Jump to content

AngelCityOutlaw

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

AngelCityOutlaw last won the day on January 7

AngelCityOutlaw had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

3 Followers

About AngelCityOutlaw

  • Rank
    Intermediate Composer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I saw the '93 Three Musketeers for the first time the other day, and felt inspired to write a tune that could be a 90s adventure TV series theme or something. Let me know what you think.
  2. The only soundset that is any good as far as notation programs go is Noteperformer 3 which is for Sibelius, Finale and Dorico. It's pretty inexpensive and sounds great. As an aside: I actually think the technology of Noteperformer is the way forward and that by the end of the 20s, will replace the out-dated tech, and frankly — musically-limited capability found in Kontakt-style libraries.
  3. With this week's reveal of the 3rd game (which scared the hell out of me as a kid) being remade, I wondered what that ominous little save room loop would sound like with the sound libraries I have. Let me know what you think
  4. You've misunderstood. I'm not talking about music technology, I'm talking about technology/scientific discovery in general. Western music would not exist if not for Greek discoveries in physics which basically gave way to the intervals and scales we all use, and German and French advancement polyphony, harmony, etc. that was built from those discoveries. For example, when Rameau's Treatise on Harmony came out in 1722, it was considered (probably still is) the most revolutionary work in western music: Describing the modern major/minor keys, the tonal system, and basically how to actually write music using the notes from the chromatic scale. That work is, almost to the year, 300 years old now. Since that time, and especially in the last 50-100 years since the end of the Romantic era, we have dramatically improved our understanding of the forces of nature that are responsible for us being able to create music at all. Despite that, and with the ability to share information to the world on a moment's notice, it has not yielded a discovery that has altered western music in the way that people from hundreds of years ago did. There hasn't been another "Treatise on Harmony", so to speak, in many generations. The evidence suggests that there is basically nothing about composing music that we are collectively ignorant on at this point — it is doubtful that this "next step" you refer to in your second post in this thread, is actually coming. The "vocabulary" (tools) has already been written. Futurist types would see this as disappointing. I, however, am grateful that our ancestors have already given us the "keys to the kingdom" so that we don't have to find them ourselves as they did.
  5. I don't actually buy this, no offense. It is true, however, that the aristocracy did influence music, but they didn't really influence "rules". The church and the tritone is probably on the only real strong-armed rule. I'd argue that the aristocracy went against the conventions and that's how we got "art" music, which has fallen out of favor in the centuries since, now that rich people have all kinds of other things to spend money on to flex on the peasants with. Most of that art music was intentionally composed differently from the peasant music because it had to be for the rich people to want to pay for it. They weren't going to pay for music that sounded like what all the commoners were playing, but if you look back on Beethoven, Mozart, and so on's most famous pieces of today — they are actually the ones that are closest to what normies of the day would've been listening to, which is quite similar to what we like about music today. The "rules" most people are referring to here are usually rules of counterpoint or sometimes acceptable harmonies. All of said rules had logical, at least for the time, reasons for being followed. In composing music, people have generally followed whatever doctrine gave them the most-consistently-satisfying results. In the time of the greats, they were simply using what knowledge was available to them at the time, or at least widely understood. This doctrine has expanded as our understanding of the physics of music and their effect on us has expanded. However, over the last 100 years, this doctrine has not changed very much despite massive leaps in the technology to understand it and ability to share information. This suggests that we are either at, or very near the borders of what tools can be utilized by a composer to create satisfying music — at least in the ears of 99% of people, it seems. and if you go back through time, and you analyze the most enduring classical pieces, folk music, etc. you will find that they have a great number of consistencies. Understanding what these consistencies are, and how to employ those same concepts in your own work, is where the "craft" comes from. That's why I'm a big advocate for learning that craft as much as we can; it gives you control over your music. You want to be in total control of what you're doing at all times. It makes composing music, and life in general, so much easier and fun. Because if anyone was going to throw those "rules" to the wind and stumble upon some better, more reliable method of creating music that would advance the craft to a whole new level of understanding and open up a complete new set of musical devices for us to use — then it stands to reason that it would've happened by now, since tons of people are breaking convention all the time, just out of sheer ignorance. With each passing year that it doesn't yield ground-breaking revelations, this point will become only more self-evident. As long as we focus on writing GOOD music and trying to master the craft, that's all that matters. Our own uniqueness/identity will shine through as the result of our own quirks, favoritism, habits, etc. that rise organically if you let them.
  6. Some music I wrote for a video game with a medieval/fairytale setting. Let me know what you think.
  7. Thanks! It's actually a soprano recorder in this one. Yeah, I'm loving it. Wasn't cheap...but I can tell I'm gonna get a lot of mileage out of it.
  8. I arranged the opening tune from "Hearthstone" using Era II: Medieval Legends, which I'm still learning the ins and outs of. I was inspired to do it because of my mousepad, of all things — which I got from the artist for Hearthstone himself, when I met him a few years back. I haven't actually played the game in years, and I just played from how I remember the song going, so I might have made some mistakes — but it sounds as I remember it.
  9. Yes. Melody is the essence of music, and all that chords are is the simultaneous occurrence of 3 or more different melody lines. Every tune implies harmonic changes beneath it, and you can hear where these would occur on stressed beats. From there, it's just about identifying which harmonies would not only be consonant, but which ones would work for what you're trying to achieve contextually, voice-leading, etc. If you start with a harmonic sequence, the resulting tune will become subservient to it; always working within the confines and pull of established chord tones. Remember that melody came before harmony in history, so it should be subservient to melody and not the other way around. The reason you are struggling with this, is because you haven't developed your ability for phrasing or thematic structure yet. The latter can be learned by reading up on things like "sentence and period" structure, which is the organization of motivic patterns and developments in a phrase of usually some multiple of 8, as well as contour: the shape of the melody. The former is largely intuitive, and comes from developing not just your ear, but muscle memory and sense of rhythm. This is best done by listening to a lot of music, and learning to play music as well. A strong knowledge of voice-leading will also help you. It will also help to develop your voice and singing ability because most strong tunes are easily sung. This is basically, as instrumental ability and respect for the craft among a lot of modern composers has diminished, what has been lost in a lot of modern orchestral music and the like. Melody and its phrasing are directly related to language due to the structural similarities between them. In fact, in the past, singing was used in Scandinavia to call cattle down from the high mountains. A call and response; the cows hear the singer and the singer can hear the cowbells — both of which would carry well through the fjords and mountains. Curiously correlated, is the standard for orthography, vocabulary and general communication in the west is on a serious decline due to technology. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/the-decline-of-communication-due-to-technology.html http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171108-the-uncertain-future-of-handwriting As an aside: I have no studies or anything to back this up, but it's my personal observation that a lot of the best tunesmiths out there, tend to also be very well-spoken individuals, with strong written communication ability to boot.
  10. Well, by "renaissance" I meant the instrumentation, as I didn't want to simply call it a "cover" or something lol but hey, thanks for listening and the feedback, as always.
  11. Oktoberfest is on, and I decided to make an arrangement of one of Faun's tunes for renaissance instruments like the lute and virginal. I cut down the song mainly because it's actually really repetitive, and without vocals I didn't really have time to make a billion difference harmonizations and such. But I still covered all the parts of the song. Let me know what you think. I'm pretty stoked for their upcoming album
  12. You said a lot of stuff here, but I'm going to mainly focus on this in my post. Despite the tortured wishes of people like Jacob Collier, this isn't a thing. If you take a piece of music that was in C minor, for piano, and then perform it up one whole step, it doesn't suddenly sound "more or less X". Especially if the audience is not intimately familiar with the piece. Specifically because the "X" is entirely subjective and the description only makes sense within your own mind. Key changes within a piece only seem to create some sort of emotional effect because they contrast what came before it. This effect is often more pronounced because this often accompanies a change in the rhythm, or other established norms in the piece up until then. "Key" by definition, is entirely relative because intervals are relative. There are plenty of good reasons to transpose an existing work when you're adapting it for a different ensemble apart from that which it was originally written. Ranges, ease of playing, and timbrel differences. For example, if the original key of X melody line was in a key that would be most suited to the lower range of the oboe, then you should probably transpose it up because it's probably going to sound terrible in the low register. Tin whistles? You're going to want to stay in either E minor or D major on most whistles not just so you don't have to half-hole, but because the upper range is tough on the ears after not-too-long and requires more airflow. Generally speaking, if you can shift around the key, and run into no timbrel, play-ability or range issues, then it doesn't actually matter if you've transposed it or not. Because this whole "X key sounds more X than Y key" is nonsense.
×
×
  • Create New...