Progression..

[alphacat]

It's true. Many of us take ourselves way too seriously about this stuff, and moreover, there's a big difference between people who need to make music and people who want to be seen as musicians - and may or may not be aware of the distinction, sadly.

Bill Moyers said it best in an interview w/ John Lithgow:

BILL MOYERS: Who was it who said, if you ask a young man why he wants to be a poet and he says, "I have something important I want to say," then he's not going be a poet.

But if you ask him, "Why do you want to be a poet?" And he says, "Because I love the play of the word, the language." Then you know he's going to be a poet.

This distinction first occurred to me after meeting a former neighbor who loved to play the part of the 'Artist' with black turtlenecks and berets and wine and shit, but at the end of the day couldn't fucking paint his way out of a paper bag. All his art was derivative, clichéd, and uninspired. He always had time to get loaded, but at the same time used to complain about "never finding time to paint anymore." What a tool that guy was.

Hey, Serox: what's in your DJ bag this week then? Just curious.

[b-lam]

I am shite at making music but I play records every week so thought I would have a quick look through some of the myspace tracks on this thread. I see so many people on here on their high horse talking about how do things like they are making serious music. Sadly there was not a single track I would play/buy:oops: Some nice production but hardly any hook or anything that stood out or was unique.

This thread needs less talk and more music. Stop being anal and make some tunes.

Do you think you're being helpful?

All I'm going to say is sometimes it's enjoyable sharing ideas about what you love.

[b-lam]

double post oops

[b-lam]

@legendary: it seems like you are saying that progression has nothing to do with the sounds you're using/effects...

obviously this is not the be all and end all of making pleasing progression, but I think it has huge relevance.

Well I am speaking musically more than sonically, obviously progression works on both fronts but making the stuff interesting musically comes before you make it sonically interesting - no? Because if you just have FX and nothing playing you'll have silence unless you're using some mad compression overdrive whats playing fuzz. I use a lot of volume automation to bring in/take out sounds rather than stopping them dead and use lots of subtle panning and filter automation too but I find them being more of the "icing on the cake" personally.

Huge oversimplification by saying that making something sonically interesting=adding effects.

I know a few sick producers who won't lay down a melody/pattern until they have made all the sounds (i.e drum samples collected, synth patches programmed etc). They focus on the melody after they have the sounds lined up.

TBH I think separating music vs. sounds is just going to limit you. I reckon it's best to 'feel your way around' a tune assembling it as it goes.

Anyway somewhat offtopic.

I see what you're saying - but I am speaking more about writing music, like writing down scores instead of tapping keys on your favourite preset you made a few hours earlier and building from there I guess we both see creating music differently.

Even if you're talking about writing a score, you would still consider the way each part would be played at the writing stage(e.g. building to a crescendo, pizzicato strings etc). That, to me would be the equivalent of programming the right sound, using the right effects etc. None of this should be an after-thought imo.

[scooterjack]

Bill Moyers said it best in an interview w/ John Lithgow:

BILL MOYERS: Who was it who said, if you ask a young man why he wants to be a poet and he says, "I have something important I want to say," then he's not going be a poet.

But if you ask him, "Why do you want to be a poet?" And he says, "Because I love the play of the word, the language." Then you know he's going to be a poet.