-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
compose music
- Thread starter YuiHuan
- Start date
We've gone waaay off topic haha. I disagree with certain points of what has just been said but like I said, I don't think this is the place to continue discussing them. 
I don't agree that he isn't very creative or original. Regardless, he writes great music and that's all that should matter. Not every wondrous, complex, and beautiful piece of music involves having previous knowledge of vast or minor theory nor does it require "buying into."
Really? So, the only the most creative people have studied theory or have had help? According to whom are these people the "most" creative? You can't possibly be saying that lacking knowledge in music theory will always make you "less" creative than the "most" creative that have studied theory? I can't believe I'm even entertaining such an absurd argument. Unless, I'm totally misinterpreting what you're saying.
What exactly do you think he's joking about? Because a great amount of the most technical and heaviest metal bands around the globe, in fact, do share far more in common with classical music than you'd think.
It wouldn't make you worse at writing music, but that's not the point here. Maybe he doesn't want to learn theory? What's wrong with that? Maybe it doesn't interest him whatsoever? So what? That's his prerogative. Now, I wouldn't say theory is the devil or anything. Or that it's useless. I don't have a problem with anyone knowing or learning theory. Theory is enthralling, fascinating stuff, no doubt about it.
What I have a problem with is the elitist condescension going around when it comes to writing music or pursuing your passions -- whatever that may be. I won't assume this is the case for you, AudioExpert, but in my experience, I've met a LOT of far more technically superior artists than myself, but they can't write a good piece of music to save their lives. There's no heart in it. It's all a numbers game to them to satisfy an equation, but not to satisfy an emotion. Not to mention, they're the most arrogant and inflexible "artists" I've ever come across. I'm just relaying facts of my experience. Knowing theory does not necessitate a metamorphosis into being a complete jerk. Not everyone is like that.
If you WANT to pursue learning theory, the best way to do it is to make sure FIRST that you love writing music and that you can put together a good song. THEN once you've matured as an artist and you understand the basics of sounds, chords, melodies, arpeggios etc., go ahead and get some theory under your belt...IF YOU WANT TO! But, please, spare me the "you're not good enough without it" BS. This goes for the other way around, too. There's nothing wrong with knowing theory either. It is very fascinating stuff and can add another layer of fun to your work.
Last edited:
JGBarnes, thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking (and also in the process bringing it back on topic). Can we leave it at that guys? I don't want to argue about this, it's pointless to get too technical when we were originally trying to encourage a beginner.
I think one could certainly write great film music without a knowledge of music theory.
What's absurd is believing that creativity is in anyway useful without any knowledge of how to express it.
Only someone who knows next to nothing about classical music could possibly have said that. If you want an example of a modern genre that is closest to classical music, contemporary jazz fits the bill far more closely than any heavy metal. In fact, so does some pop and rock music and a lot of the experimental electronic music, even some sound design is more closely related to classical music than heavy metal.
This is getting more absurd by the minute, you obviously have no idea what music theory is because what you've just said is: Once you understand the basics of music theory, go ahead and get some theory under your belt!??? What do you think basic music theory is, if it isn't "sounds, chords, melodies, arpeggios, etc"?
Knowing how music works does not mean you are actually any good at creating it, did you even bother to read my post or are you just being defensive at the expense of any logic or any facts?
If he wants to write music for himself, he can do whatever he wants and remain as ignorant as he chooses. However he stated he wanted to be a professional composer. Without any knowledge of how music works, he doesn't stand a chance.
Last edited:
That's the thing, I'm already making music professionally. Your argument is therefore invalid.
So can we please move on? This is a useless discussion and just a clash of egos that doesn't help anyone. To each his own. That's the beauty of a creative job - you can be creative with it. Do it your own way.
We are not about to agree on anything so why bother?
So can we please move on? This is a useless discussion and just a clash of egos that doesn't help anyone. To each his own. That's the beauty of a creative job - you can be creative with it. Do it your own way.
We are not about to agree on anything so why bother?
Last edited:
That's the thing, I'm already making music professionally. Your argument is therefore invalid.
Making music professionally is not the same thing at all as being a professional composer, so your argument is invalid. You don't even seem to know what a professional composer is or what one does! It's like saying you want to build houses professionally but you don't think you should have to learn anything about construction. You're right about one thing though, not much point in continuing to argue from a basis of so little understanding. Good luck!
It all depends on how we're defining theory. If we define it as I know that this note sounds good with this one and is therefor a pleasant sounding chord to me, although, I can't possibly tell you why it sounds good or what notes they are, let alone what key it's in or what the chord is called...
Would that be considered "knowing theory" to you? Honest question.
You might be fairly accurate with everything you just typed here except that heavy metal (not the mom-rock garbage you find on the radio) is factually rooted in very dense classical theory whether you want to believe me or not.
Glad we can agree on this.
You're just as correct as you are missing the point.
OP is like a kid with a basketball that says I want to play pro ball one day! Yay! Then Michael Jordan comes by and smacks the ball out of his hands and says, "If you don't know how to play then you can't stand a chance with the pros!!!"
That's really not the appropriate impression/or tone one should be giving a newbie. You might say these things to a college player, but not to a newbie.
Last edited:
Oh, also this:
"Throughout heavy metal's twenty-year history, its most influential musicians have been guitar players who have also studied classical music. Their appropriation and adaptation of classical models sparked the development of a new kind of guitar virtuosity, changes in the harmonic and melodic language of heavy metal, and new modes of musical pedagogy and analysis."
"But in the case of heavy metal, the relationship to classical modes of thought and music-making is not merely in the eye of the beholder. To compare it with culturally more prestigious music is entirely appropriate, for the musicians who compose, perform and teach this music have tapped the classical canon for musical techniques and procedures which they have then fused with their blues-based rock sensibility. Their instrumental virtuosity, theoretical self-consciousness and studious devotion to the works of the classical canon means that their work could be valorised in the more 'legitimate' terms of classical excellence. But more importantly, metal guitarists' appropriations of classical music provide a vital opportunity for examining criteria for musical significance as they function in cultural contestation."
"By finding new uses for old music, recycling the rhetoric of Bach and Vivaldi for their own purposes, metal musicians have reopened issues of signification in classical music."
Taken from this massive study. This also gets into concrete and granular examples using precise comparisons of sheet music from classical artists and pointing out loads upon loads of striking parallels to heavy metal.
"Throughout heavy metal's twenty-year history, its most influential musicians have been guitar players who have also studied classical music. Their appropriation and adaptation of classical models sparked the development of a new kind of guitar virtuosity, changes in the harmonic and melodic language of heavy metal, and new modes of musical pedagogy and analysis."
"But in the case of heavy metal, the relationship to classical modes of thought and music-making is not merely in the eye of the beholder. To compare it with culturally more prestigious music is entirely appropriate, for the musicians who compose, perform and teach this music have tapped the classical canon for musical techniques and procedures which they have then fused with their blues-based rock sensibility. Their instrumental virtuosity, theoretical self-consciousness and studious devotion to the works of the classical canon means that their work could be valorised in the more 'legitimate' terms of classical excellence. But more importantly, metal guitarists' appropriations of classical music provide a vital opportunity for examining criteria for musical significance as they function in cultural contestation."
"By finding new uses for old music, recycling the rhetoric of Bach and Vivaldi for their own purposes, metal musicians have reopened issues of signification in classical music."
Taken from this massive study. This also gets into concrete and granular examples using precise comparisons of sheet music from classical artists and pointing out loads upon loads of striking parallels to heavy metal.
Last edited:
It doesn't depend on how we define music theory because music theory is defined as: "The study of how music works". It seems to me you want to define it as something else and then say it depends on how we define it, just because you want to argue and/or be defensive. What you have described above is precisely part of musical theory. Notes sounding nice together is called consonance and notes not sounding nice together is called dissonance. Music theory goes on to explain how and why consonance and dissonance work, how different composers have used it over the centuries and therefore how it has evolved. This provides the composer with a wealth of invaluable information and options about how consonance and dissonance can employed to express creative and artistic ideas.
Where did I say that metal music is not rooted in classical theory? All popular music genres are based on classical theory, the disagreement is that metal music is the genre most closely related to classical music, a completely different argument and one which is patently untrue.
The quote you've provided is rhetorical nonsense because exactly the same could be said of any genre of western music! Along with all the other quotes, it's obvious the authors are trying to validate metal music, comparing it to "culturally more prestigious music" by fooling the gullible and ignorant into believing metal is somehow closer than other genres. In reality you could exchange the words "heavy metal" in all your quotes for almost any other western genre of music and the quotes would be just as true as they are now. Your first quote by the way, seems to imply that even in metal music the most important musicians have recognised the importance of and have studied music theory. You seem to be unwittingly providing evidence against your argument.
I've never said or implied anything different. In fact I clearly stated and explained this in my first post in this thread, maybe you didn't read it before you decided to attack it?
No, it's nothing like that at all, nice try at misrepresenting the argument though! To use your analogy: It's like a kid who says to Michael Jordan, I am already a semi-pro basketball player and am going to be a pro player and I'm telling you and anyone else who wants to play pro-ball that you don't don't need to know any rules, tactics, strategies, history or techniques and anyone who says otherwise is a condescending elitist. Then Michael Jordan would be perfectly justified in saying: "Good luck with that but you're not going to stand a chance in the pros with an attitude like that or with that level of ignorance".
G
Ok, so I gave up reading through each and every post -- but one thing I didn't see mentioned was acquiring the proper tools one needs to compose. While music education is certainly one of those tools, you also need to consider the hardware and software.
Composition is not an easy or cheap profession. PLEASE don't let this discourage you - as that's not my intent.. but unless a composer has a vast array of excellent sample libraries (and the knowledge to use them), or available access to hundreds of musicians to record his work, his tracks will be lacking originality. If someone "composes" using just loops - why bother?... Everyone else does that - and you can purchase these cheesy loop-based tracks for $5 online.
When it comes to writing that 'epic' Hollywood orchestra sound, again, you need to know what each instrument does and how they work together. This is the biggest problem for indie composers... Either their samples are poor and sound like cheap-o 80's synth stuff... or it sounds fake..
For example: I've heard tracks with a flute solo over a massive, energetic orchestral ostinato... In the real world, this can't happen - as a flute doesn't have the projection power to be distinctly heard over the entire orchestra.
And then... once you've got your music.. It has to be mixed and mastered or the audio guys will laugh at you. This takes more learning and more software - or more money to pay someone to do it.
My point is this... Like any job, composing takes training and personal investment in high quality tools. Tomorrow, I can wake up and tell myself I want to be a lawyer --- and if I want to be a lawyer, I'm going to have to spend X thousands of dollars and X years in school to be an effective one. So, please... continue to explore your compositional aspirations!! I believe anyone can do anything if they are persistent and driven -- but nothing in this world comes magically overnight.
Stay at it! Invest! YouTube has tremendous tutorials... though I'd suggest finding a school like Full Sail or BerkleeMusic where you can get one-on-one feedback. Read! Study!
...and most of all - if you want this to be your job, TREAT it like your job. Put in the time whether you feel like it or not.
I wish you all the best!!
Patrick
Composition is not an easy or cheap profession. PLEASE don't let this discourage you - as that's not my intent.. but unless a composer has a vast array of excellent sample libraries (and the knowledge to use them), or available access to hundreds of musicians to record his work, his tracks will be lacking originality. If someone "composes" using just loops - why bother?... Everyone else does that - and you can purchase these cheesy loop-based tracks for $5 online.
When it comes to writing that 'epic' Hollywood orchestra sound, again, you need to know what each instrument does and how they work together. This is the biggest problem for indie composers... Either their samples are poor and sound like cheap-o 80's synth stuff... or it sounds fake..
For example: I've heard tracks with a flute solo over a massive, energetic orchestral ostinato... In the real world, this can't happen - as a flute doesn't have the projection power to be distinctly heard over the entire orchestra.
And then... once you've got your music.. It has to be mixed and mastered or the audio guys will laugh at you. This takes more learning and more software - or more money to pay someone to do it.
My point is this... Like any job, composing takes training and personal investment in high quality tools. Tomorrow, I can wake up and tell myself I want to be a lawyer --- and if I want to be a lawyer, I'm going to have to spend X thousands of dollars and X years in school to be an effective one. So, please... continue to explore your compositional aspirations!! I believe anyone can do anything if they are persistent and driven -- but nothing in this world comes magically overnight.
Stay at it! Invest! YouTube has tremendous tutorials... though I'd suggest finding a school like Full Sail or BerkleeMusic where you can get one-on-one feedback. Read! Study!
...and most of all - if you want this to be your job, TREAT it like your job. Put in the time whether you feel like it or not.
I wish you all the best!!
Patrick
Patrick, good post.
On the first page of this thread, MetalRenard and I shared these thoughts...
On the first page of this thread, MetalRenard and I shared these thoughts...