*This is part of an on going series highlighting some unique techniques to make the chorus in a song sound more prominent than the verses. For Part 1 go here.
Harmony is one of the classic techniques to make a chorus stand out. The typical way is to add a harmony only during the chorus, thus further juxtaposing the chorus against the verse parts of a song. But there are some neat ways of utilizing this that goes against the normal way of doing it... But first, what's the normal way?
One thing that is almost always true with harmonies, is that the harmony takes the secondary/background role. In other words, the main vocal melody line is either equal to, or more prominent than, the harmony vocal line(or lines). Otherwise the harmonized vocal line would...sound like the main vocal line instead.
*Even Barbershop Quartets - which can sometimes get confusing in terms of what the "main" vocal line is - have the main vocal line, and three harmony lines, so the main vocal line is still "equal" to the other lines (I should do an entry on Barbershops, they are quite fascinating...). Either way, it's really clear how once you overwhelm the main vocal line, it would get really confusing.*
So what is the normal thing to do if you added a choir to back the main vocal line? When there is a harmony to be sung, the choir would be split in half - with one half singing the harmony, and the other singing the main vocal line. All to prevent the main vocal line from getting drowned out, or confused with the harmony.
But there's a wonderful exception to this rule, and it is a great example because of it's sheer simplicity.
"Weighty Ghost" by the band Wintersleep is a song with 2 chords. That's right, only 2 in the whole entire song. The melody is incredibly simple as well...really repetitive and kind of bland..and the pre-chorus part is the exact same melody as the chorus...yet I think it's a great song, with an absolutely killer chorus. Why? because of the way harmony is used...which is a little different, but super effective (I also think the drum pattern, and the stomps/hand claps add to it, but that's for another post).
What Weighty Ghost does during the chorus, is to have a small choir (or the rest of the band anyway) to sing the harmony, essentially drowning out the main vocal line during the chorus. Exact opposite of what you're supposed to do... but it works.
Here's the song. When you listen to it, pay attention to the vocal lines from 32 seconds to 42 seconds. This will be the exact same melody as the chorus, with 2 exceptions - the lyrics are different, and the harmony is sung by one person. It's neat, but doesn't truly push the chorus. Then pay attention when the chorus hits right after - there's an entire group singing only the harmony, but it somehow really really works. *I was going to post one of the amateur covers on youtube on here, to show what it sounds like without the choir harmony, but I think posting anything on this blog as a "bad" example would go against the spirit of this blog...so I didn't.
It works because it's a simple melody line. It works because the pre-chorus is exactly the same melody but with only one person singing a harmony. That extra boost of harmony somehow pushes the songs even further, thus establishing the chorus section as the most prominent part of the song.
Neat use of breaking the "rule" of harmony.
Showing posts with label song writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label song writing. Show all posts
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Music made with Tools
As I've shown in various other posts, you can pretty much sample any sound out there and make it into a musical piece.
Some clever folks over at Craftsman decided to make a musical piece out of sounds that can be made with their tools. Here it is:
You can also make your own mix of the sounds over at their website here.. Neat little marketing campaign..
Some clever folks over at Craftsman decided to make a musical piece out of sounds that can be made with their tools. Here it is:
You can also make your own mix of the sounds over at their website here.. Neat little marketing campaign..
Friday, July 23, 2010
Pushing the Chorus - Part 1 Introduction
When you hear a song for the first time, how is it that you are able to recognize a specific part of it as "the chorus"? What is it that lets you know when the chorus of a song begins and ends?
The simplest answer is that you've been socialized to recognize the structure of a pop song. Think about how many pop songs you have heard in your life (and by pop songs, I mean anything that isn't classical, essentially). All that listening has given you expectations on how songs are supposed to be structured - and the most important part is the chorus. You don't expect the chorus to be the first thing you hear in a song (with some exception, such as when it's part of an introduction phrase). Instead, you expect the first few melodic lines to be the same thing over and over...known as the Verse. After that, a pre-chorus section might follow, or the song might go straight to the chorus. Either way, the modern listener is extremely adapted to recognizing the chorus section of a song.
Maybe you don't think that recognizing the chorus is a big deal. Indeed, the modern pop structure (verse-chorus-verse-chorus pattern) might seem straight forward and obvious, but people 150 years ago would have been dumbfounded listening to modern pop structure. Why? Because it doesn't fit with the structures they were used to, such as Fugues and Sonata forms (or put simply, Classical music structures). If you ever thought that classical music was hard to follow, it's not your fault - the modern musical landscape makes it hard for most listeners to become acquainted with classical music structures. In fact, you might be surprised to know that classical music has many more restrictions and many more rules about the structure of the piece than pop songs do. Once you learn the structure of classical music, it becomes easy to follow because you know what's coming next....in the same way that we can recognize a chorus, and a verse..etc.
But songs are not just patterns of musical notes. If they were, we would be quite content looking at musical notation, instead of needing to hear them. The chorus isn't just the thing that follows the verse...it's the emotional highpoint of a song, the essence of the entire piece. We've all heard songs that have great verses...but mediocre choruses that don't hit that musical and emotional highpoint.
So how do you create a musical and emotional highpoint? Well, that's what artists have been trying to figure out for decades. But sometimes the secret isn't in the musical notes, or the structure of the song....but ingenious tricks that can be utilized in the production of the song itself. That isn't to say that these songs have bad choruses - but that the emotional highpoint is established much more prominently through these production techniques.
In the next few posts, I will be trying something new: A Series! I'll be talking about some songs that utilize really neat techniques to make a chorus sound... like a Chorus. You might be surprised at the implications! Stay tuned....
The simplest answer is that you've been socialized to recognize the structure of a pop song. Think about how many pop songs you have heard in your life (and by pop songs, I mean anything that isn't classical, essentially). All that listening has given you expectations on how songs are supposed to be structured - and the most important part is the chorus. You don't expect the chorus to be the first thing you hear in a song (with some exception, such as when it's part of an introduction phrase). Instead, you expect the first few melodic lines to be the same thing over and over...known as the Verse. After that, a pre-chorus section might follow, or the song might go straight to the chorus. Either way, the modern listener is extremely adapted to recognizing the chorus section of a song.
Maybe you don't think that recognizing the chorus is a big deal. Indeed, the modern pop structure (verse-chorus-verse-chorus pattern) might seem straight forward and obvious, but people 150 years ago would have been dumbfounded listening to modern pop structure. Why? Because it doesn't fit with the structures they were used to, such as Fugues and Sonata forms (or put simply, Classical music structures). If you ever thought that classical music was hard to follow, it's not your fault - the modern musical landscape makes it hard for most listeners to become acquainted with classical music structures. In fact, you might be surprised to know that classical music has many more restrictions and many more rules about the structure of the piece than pop songs do. Once you learn the structure of classical music, it becomes easy to follow because you know what's coming next....in the same way that we can recognize a chorus, and a verse..etc.
But songs are not just patterns of musical notes. If they were, we would be quite content looking at musical notation, instead of needing to hear them. The chorus isn't just the thing that follows the verse...it's the emotional highpoint of a song, the essence of the entire piece. We've all heard songs that have great verses...but mediocre choruses that don't hit that musical and emotional highpoint.
So how do you create a musical and emotional highpoint? Well, that's what artists have been trying to figure out for decades. But sometimes the secret isn't in the musical notes, or the structure of the song....but ingenious tricks that can be utilized in the production of the song itself. That isn't to say that these songs have bad choruses - but that the emotional highpoint is established much more prominently through these production techniques.
In the next few posts, I will be trying something new: A Series! I'll be talking about some songs that utilize really neat techniques to make a chorus sound... like a Chorus. You might be surprised at the implications! Stay tuned....
Monday, May 24, 2010
A Novel and Creative Use of Harmony...by Kelly Clarkson
I find myself often referring to this song, because it really does something quite unique. The song is by Kelly Clarkson, called "Breakaway", and it's written by Avril Lavigne. Yes, the song structure is typical, the melody is pop, and the lyrics aren't exactly Dylan. So what am I talking about?
The harmony line.
Now at first glance, it may not seem much. But there's something quite interesting going on in this piece of music. I won't go into the details of how harmony works, because it's not about the type or style of harmonization that is going on that floors me - it's the timing.
Usually, harmonies are sung right on top of each other. That's what harmonized melody is supposed to be (as opposed to counterpoint, which I talk about in this blog post.
Yet in this song, the harmony precedes the main melody line. In other words, it's not sung together, but before the main melody line. It's just a strange thing to do, but it works. And that's what amazes me about this song. It happens during the chorus, right here around 1:09 when she sings "Make a wish, Take a chance, Make a change." Right before Kelly Clarkson sings that line - you'll hear a faint vocal line that is actually the harmony to what Kelly Clarkson is singing...but it comes before. Wow. Whoever thought of this is really creative.
Some of you might say that this is basically a "call and response" (A call and response is typically utilized in African music, where a "leader" sings a short stanza and the rest of the choir repeats it right after). But I would argue that it's a little different, for three reasons. First, it's not timed right - if the harmony is the call, and the response is Kelly Clarkson, then Kelly Clarkson is coming in too early. Kelly Clarkson doesn't actually let the harmony finish before she starts singing. Second, the fact that the harmony is leading is very strange. Third, it makes no sense to de-emphasize the leader (in this case the harmony). In short, I think this is quite a unique way of organizing vocal harmonies.
The harmony line.
Now at first glance, it may not seem much. But there's something quite interesting going on in this piece of music. I won't go into the details of how harmony works, because it's not about the type or style of harmonization that is going on that floors me - it's the timing.
Usually, harmonies are sung right on top of each other. That's what harmonized melody is supposed to be (as opposed to counterpoint, which I talk about in this blog post.
Yet in this song, the harmony precedes the main melody line. In other words, it's not sung together, but before the main melody line. It's just a strange thing to do, but it works. And that's what amazes me about this song. It happens during the chorus, right here around 1:09 when she sings "Make a wish, Take a chance, Make a change." Right before Kelly Clarkson sings that line - you'll hear a faint vocal line that is actually the harmony to what Kelly Clarkson is singing...but it comes before. Wow. Whoever thought of this is really creative.
Some of you might say that this is basically a "call and response" (A call and response is typically utilized in African music, where a "leader" sings a short stanza and the rest of the choir repeats it right after). But I would argue that it's a little different, for three reasons. First, it's not timed right - if the harmony is the call, and the response is Kelly Clarkson, then Kelly Clarkson is coming in too early. Kelly Clarkson doesn't actually let the harmony finish before she starts singing. Second, the fact that the harmony is leading is very strange. Third, it makes no sense to de-emphasize the leader (in this case the harmony). In short, I think this is quite a unique way of organizing vocal harmonies.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Convert Websites into Music
On this blog, we've seen programs that compose songs based on the landscape of the moon or based on the numbers in Pi, as well as one that was based on birds sitting on wires. Here's another one called "The Codeorgan" based on websites!
According to the website, The Codeorgan analyzes the "body" section of the website and translates that content into music. It seems that it is based purely on the HTML code though, so many websites based on php or java won't be as long and intricate - because there is less HTML code in the body section in those websites.
...so what does this page sound like?
What do you think of it? Go and try out other websites at their page, and let us know if any websites produce something really special!
Also, here's the description from their website:
"THE CODEORGAN ANALYSES THE *BODY* CONTENT OF ANY WEB PAGE AND TRANSLATES THAT CONTENT INTO MUSIC. THE CODEORGAN USES A COMPLEX ALGORITHM TO DEFINE THE KEY, SYNTH STYLE AND DRUM PATTERN MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE PAGE CONTENT.
FIRSTLY, THE CODEORGAN SCANS THE PAGE CONTENTS AND REMOVES ALL
CHARACTERS NOT FOUND IN THE MUSICAL SCALE (A TO G), AND THEN ANALYSES THE REMAINING CHARACTERS TO FIND THE MOST COMMONLY USED 'NOTE'. IF THIS IS AN EVEN NUMBER THE PAGE IS TRANSLATED IN TO THE MAJOR PENTATONIC SCALE OF THAT PARTICULAR NOTE, IT BECOMES MINOR IF THERE IS AN UNEVEN NUMBER.
SECONDLY, THE CODEORGAN DEFINES WHICH SYNTHESIZER TO USE. THIS IS
BASED UPON THE TOTAL NUMBER CHARACTERS USED ON THE WEBPAGE – THERE ARE CURRENTLY 10 SYNTHESIZER EFFECTS AND THE ONE CHOSEN IS PICKED BASED UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF CONTENT.
LASTLY, THE CODEORGAN SELECTS A DRUM LOOP BASED UPON THE RATIO OF CHARACTERS ON THE PAGE VERSUS THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MUSICAL NOTES – THERE ARE CURRENTLY 10 DIFFERENT DRUM LOOPS TO PICK FROM.
GO AND MAKE BEAUTIFUL MUSIC TOGETHER.
THE CODEORGAN PEOPLE"
According to the website, The Codeorgan analyzes the "body" section of the website and translates that content into music. It seems that it is based purely on the HTML code though, so many websites based on php or java won't be as long and intricate - because there is less HTML code in the body section in those websites.
...so what does this page sound like?
What do you think of it? Go and try out other websites at their page, and let us know if any websites produce something really special!
Also, here's the description from their website:
"THE CODEORGAN ANALYSES THE *BODY* CONTENT OF ANY WEB PAGE AND TRANSLATES THAT CONTENT INTO MUSIC. THE CODEORGAN USES A COMPLEX ALGORITHM TO DEFINE THE KEY, SYNTH STYLE AND DRUM PATTERN MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE PAGE CONTENT.
FIRSTLY, THE CODEORGAN SCANS THE PAGE CONTENTS AND REMOVES ALL
CHARACTERS NOT FOUND IN THE MUSICAL SCALE (A TO G), AND THEN ANALYSES THE REMAINING CHARACTERS TO FIND THE MOST COMMONLY USED 'NOTE'. IF THIS IS AN EVEN NUMBER THE PAGE IS TRANSLATED IN TO THE MAJOR PENTATONIC SCALE OF THAT PARTICULAR NOTE, IT BECOMES MINOR IF THERE IS AN UNEVEN NUMBER.
SECONDLY, THE CODEORGAN DEFINES WHICH SYNTHESIZER TO USE. THIS IS
BASED UPON THE TOTAL NUMBER CHARACTERS USED ON THE WEBPAGE – THERE ARE CURRENTLY 10 SYNTHESIZER EFFECTS AND THE ONE CHOSEN IS PICKED BASED UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF CONTENT.
LASTLY, THE CODEORGAN SELECTS A DRUM LOOP BASED UPON THE RATIO OF CHARACTERS ON THE PAGE VERSUS THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MUSICAL NOTES – THERE ARE CURRENTLY 10 DIFFERENT DRUM LOOPS TO PICK FROM.
GO AND MAKE BEAUTIFUL MUSIC TOGETHER.
THE CODEORGAN PEOPLE"
Friday, April 9, 2010
MelodyCatcher & Musipedia: A Different Kind of Music Search Engine
I recently came across this website, which is really interesting.
MelodyCatcher.com is a music search engine, but it's unlike anything else I've seen. I've seen lyric search engines, or those search engines on phones that will recognize what song is being played. This is entirely different though: you input notes in standard notation.
The technological idea is pretty cool: input a bunch of notes, search for midi files that have those note intervals (so it can be in any key), and if there's a match it lists them.
However, the usage is not as intuitive as the site seems to think: In my personal opinion, you have to be pretty good at playing by ear to be able to transpose things note by note. However, it's really useful if you already know how to play a specific piece on an instrument....but you can't remember what the name of the piece is.
Alternatively, this is a neat way to see if something you've written is a song that already exists!
------
Edit:
Also, check this site out: Musipedia.org
It's a similar, but more expanded music search engine. It not only does a search based on a similar criteria as the one mentioned above, but also for rhythm patterns, the contour of a melody etc. It's pretty cool.
MelodyCatcher.com is a music search engine, but it's unlike anything else I've seen. I've seen lyric search engines, or those search engines on phones that will recognize what song is being played. This is entirely different though: you input notes in standard notation.
The technological idea is pretty cool: input a bunch of notes, search for midi files that have those note intervals (so it can be in any key), and if there's a match it lists them.
However, the usage is not as intuitive as the site seems to think: In my personal opinion, you have to be pretty good at playing by ear to be able to transpose things note by note. However, it's really useful if you already know how to play a specific piece on an instrument....but you can't remember what the name of the piece is.
Alternatively, this is a neat way to see if something you've written is a song that already exists!
------
Edit:
Also, check this site out: Musipedia.org
It's a similar, but more expanded music search engine. It not only does a search based on a similar criteria as the one mentioned above, but also for rhythm patterns, the contour of a melody etc. It's pretty cool.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Louis Armstrong Sings Britney Spears
Before you read anything else on this blog post, listen to this. It's a 1932 recording by Louis Armstrong, the "original" version of Britney Spears' "Oops I did it again".
Interesting isn't it?
...now I want you to honestly ask yourself: Does this change your opinion of this song? Did you use to think it was a horrible song, but now it seems more legitimate? Perhaps because it is written and sung by a legitimate song writer/artist?
....because this is a complete hoax/fake. That's right, it's a fake. Knowing that it is fake, does it change your opinion of the song? Is it less "artistic"? If it was true that Louis Armstrong had written the song, I think there would be many more people who would accept it as a good song. Strange isn't it?
Ask yourself: How much of our "value" and judgment of music is actually our preconceived prejudices towards genres, artists, languages, etc? ...and how much is the actual piece of music?
Interesting isn't it?
...now I want you to honestly ask yourself: Does this change your opinion of this song? Did you use to think it was a horrible song, but now it seems more legitimate? Perhaps because it is written and sung by a legitimate song writer/artist?
....because this is a complete hoax/fake. That's right, it's a fake. Knowing that it is fake, does it change your opinion of the song? Is it less "artistic"? If it was true that Louis Armstrong had written the song, I think there would be many more people who would accept it as a good song. Strange isn't it?
Ask yourself: How much of our "value" and judgment of music is actually our preconceived prejudices towards genres, artists, languages, etc? ...and how much is the actual piece of music?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Music In Nature: Birds on Wire
I've posted about the moonbell (using the landscape of the moon as the basis for composition), and PI as music (using the number Pi as a basis for composition).
This is something in the same vein, using a picture of birds on a wire and transposing their positions into musical notations. It sounds surprisingly good!
This is something in the same vein, using a picture of birds on a wire and transposing their positions into musical notations. It sounds surprisingly good!
Birds on the Wires from Jarbas Agnelli on Vimeo.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Using an Old Nintendo as an Instrument
Anamanaguchi is a band from New York which consists of 2 guitarists, a bassist, a drummer... and an old NES. You know, that fun little gray machine that you play games on. Or at least games from the 80's.
Instead of using regular keyboards however, they hacked an NES to enable the designing/programing of sounds. Now that's a fun concept! The music is obviously very "video-game" like, but because of the "real" instruments that play with the NES, it has an added depth that's interesting. Check it out!
The Anamanaguchi Website
Instead of using regular keyboards however, they hacked an NES to enable the designing/programing of sounds. Now that's a fun concept! The music is obviously very "video-game" like, but because of the "real" instruments that play with the NES, it has an added depth that's interesting. Check it out!
The Anamanaguchi Website
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Using the Landscape of the Moon to Compose Songs
I once posted about composing a song based on Pi. Here's a website that's based on similar principles, but instead of using an irrational number, it uses data from topography maps. In other words, the notes are based on the height of the landscape.
The landscape in this case though, is the moon! Moonbell is an interactive website where you can dictate the topographical line you want the program to follow, and the musical scales to base its composition. A neat little idea.
Moonbell Website
The landscape in this case though, is the moon! Moonbell is an interactive website where you can dictate the topographical line you want the program to follow, and the musical scales to base its composition. A neat little idea.
Moonbell Website
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Playing Songs Backwards
I'm a genuine believer in coincidence. I also know that we have the ability to see things in places where there is nothing. Combine the two, and we have the ability to see faces, hear voices, and essentially humanize all kinds of things that happen by chance. Music is no different, and one of the classic claims that takes advantage of our gullible nature is the idea that there are hidden messages in songs. Granted, there are some songs that have hidden tracks and the like, but that's not what I am referring to here. As the title may have suggested (read: given away), some people claim that if you play certain songs backwards, you can hear hidden messages. They supposedly refer to Satan or something sexual. I personally think it's all just coincidence though.
Here's a fun little flash thing that I got from this site. It's a great way to test your intuitions about these "hidden message" claims. I honestly couldn't guess what they were supposedly saying until I checked the "hidden message" lyrics, but maybe you'll hear it on your own:
How did you do? Were you able to hear it before you checked the lyrics?
...Now what do you think would happen if an artist actually planned backwards lyrics? Or a wrote a whole entire song that is meant to be played backwards? Enter Radiohead, and the songs "I Will" and "Like Spinning Plates".
These two songs are actually the same song, except one is forward - "I Will" - and the other backwards. While Radiohead was recording, they found that the melody line in "I Will" sounded really great played backwards, so they decided to make a song out of the backwards version of the song! They then listened to the backwards vocals and tried to choose words that matched the backwards sounds...and that's how the lyrics were born. So technically, the lyrics to "Like Spinning Plates" should sound a lot like the backwards version of "I Will". What makes this even more interesting is the fact that the backwards version - "Like Spinning Plates" was released first! It took them another few years to release "I Will", the forwards version of the song. Fun stuff.
Here's a version of the two songs, one playing backwards and one playing forwards in sync to each other. The first half is "I Will" played forwards with "Like Spinning Plates" played backwards at the same time, followed by a switch:
Here's a fun little flash thing that I got from this site. It's a great way to test your intuitions about these "hidden message" claims. I honestly couldn't guess what they were supposedly saying until I checked the "hidden message" lyrics, but maybe you'll hear it on your own:
How did you do? Were you able to hear it before you checked the lyrics?
...Now what do you think would happen if an artist actually planned backwards lyrics? Or a wrote a whole entire song that is meant to be played backwards? Enter Radiohead, and the songs "I Will" and "Like Spinning Plates".
These two songs are actually the same song, except one is forward - "I Will" - and the other backwards. While Radiohead was recording, they found that the melody line in "I Will" sounded really great played backwards, so they decided to make a song out of the backwards version of the song! They then listened to the backwards vocals and tried to choose words that matched the backwards sounds...and that's how the lyrics were born. So technically, the lyrics to "Like Spinning Plates" should sound a lot like the backwards version of "I Will". What makes this even more interesting is the fact that the backwards version - "Like Spinning Plates" was released first! It took them another few years to release "I Will", the forwards version of the song. Fun stuff.
Here's a version of the two songs, one playing backwards and one playing forwards in sync to each other. The first half is "I Will" played forwards with "Like Spinning Plates" played backwards at the same time, followed by a switch:
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Seperating Performance from the Recording
I've debated for a long time about whether to talk about today's topic. I generally like to post things that I genuinely feel are really great aspects of music, but today's topic is something that I am fascinated by, but also quite uneasy about at the same time.
The video today is a lecture from TED.com again. It involves a project in which the performance of a song is separated from its recording. Confusing? It's a new way of thinking about music and what we mean when we refer to "music" (the ontology of music is a whole area of philosophy that I won't bother going into now, but maybe another post some time...). The idea is that instead of capturing a specific recording with mics, or writing down specific notes on paper, another way (and supposedly a better way) to capture music is to digitize the actual keystrokes, how hard a piano is struck, and how far the pedals are pushed down etc. In other words, it captures all the personal choices that performers make, and turns it into digital information.
With that information, an instrument, and a computer... theoretically you can make the computer play the instrument exactly like the original artist , thereby enabling the listener to truly experience the piece as it was played.
Now the question is: are you really listening to the original artist? Or anything resembling what musicians actually do when you listen to them play live? Or is it missing something?
I am torn about this. I think it's unfair to immediately dismiss this, because we have some precedent for this in the music world. When recordings came out, people were fascinated, but also scoffed at the idea. When CD's were invented and recordings shifted from analog to digital, people also thought it lost something. Finally, when mp3's further compressed the sound, some people were uneasy as well. While all these criticisms are totally correct in their points of argument, it's also true that the majority of the public has transitioned, and it has changed the way we experience and listen to music (I realize that just because lots of people are okay with it, it doesn't make it right...but if people enjoy it, then arguably it's still doing what music is supposed to do in the first place).
That being said though, I do feel like this still fails to capture what he claims - the "spirit" of the musician. Being a musician myself, I know that playing music in front of people involves more than just the notes I play, the strength and lengths of the notes I play.. in fact, it involves more than me, my music, and my instrument. Playing in front of people involves a dialogue with the audience, much like a conversation. Depending on the mood of the crowd, my mood, the room, the mood of those I am playing with... it all changes. The people conducting this project don't seem to understand that, and it frightens me that they are thinking ahead to the point where they think they can play/compose a piece of music in place of the actual composer/player.
Either way though, an interesting thing to ponder, lots to think about. Let me know what you think!
The video today is a lecture from TED.com again. It involves a project in which the performance of a song is separated from its recording. Confusing? It's a new way of thinking about music and what we mean when we refer to "music" (the ontology of music is a whole area of philosophy that I won't bother going into now, but maybe another post some time...). The idea is that instead of capturing a specific recording with mics, or writing down specific notes on paper, another way (and supposedly a better way) to capture music is to digitize the actual keystrokes, how hard a piano is struck, and how far the pedals are pushed down etc. In other words, it captures all the personal choices that performers make, and turns it into digital information.
With that information, an instrument, and a computer... theoretically you can make the computer play the instrument exactly like the original artist , thereby enabling the listener to truly experience the piece as it was played.
Now the question is: are you really listening to the original artist? Or anything resembling what musicians actually do when you listen to them play live? Or is it missing something?
I am torn about this. I think it's unfair to immediately dismiss this, because we have some precedent for this in the music world. When recordings came out, people were fascinated, but also scoffed at the idea. When CD's were invented and recordings shifted from analog to digital, people also thought it lost something. Finally, when mp3's further compressed the sound, some people were uneasy as well. While all these criticisms are totally correct in their points of argument, it's also true that the majority of the public has transitioned, and it has changed the way we experience and listen to music (I realize that just because lots of people are okay with it, it doesn't make it right...but if people enjoy it, then arguably it's still doing what music is supposed to do in the first place).
That being said though, I do feel like this still fails to capture what he claims - the "spirit" of the musician. Being a musician myself, I know that playing music in front of people involves more than just the notes I play, the strength and lengths of the notes I play.. in fact, it involves more than me, my music, and my instrument. Playing in front of people involves a dialogue with the audience, much like a conversation. Depending on the mood of the crowd, my mood, the room, the mood of those I am playing with... it all changes. The people conducting this project don't seem to understand that, and it frightens me that they are thinking ahead to the point where they think they can play/compose a piece of music in place of the actual composer/player.
Either way though, an interesting thing to ponder, lots to think about. Let me know what you think!
Friday, June 5, 2009
Bach and Counterpoint
I'm sure most people have heard that Bach is an absolute genius. But it's one of those things that is hard to fully appreciate without understanding musical theory. However, a few months ago I came across a video that easily and convincingly illustrates how ridiculously amazing he is.
Today I'm going to write about the namesake of this blog: contrapunctus, aka counterpoint. "Counterpoint" is a relationship between melody lines that each have their own independent rhythm, contour, and also are not in harmony. In short, it's when there are two or more melodies that aren't in harmony, but they sound good. It's easily one of the most complicated theoretical relationships in music.
Bach is an absolute master of this relationship, because he was able to write 4,5, lines of music that were in counterpoint, IMPROVISED, on an organ(so that's 2 hands, 2 feet going at the same time!!). That alone is otherworldly, but the things he created when he actually sat down and composed them...are completely unfathomable.
Bach would write fugues (contrapunctal music) where one melody would be played straight forward, another would play the same melody backwards, and another would play the same melody but inverted (so imagine a sheet of music being played upside down so that the notes correspond to different things), and at varying speeds.... yet sounding perfect!
To visually understand what I'm talking about, watch the video below (from strangepaths.com).
Is that not mind blowing? I can't get over how incredibly complex his music is!
If you want to learn more about the genius of Bach, I highly recommend this article on Slate: Bach on Top: How one of the most esoteric musical works ever written became an unlikely hit. It's a short article that explains the counterpoint of Bach in further detail, but it's still written for the general public.
Finally, thanks to Rose for sharing this video with me.
(I am extremely busy this month, so updates will be slower. Sorry!)
Today I'm going to write about the namesake of this blog: contrapunctus, aka counterpoint. "Counterpoint" is a relationship between melody lines that each have their own independent rhythm, contour, and also are not in harmony. In short, it's when there are two or more melodies that aren't in harmony, but they sound good. It's easily one of the most complicated theoretical relationships in music.
Bach is an absolute master of this relationship, because he was able to write 4,5, lines of music that were in counterpoint, IMPROVISED, on an organ(so that's 2 hands, 2 feet going at the same time!!). That alone is otherworldly, but the things he created when he actually sat down and composed them...are completely unfathomable.
Bach would write fugues (contrapunctal music) where one melody would be played straight forward, another would play the same melody backwards, and another would play the same melody but inverted (so imagine a sheet of music being played upside down so that the notes correspond to different things), and at varying speeds.... yet sounding perfect!
To visually understand what I'm talking about, watch the video below (from strangepaths.com).
Is that not mind blowing? I can't get over how incredibly complex his music is!
If you want to learn more about the genius of Bach, I highly recommend this article on Slate: Bach on Top: How one of the most esoteric musical works ever written became an unlikely hit. It's a short article that explains the counterpoint of Bach in further detail, but it's still written for the general public.
Finally, thanks to Rose for sharing this video with me.
(I am extremely busy this month, so updates will be slower. Sorry!)
Friday, May 15, 2009
Participatory Music
I really had to think hard about the title for this one, but I think "Participatory Music" really captures the essence of this little project.
In Bb 2.0 is a project that explains itself, but here's the idea: Invite people to submit a video of themselves playing music in Bb, but with no set tempo or groove. Provide a backbone idea of what to play, but let the submissions take their own course. The end result is a collection of videos with mostly random notes being played....yet they all strangely fit together nicely. ...But at this point, it's just the "typical" web-produced music thing. Which is itself neat, but this takes it one step further...
The truly amazing part of this is that the listener can choose to begin, stop, skip, change the volume etc. of each video at their own will. But because of the style of music and the type of submissions that have been made, the "listener mix" always works! I've played around with making specific trumpet notes come in at my own will. This type of work is really quite inspiring.
I've seen "listener mix" type of websites before, but those ones are essentially just a collection of on/off button for different instruments in the track. In those websites, the tempo and groove remain the same, so the song is really just the same thing with different volume levels. This project however, really lets you move around the different instruments at will...yet it will always work. Awesome.
To check it out yourself, go to their website here . Unless you have a kickass computer and high-speed internet, I would suggest closing all your windows before though, because you're about to load 12+ youtube videos at once.
Enjoy!
(Thanks to Brian for the link)
In Bb 2.0 is a project that explains itself, but here's the idea: Invite people to submit a video of themselves playing music in Bb, but with no set tempo or groove. Provide a backbone idea of what to play, but let the submissions take their own course. The end result is a collection of videos with mostly random notes being played....yet they all strangely fit together nicely. ...But at this point, it's just the "typical" web-produced music thing. Which is itself neat, but this takes it one step further...
The truly amazing part of this is that the listener can choose to begin, stop, skip, change the volume etc. of each video at their own will. But because of the style of music and the type of submissions that have been made, the "listener mix" always works! I've played around with making specific trumpet notes come in at my own will. This type of work is really quite inspiring.
I've seen "listener mix" type of websites before, but those ones are essentially just a collection of on/off button for different instruments in the track. In those websites, the tempo and groove remain the same, so the song is really just the same thing with different volume levels. This project however, really lets you move around the different instruments at will...yet it will always work. Awesome.
To check it out yourself, go to their website here . Unless you have a kickass computer and high-speed internet, I would suggest closing all your windows before though, because you're about to load 12+ youtube videos at once.
Enjoy!
(Thanks to Brian for the link)
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
So this is what the most annoying and most enjoyable song sounds like...
This is well over a few years old at this point, but so is the Armonica, so who really cares? My non-existent readership? (That will either be slightly funny, or incredibly depressing...depending on your own opinion of this blog. hahahaha)
I'm talking about the Komar & Melamid and David Soldier compositions. It's an attempt at composing the most annoying/hated song, as well as the most liked song.
What they did was conduct a survey which tried to find out what instruments, topics, styles and so forth, that the general listener enjoyed/hated the most. Using that data, they combined all the most "enjoyable" elements into a song, and combined all the most "hated" elements into another song. The results? ...strange... very...strange.
The most unwanted song is statistically likely to be enjoyed by fewer than 200 people in the whole entire world. It is 25min long, with children singing holiday songs and jingles about Walmart, bagpipes, opera and rap etc.....dysfunctionally pieced together in abrupt changes. There's actually hardly any dissonance, which is pretty neat: They created the most "listenable" unlistenable music. It's totally fun to listen to, although yes, it's pretty bad. Check out the opera singer rapping. It's hilarious:
Right Click to Download "The Most Unwanted Music"
In comparison, the most liked song is statistically likely to be enjoyed by 72% of the population, plus/minus 12%. It is of radio friendly length, moderate tempo, with guitar, piano, low male and female vocals singing slow rock/r&b etc. So what does that all add up to? Easy Rock. Adult contemporary, easy-listening. I have to admit, the string-swells, the key changes, and the sax...kinda made me cringe. But don't take my word for it! Experience it yourself:
Right Click to Download "The Most Wanted Music"
I copied these links from the Wired blog, so for more information check their page.
For more detailed information about the compositions, check the composers webpage.
I'm talking about the Komar & Melamid and David Soldier compositions. It's an attempt at composing the most annoying/hated song, as well as the most liked song.
What they did was conduct a survey which tried to find out what instruments, topics, styles and so forth, that the general listener enjoyed/hated the most. Using that data, they combined all the most "enjoyable" elements into a song, and combined all the most "hated" elements into another song. The results? ...strange... very...strange.
The most unwanted song is statistically likely to be enjoyed by fewer than 200 people in the whole entire world. It is 25min long, with children singing holiday songs and jingles about Walmart, bagpipes, opera and rap etc.....dysfunctionally pieced together in abrupt changes. There's actually hardly any dissonance, which is pretty neat: They created the most "listenable" unlistenable music. It's totally fun to listen to, although yes, it's pretty bad. Check out the opera singer rapping. It's hilarious:
Right Click to Download "The Most Unwanted Music"
In comparison, the most liked song is statistically likely to be enjoyed by 72% of the population, plus/minus 12%. It is of radio friendly length, moderate tempo, with guitar, piano, low male and female vocals singing slow rock/r&b etc. So what does that all add up to? Easy Rock. Adult contemporary, easy-listening. I have to admit, the string-swells, the key changes, and the sax...kinda made me cringe. But don't take my word for it! Experience it yourself:
Right Click to Download "The Most Wanted Music"
I copied these links from the Wired blog, so for more information check their page.
For more detailed information about the compositions, check the composers webpage.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Kanye Samples
This vid has been making the rounds for a couple of months now, but I feel compelled to share it here anyways. Hip-hop is a genre that's built upon sampling, and while I could go into the issues surrounding the use of samples, this video is about comparing the original to the sampled product. It shows the original sound-bits that Kanye West used in his songs, followed by his own rendition/usage of the sounds. It's really neat to see how these songs emerged. I also find it's really eye-opening, in terms of the work/thought/talent it takes to do this sort of thing. I know Kanye has an annoying ego, but it's still undeniable that he does neat things.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Pi as Music
A couple days ago was Pi day (03-14)! I recently found something that sounded a lot better than I would have anticipated... so I'm posting it here. It's a composition based on the number Pi.
The idea is simple: transpose each digit into a corresponding note. The problem is that our number system is base 10, but Western music has 12 notes. So what this person did was use the C major scale (the white keys on a piano) as a basis. So 1234567890 became CDEFGABCDE. So 3.14... became ECF... and so on.
This is the result, kinda fun and technically never ending:
The idea is simple: transpose each digit into a corresponding note. The problem is that our number system is base 10, but Western music has 12 notes. So what this person did was use the C major scale (the white keys on a piano) as a basis. So 1234567890 became CDEFGABCDE. So 3.14... became ECF... and so on.
This is the result, kinda fun and technically never ending:
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Write Songs on the Fly! Microsoft Songsmith...
Microsoft has come up with a program that - get this - automatically writes an arrangement to a melody you sing. Sing any jibberish you can come up with right now .. and the program will do the rest. It analyzes the melodic lines, and figures out the chord changes that work. It further simplifies it by having an adjustable "happy /sad" slider, as well as a "jazz" slider to change the feel of the music. Neat!
All you need is a microphone, and everyone can become a song writer!
The final product is fairly cheesy (because it's still a MIDI file with your original vocals on top), but it's a really eye-opening experience to see how a simple melody can be dressed up with an arrangement. ...And it's just plain fun watch it do its thing.
Try it out. It's pretty cool. And very laughable. It's free and downloadable Here
What do you think? Leave a comment!
In fact, here's a thought: If this technology takes off, and it actually made really great songs off the bat... would you listen to it? Would it still be on par with human made music? Or would it be lacking something? Fun thoughts to ponder...
All you need is a microphone, and everyone can become a song writer!
The final product is fairly cheesy (because it's still a MIDI file with your original vocals on top), but it's a really eye-opening experience to see how a simple melody can be dressed up with an arrangement. ...And it's just plain fun watch it do its thing.
Try it out. It's pretty cool. And very laughable. It's free and downloadable Here
What do you think? Leave a comment!
In fact, here's a thought: If this technology takes off, and it actually made really great songs off the bat... would you listen to it? Would it still be on par with human made music? Or would it be lacking something? Fun thoughts to ponder...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)