No need to apologise. It's always good to hear different opinions.
From a completely untheoretical view. If I want to make a track that is say "sinister". I will first design a sinister sound, and use that sound to convey the emotion, Without any thought of the key itself. That is how I go about my music. I play something, and if it doesn't sound the way I want, I play it differently until it does. Untheoretical and probably completely illogical, but It works for me.

 

The problem has stricken root and become embedded in your speech. I'm not bleaching or decolorizing the value of experimentations but when something has been experimented by millions of people before us, why we still resist their studying before any production.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2016

Oh Foster. Who or what are you rushing in to defend. I have in no way looked down on music theory, or the people who use it. All I have done is offered a different prospective on putting emotion in music. I'm not saying that music theory isn't involved in making my music, as that would be most in error of me. You love the black and white of theory. it is where you feel happy and comfortable. I love the grey of experimentation and randomness, as this is where I'm happy and comfortable. Neither of us are wrong, we are just different. Never think that I have no respect for the black and white, because if it wasn't there, I wouldn't be able to spend my time in the grey.

 

Hmm, as someone who has seen both sides of music-making, here's what I can say:

Making music WITH music theory: It's much more easy to get predictable results if you know exactly what you want. It gives you an edge and understanding that sadly not many producers have. Theory is basically knowing how to structure a song and get solid, structured results.

Making music WITHOUT music theory: You tend to capture the rawest forms of emotions in this way, and it's all just what sounds good to you. I respect those who can make perfect compositions that have no acquired knowledge on musical theory, it means you have an absolutely excellent ear for pitch typically.

I think knowing theory is a really valuable skill but not truly necessary. You can learn it anytime, and I can almost guarantee that if you learn theory, you will produce better results than what you were before. You don't need to know a ton, you just need the basics that help get things going. I'm going to make a thread some day about incorporating music theory into music production that talks about what you need to know and what you don't need to worry about.

Also, knowing music theory absolutely doesn't give you magical talent. Need proof? I haven't ever completed a darn song and I think it's been established that I have a very firm knowledge of it..

I think as long as your music isn't just pure randomness and sampling, I have no problems with people who don't know music theory that are producing music in their DAWs or whatever. There's a lot of musical theory that you're using unconsciously most of the time!

 

May I ask why you haven't finished a song, in your opinion. Not meaning to be nosy or anything. We've all been there.

 

Style and tendency

In explaining musical styles, Leonard Meyer divides musical characteristics into three categories: laws, rules, and strategies. Laws are characteristics of music that are based on human biology and psychology, and as a result laws are more-or-less universal. Rules are culturally conditioned. They are hallmarks of a particular style that are more-or-less universal within the style, but differ from style to style and culture to culture. Finally, strategies are specific ways in which composers work within a style — the things that make one composer’s work sound different from another’s, even if they compose in the same style.

For the most part, principles of voice-leading or harmonic progression are “rules” according to Meyer’s definitions. They are specific to a style. Or, in some cases, they are shared among a few styles of Western music, but are far from universal. Thus, it can be helpful to think of them as collective traits of some music(s) we seek to understand and emulate, rather than hard-and-fast it-must-be-done-this-way strictures for all musical practice.

However, these rules are also related to laws, in as much as they represent one set of practices that mediate the various demands on music from basic principles of human auditory perception and cognition. For instance, the prohibition against parallel fifths is a specific way in which Western tonal composers have mediated the conflict between tonal fusion, goal-directed motion, and independence of line. There are many other similar cases.

Note, however, that while “avoid parallel fifths” takes on the form of what we consider “rules” in day-to-day speech, Meyer’s rules of musical style are different. Meyer’s rules are descriptive: these things tend to happen universally, frequently, rarely, never, in specific situations. “Avoid parallel fifths” is a prescriptive instruction based on that descriptive observation: because parallel fifths occur rarely in this style, and only in specific cases, avoid them in your own strict-style compositions until we have a chance to engage those specific cases — all the while remembering that other styles may have different tendencies.

That word tendencies is an important one. There are rarely absolutes in the musical parameters we engage most as performers, analysts, composers, listeners, etc. The absolutes of common styles fell into our unconscious background long ago. Instead, what makes each piece, composer, or style special and unique — what we care about — are the little ways in which they bend the “rules,” the ways in which they express, thwart, and play with the tendencies of the style they engage — the ways they play with our expectations as listeners.

Over time, as we familiarize ourselves with a musical style, the tendencies of the style become expectations in our mind, and composers can, in turn, compose with those listener expectations in mind. Though those tendencies are subjective, and to a large extent statistical, the shared stylistic knowledge and the shared psychological expectancy create a kind of quasi-objective language. That musical “language,” like spoken/written languages, is both reliable and bendable/breakable. The meaningfulness of a piece of music is dependent on that reliability. But its specialness is dependent on the ability for the “rules” of that language to be bent, even broken.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2016

Sure thing! It's kind of hard to explain, but usually I just feel like I don't know what to do next after I do something, or just shape a song in general. I'm always asking myself things like, "How should I do the intro" and just sort of scratch my head in general when it comes to actually creating the structure of a song. I feel like the only way for me to get it is for someone to walk me through making a song start to finish, but that's too much to ask imo. I've tried watching countless tutorials, but nothing ever seems to help. I need direction from a real person, a teacher. But of course, I'm a poor highschooler who has parents that don't believe in me at all so they'll never lay down the cash for me to go to some fancy music production class.

basic melodies and chords? Sure I can do that (although I usually doubt if the way I'm doing chords "correct" or not). But figuring out things like intros, buildups, bridges, etc. all never seem to come naturally to me. I feel like I've gotten the vocal side of music down, but am clueless about composing instrumentals.

 

I'm curious. Have you ever had a 'formal' lesson? I'm going to assume that you 'know' your way around the keyboard somewhat, right? It seems to me that you need to construct your compositions in chapters (like a book). I think that part of your problem is that you're not devoting your attention to each of the song's movements. Do one thing with the piece, then do another thing, and so on and so forth. Once you're finished with these so-called "chapters", gather each chapter or movement and assemble them together (the thing about doing it this way, is that you don't have to 'assemble' them in any particular order). For example, the intro can be the middle, or the outro can be the chorus or verse. In the end, this stuff should ALWAYS be FUN! Once it's something else, it becomes a "chore" and the enjoyment leaves. Hence, "stagnation" and "frustration". Not cool, man. By the way, this is how I personally work on a composition. I found that trying to envision a whole song at once did not work for me. Sort of like composing in little "parts and parcels". The "assembling" of this 'musical puzzle' was really the fun part for me. Have fun!

 

Last edited: Jul 30, 2016

No formal piano lessons or music production lessons unfortunately. I've been pushing for them for years with no success. I just know my theory really. Thanks for the advice! I shall try that approach.

 

Okay. Try it. It works for my usually "disorganized" brain. <lol> No "formal" lessons? Well, you're just one of those rare few innately "talented" souls. Milk that for all its worth!

 

Been there. That staring at an empty DAW template screen, a multitude of options available, but scratching your head over which option to start with. I think that was the first thing that struck me, when I moved away from a DAW to a hardware sequencer, That multitude of options suddenly became these options.

The "intro" is usually the last thing I work on. It's like cooking a roast dinner really. You don't start with the gravy; you start with the meat, as that is the centre of focus, which you put the veggies around. O.k. That may sound strange, but I'm using it to simplify the idea.

Tutorials are great as a guide, but the only way to learn, is to do it yourself. You must finish tracks though. The more you finish the easier it gets, and the quicker you'll get at it.

If you get the bass and rhythm down, you'll know if these are right.

Gravy, seasoning and trimmings. Get the meat done first, all these can be built from that.

Then I guess that's the perfect place to start.

Right that being said remember 2 things. 1: I know very little of music theory itself. I understand the concept, but couldn't explain it to anyone. I do what I do, and it works for me, but at the end of the day I make music and finish tracks. I no longer use a computer to do this, so my system of doing things is based around that fact.
2: I mainly do dance related music, as I always have and still do, love to dance. Genres like. Techno. Psy-Trance, Hard House, Chicago House, etc.

Use the K.I.S.S principal. Don't try anything to complex to start with. Finish it, and don't worry if it doesn't sound great, as it will take a few tracks. Have fun and don't take it too seriously.
I'm going to give you the first 2 steps I do, Remember I'm on a sequencer, so I generally have to start like this.

Something simple. 4/4; 2 bars; 128 bpm; The kick. Find something punchy, not too boomy, a 909 is good, on each beat.
add a bass rhythm to it. not too complex, try not to hit any bass notes on the kick. When you have something you like, play around with the basses sounds or try different presets, see what you like best, let the sounds and rhythm guide you.
Let me know how you get on.

 

Are you any good with the piano roll?

 

People make music analytically (needs huge knowledge (all kinds of music related) maybe the whole life ) or intuitively (understanding which stems from feeling rather than thinking- needs powering the taste by more listening and self-experimenting).
Both of them works but people equipped with the first one can behave much more logically (not talking about myself ). They can also do reverse-engineering the other ones' musics (my mean is the musicality not engineering side- not again me), the task that is kind of perplexing crux for the second category.

In every moment of the long history of western music, lots of discoveries and considerations have taken place but people that simply ignore them just stick to the recent 50 year minimal styles (electronically I call them the synths' era- an era that the sounds are more important than the music itself).

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2016

The music is always the most important thing. Synths revolutionized the way we translate feelings into music.