Just posts the links or names please, I'd be interested to take a look at them

 

You see, electronic producers don't want to learn. They're always looking for shortcuts and supernatural power. Ask yourself, who created AI? Are they music specialists? Absolutely not ... They are there only to destroy your thoughts with hollow answers.

This way of thinking is the most wrong kind in the world of music. Unfortunately, all the music producers you see on beatport.com use this nonsense method. I promise you that none of these people have any idea how music works.
If you want to know the answer to your question, you should sit down and see how the greats of music overcame these issues. Without spending time in this area, you will not achieve any remarkable success.

 

You need lows..

 

In theory, this discussion that you dragged into the middle is called Pandiatonicism (no worries about anything).

This method is usually preferred by panda bears who don't move much and just eat. If you focus more on this method, you might end up becoming a panda.

 

Yes music in general should be in key. Some Techno might be an exception to that rule, but melodic techno should be in key. If you use Ableton 12 for example, you can set the root key and the scale ( e.g. F# Melodic Minor) of your track and you will be shown which notes are in key in the midi editor. It is not that difficult anymore. In Cubase you have chord tracks and it will even show you which chords will go well together, so you don't need to know much about music theory anymore when you are using it. There are plugins like Scaler that will help you with it too. Other than that try to find a book about basic harmony and it will help you learn more about it. For melodic techno you dont need to know that much as most chord progressions will be rather simple.

 

A trick for making sub bass lines more easily is to shift the notes up +12 semitones where you can more easily determine the differences in pitch. Write the bassline you want, and then move the notes back down to their original octave. It can help with most kinds of dance music.

 

Who has said that?

Your simple suggestion is enough for electronic producers not to learn anything. Panda manner...

 

I learned to play by ear working parts from records then CDs before I learned to read music, so did all the musicians I grew up with. It was actually considered normal. That's how it was done before computers did all the work for you. So it's not unusual. Van Halen, Michael Jackson, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling stones, The Beatles, Jeff Beck, many Motown and Soul artists and a large number of those still accoladed today, also before them in R&R and after did that until the last decade before this century (end of the 90s) pretty much all developed their skills this way. The moment sampling became a thing, the computer music age accelerated and musicians decided cutting the time back drastically by getting a computer to transcribe things for them was better choice.

I agree it saves time, but unfortunately, you'll see less of musicians whose entire skills were all developed by ears unless they have perfect pitch.
You know how every great engineer will tell you to forget what a Spectrogram says and use your ears? This is exactly what musicians used to base their skills and learning on.

When you find a tune you like it sounds good right? People bypass ear training thinking it's not important. If a chart blows offstage and you're doing a reading gig, the only thing that gives you a chance of not looking like an ass is your ears.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2024

In the realm of music creation, theory proves its worth only insofar as it aligns with the inventiveness and expertise demonstrated by the musician. It serves those adepts at navigating the creative process, while others not so familiar risk becoming servants to their superficial grasp of "theory". The essence lies in understanding that perception precedes theory; without a keen sense of perception, theory alone cannot suffice. Cherish this insight, as it is rarely exposed online.

In recent years, thanks to the plethora of production technology at our disposal, the process of musical creation has begun to distance itself from traditional music playing. Consequently, some producers, newly introduced to music-making, harbor a rather naive perspective. They believe that every stage of the process should be rectified by external tools—whether it's compression, chorus effects, or, as you may have guessed, automated formulas and solutions for fundamental elements of musical expression such as chords, keys, etc. This approach, however, serves as a blueprint for mediocrity and confusion. For the first time in history, individuals are venturing into music production without truly engaging with the essence of music-making or investing themselves in the craft.

All the great musicians of the past followed a completely different approach! Consider the remarkable example of Paco de Lucía. In his mid-40s, he made the deliberate choice to learn how to read music solely to perform the Concierto de Aranjuez. For him, music notation served merely as a means to an end—a testament to his dedication and passion for his craft.

No one is stopping you to do the same!

 

Last edited: Apr 12, 2024

I agree that the ear is a powerful judgment tool and can be life saving in some places, no doubt about that.

But the ear is used more for judgment.

In making a piece of music, there are eyes, brain, thought and logic. All these members must work together to create a piece of music.

The separate use of these members without considering the effect of others usually does not lead to great results. You can see the truth of what I said about most of today's songs, which mostly use merely the ear

Usually, the ear does not produce much efficiency in making complex works. I'm not against relying 100% on ear, but my personal experience shows that those who rely only on ear end up with popular genres and that's not good for a musician at all.

 

I swear to God that theory is very easy. It is not complicated at all. Learning it requires only a good teacher. And it has been proven to me that the number of these teachers in the world of music is very few.

For example, if all the videos of UDEMY are watched by all their music teachers and you do this a thousand times, you won't be able to create good music from them. Why is it like this? Because the teachers of UDEMY are not good teachers and have not been able to achieve a deep understanding of music.

Logical learning of music needs a very skilled teacher to teach the theory in a completely logical way, but practically there are no such teachers.

 

seems crazy to have to say this out loud

please, show us a song you approve of

 

The main issue is not whether or not to show a song. The problem is always the thought that a composer used and produced a song. Composers are incredibly jealous creatures. The bigger a composer is, the more jealous he is. They never say how they made a song. The only thing they show is a series of final notes that you have to sit cross-legged and decipher how they made that song.

If I send thousands of songs here, it will not affect the learning of music. Because what is important is the thought that is going on in the head of a composer at the moment of creating a work, and that thought cannot be accessed easily, because the jealous composer does not allow access.

 

I'm, obviously, not like that.

But I have a more differentiated view on that. An AI is able to find patterns, which humans didn't find so far. We see this already in medicine, for example. I mean, there's obviously a set of rules, call it a pattern, what sounds sound harmonic together. I'm pretty sure, sooner or later there will be sort of an AI-version of Ableton and it will instantly give you a harmonic set of sounds.

We see this already with tools like: https://splice.com/sounds/create for example. Although that's probably not AI driven, but simply based on certain rules. Almost every of those mixes sound harmonic. This proves, that there certainly exists a pattern, which makes certain sounds sound harmonic together.

Additionally, how do you think "real" AI tools like Suno AI are working? This is purely pattern based. So it's only able to work so good BECAUSE there is a pattern.

 

Last edited: Apr 12, 2024

The original core of the theoretical word "transcription" comes from the simpler PRACTICE of working it out by ear first, then writing it down/notating it. Skilled well-trained musicians with perfect pitch can write it down as they listen to it if they hear the rhythms clearly.

Yes it seems crazy to have to tell people that this is the way a large amount of musicians in the world learned to play, by ear.

@The King - I read your reply. when or if you sing in the shower are you using your eyes, brain, thought and logic or just humming a tune or catchy melody? The latter. The ears are the greatest tool a good musician has. If you said melody/muscle memory that might be closer, but without your ears you'd be deaf and in music other than a handful like Beethoven who was skilled before he went deaf, that's a musical death sentence.. I won't waste time trying to convince you of that, it's just a matter-of-fact.

Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles are/were blind. King - Eyesight and theory have nothing to do with their music or skills unless they decided to miraculously learn to read music in braille (not).. All ears and touch (piano). That said, you can learn theory by ear.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2024

That might be one of the most accurate summaries I have read anywhere.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2024

Just learn your stuff, music theory is just the beginning, learn some sound design, you could start by tweaking some presets and understanding how a synth works, you also need some basic mixing skills and much more competences if you want to produce "quality" music...

 

Last edited: Apr 12, 2024

The music whose roots want to be formed in the shower, is suitable for the bedroom of its listeners.

A research should be done on where and in what places the great musics were written. But wherever it is, I'm sure they definitely weren't in the shower.