or melodic construct. For example, music theory does not teach that (say) Dorian mode should be used to provoke a certain emotional response or create a certain mood. Theory simply explains the construct of Dorian mode in terms of a series of whole and half steps.

 

In short, music theory explains and describes musical structures; it's the music teachers, and ultimately musicians, who discover the emotional qualities of those structures as well as experiment with alternatives and modifications. And structures aren't rules. But like rules, structures are meant to be broken by the creative musician. Suggest looking at this book by Nicolas Slonimsky to get an idea of how much room there is to stretch our 12 familiar notes beyond the pale. And despite the hundreds of proposed scale types in his Thesaurus, there is still (and always will be) room for extrapolation. Thus, quite to the contrary of what denitronik suggested, all music has not all been done already. In fact, we haven't even really scratched the surface.

[CarlosUnderground]

I don't subscribe to the "all has been done" thing. In a way, no offense, that's kinda a cop out for

fear. I'd imagine 100 years ago, people said the same thing. I mean, aren't Hendrix, Floyd, Zappa, Moby and

many others proof of this? All has been done, until someone crosses the threshold and

opens the flood gates. Here is a experiment I do sometimes with my bands.

I say Gel and, without speaking or counting in, we all have to start playing whatever. It's not always

pretty but, at least it's exiting and once in a while, nice, Original stuff pops out.

[tristancalvaire]

Hmmm... the repetitive and recursive patterns seen in the edges of a maple leaf can be explained by fractals, but being aware of the basis of fractals doesn't detract from the visual marvel of the leaf itself. There is as much spirituality in the math as there is in the leaf, but if you're prejudiced against, or (more simply) not predisposed towards math -- for whatever reason or to whatever degree -- then it would be hard to appreciate that aspect of mathematics. But math is as natural as the leaf itself.

 

I feel this is relevant to some extent–

As a student who’s held life-long interests in the realms of mathematics and computer science as well as music and creative thinking, I’ve always wondered why we separate the arts as being entirely different fields of study from the sciences and maths. At tender ages as early as 8 or 9, we often decide what ‘kind of thinker’ we are- perhaps we’re a ‘logical’ one, or maybe a ‘creative thinker.’ A bizarre dichotomy develops- those focused on ‘creativity’ scoff at mathematics as being dull and overly-complicated, whereas those pursuing sciences and maths often criticize the arts as being trivial and impractical.

I, for one, do not see mindset of the artist as being vastly from that of the engineer or physicist- rather, I feel that they are one and the same. The states of mind necessary to create mathematical models and to derive formulas, to be a high class chef who can create exquisite dishes from raw ingredients alone, to design unheard timbres with a musical synthesizer or to paint an extravagant portrait are all the same type of thinking.

Now, I’m not trying to imply that dividing 35 by 7 is the same thinking used to create an orchestral composition- that’d be as absurd a claim as saying paint by numbers is the same thinking as a nuclear physicist. Rather, I’m claiming that the thinking that went into deriving a formula like Descartes’s is the same mode of thinking that goes into an artist creating a painting with a brush. Both mathematical models and works of art are made by the same thought process- they require the ability to think abstractly and take background knowledge, then convert that into something within reality, be it a formula or a piece of art.

My own experiences have made it obvious to me how ‘creative’ and ‘logical’ methods of thinking overlap. As a robotics programmer participating in Talcott Mountain Science Center’s teams for FLL competitions as well as Trinity College’s Robotics Firefighting competition, I learned that working as a programmer wasn’t about entering numbers and gibberish language into a computer so much as it was about finding ingenuitive ways to solve a problem with machinery, a process which required a lot of abstract thinking. Similarly, in pursuing digital music using electronic synthesizers, I have learned that music overlaps a lot with mathematics and physics. Sound is quite simply the vibrations of the air around us, and learning how the vibrations of various instruments’ waveforms interact and amplify or phase each other greatly helps the musical artist to create quality music.

I’m not a particularly spiritual person, but the biblical statement that “God created man in his own image” has made me wonder. Perhaps it’s not meant to be taken literally- rather than simply denoting us as anthropomorphic beings, it could be referring to our own ability to create. A mathematician creates formulas, an engineer creates solutions and an artist creates entertainment- from one field to another, it’s all about creativity.

[CarlosUnderground]

I can't help but see similar things in terms of perception between electronica and jazz in its

origin. It really comes from a primal place in our nature that at its inception, doesn't make

sense to many but, it's There. I can imagine the musical scholars hearing the earliest jazz guys

doing these crazy, off the wall runs, kinda haphazard and thinking,

"this is bullshit! This ain't music, it makes no sense".

As for emotional content and education, I wouldn't expect a teacher to stand there and say

"The major scale is happy" but, they do. I envision that type of class to be more of a exchange

of ideas and experiences so, togeather, the class can have more insight into the power of

The interaction of diferent people with the same stimulus.

[denitronik]

CarlosUnderground!

"All has been done" is neither a fear nor a cop out, nor a discouragement to create, it's a fact.

If you knew everything that's been done in music since the beginning of mankind (even before, birds make music) you would realize that all has been done.

No offense but when you think you're doing something original (in music) you're just showing your ignorance or lack of musical knowledge. It does not take away the fact that it's new and enjoyable to you!

[CarlosUnderground]

If all has been done, from what point on did we begin to re-fry what came before?

[efiebke]

"All has been done" is neither a fear nor a cop out, nor a discouragement to create

 

Sadly, I've read and heard wanna-be composers use the "All Has Been Done" argument specifically as justification to NOT LEARN any amount of music education. (The whole debate on learning music theory is old, and has been discussed over and over again on web-sites like this one.) It was their "cop-out". If a person doesn't want to learn, just say, "I don't want to learn!" Be honest!! But don't make up lame excuses not to learn. Again, the operative word is "Learn". Everything is new to everyone as some point in time. In the world of music composition, the more one can quickly learn lots of things unknown to that individual, the more options and choices that person has to use during the creative process. It's that simple.

[peachboy]

"All has been done" is neither a fear nor a cop out, nor a discouragement to create

 

Sadly, I've read and heard wanna-be composers use the "All Has Been Done" argument specifically as justification to NOT LEARN any amount of music education. (The whole debate on learning music theory is old, and has been discussed over and over again on web-sites like this one.) It was their "cop-out". If a person doesn't want to learn, just say, "I don't want to learn!" Be honest!! But don't make up lame excuses not to learn. Again, the operative word is "Learn". Everything is new to everyone as some point in time. In the world of music composition, the more one can quickly learn lots of things unknown to that individual, the more options and choices that person has to use during the creative process. It's that simple.

 

Firstly I would urge against the use of such terms such as wanna-be composers; it's neither endearing or accommodating, and is the same kind of snootiness that negatively plagues the philosophy world. If someone creates music, then they are a composer. Period.

 

As for how this is achieved: I don't think anyone is suggesting that they don't want to learn, but theorising the best method of learning.... And really, what this boils down to is a simple binary of whether you follow your own experimental exploratory path, or whether you follow in the footsteps of others. Each has its merits.

 

If it's a vintage debate, then if anything it only proves that the jury is perpetually "out to lunch". Nothing wrong with a timeless argument.

[efiebke]

Firstly I would urge against the use of such terms such as wanna-be composers; it's neither endearing or accommodating, and is the same kind of snootiness that negatively plagues the philosophy world. If someone creates music, then they are a composer. Period.

 

As for how this is achieved: I don't think anyone is suggesting that they don't want to learn, but theorising the best method of learning.... And really, what this boils down to is a simple binary of whether you follow your own experimental exploratory path, or whether you follow in the footsteps of others. Each has its merits.

 

If it's a vintage debate, then if anything it only proves that the jury is perpetually "out to lunch". Nothing wrong with a timeless argument.

 

You're correct. The term "wanna-be composers" used was in poor taste. I also agree with you to what defines a person as a composer. I agree with pretty much all of what you wrote, actually, especially with your thoughts on learning. We all have different preferences to how we want to learn things like music, nursing (I'm an ICU nurse, and a definite "composer wanna-be" ) and even philosophy. I just feel like blabbering on and on and on about the virtues of learning, especially for the person who wishes to "create original musical ideas".

 

Cheers. . .

Edited November 8, 2012 by efiebke