5 ms·

I am a professional musician and composer and I never, ever, start from prepackaged drum loops or anything of the sort. One of the super fun and satisfying thi

I am a professional musician and composer and I never, ever, start from prepackaged drum loops or anything of the sort. One of the super fun and satisfying things of being a competent musician is how quickly I can create basic components for my compositions. That said, musicians tend to have a mental library of ideas and techniques they can employ to flesh out an inspired idea. I also have a library of partially finished unused themes and ideas that I wrote, which I can bring in to start or expand a piece I'm working on. So a library of my own partially finished writings would be far more analogous to how I work than a bunch of anecdotes and quotes from other people. The anecdotes and quotes would be more analogous to other people's music which I've heard and internalized, but would never literally reference while I am composing. The last thing I want is those sorts of cut and paste elements to come anywhere near my work.

zupreme 10y ago
Have you considered the possibility that you're actually "copying and pasting" at the subconscious level? For example when you "create" a drum pattern are you really "creating" it or are you simply remembering a drum pattern you've heard or played before that works well with the song or composition you are making. As you probably know brand new drum patterns are rare. Most of the time the specific instrument choices change but the pattern itself is familiar.
- scarecrowbob 10y ago
  To a certain extent, it's not possible to produce something that is both recognizable as "music" (much less as a specific genera) and which is devoid of pre-existing patterns, and I don't think that's what the parent post is claiming. I'm not familiar with the parent poster's music, but I am pretty sure that "create basic components" refers specifically to that "copy-and-paste" from a concept into a more tangible form (like a drum loop). So it seems like they have considered this idea explicitly. I'm not a pro, though I have to play a 3-hour solo gig tonight on piano, and most of it will be improvising ornaments over blues and jazz tunes that I already know. One of the problems in this gig is that it becomes very easy to fall into rather generic patterns. That repetition is a real short-coming of a lot of so-called original music that I, and many musicians I have heard and work with run into: a lot of original music is a bad copy of something that already exists. However, in the process of re-implementing existing stuff (as opposed to consciously reworking a tune, re-performing a piece, or literally resampling audio) I tend to make mistakes, and I find that to be a good source of actually 'new' music. I can't say for sure if my understanding is correct, but that's how I understand the parent poster's motivation. Of course, I'm not a "composer" and I often have to create a whole lot of music without a lot of prep, so I am perhapshappier to have a large-ish library of known things in my brain that I can directly quote when I play.
  - somedumbguy22 10y ago
    I agree with your statements about the parent's train of thought. I also compose music from time to time, and starting off a piece boils down to three methods (taking drums for example): 1. Copy/pasting a drum loop 2. Writing your own drum loop, although it's most likely a common pattern from the genre of music you intend to create 3. A hybrid of the two, meaning you paste in a drum loop and chop it up to make something unique out of it. The parent was stating that they don't do the first option, and prefer the second choice. For example, if he/she wanted to make a drum and bass track, they might write their own version of the amen break [1], rather than use a sample from someone else [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- whiddershins 10y ago
  In an ideal world I would like to assert that rather than mentally "copy and pasting" what I've done is deconstructed and analyzed why a certain existing musical construct creates the effect it does. A hip-hop beat from a certain time period, for example, has certain characteristic quntization and accent patterns that makes it recognizable as from a certain genre. So my brain hopefully has a huge library of meta-constructs and analysis that I can draw upon to make elements with a controlled amount of familiarity. Yes, similar in some ways to copy and paste, but really more like understanding meta-templates. Ideally. :-) edit Some people are incredible at recreating things they heard accurately. They can do stuff I can't even pretend to attempt. That isn't my forte. Even if I try to recreate something I heard precisely, there is huge error in the reproduction process and I end up with what I would have done. A Dorian melody becomes harmonic minor. A hi hat pattern becomes a shaker with twice as many hits. Etc.
  - scarecrowbob 10y ago
    "In an ideal world I would like to assert that rather than mentally "copy and pasting" what I've done is deconstructed and analyzed why a certain existing musical construct creates the effect it does." Well, I dunno. The limitation is that most audiences have little or no context for this kind of work. On one hand, the audience that is aware of the form usually has little tolerance for messing with the form outside of kitschy appropriations. Think about how a bluegrass band can play purple rain in their idiom, but if they replaced the upright bass with a synth their audiences would (and I say this from experience) probably not be very interested. On the other hand, the kind of audience that is okay with that kind of recontextualization usually hasn't invested a lot of time in learning event the generic conventions. Like, when I didn't know how to play cello, I didn't really appreciate how cheesy and plain most pop music was, until I tried to find some arrangements of pop music for string quartet and realized that a lot of elton john stuff arranged for string quartet is super boring musically... prior to playing cello I would have thought it was kind of cool to change contexts, now I just want to play Bach as well as I can pull it off. "Some people are incredible at recreating things they heard accurately." IME, this is a learned and not inborn, though I think intelligence helps. The combination of having to quickly apply those 'constructs' to specific music in performance help, as does expanding number of constructs.... at some point most folks musicians playing by ear just thinking some version of "okay, that's plastic jesus, melody and all, done really slow, but then the bridge is the stormy monday turn around".
edgarvaldes 10y ago
There is anecdota about classical composers playing other pieces (often from another musician) then developing variations and improvisation, then catching inspiration and creating their own new music.
- 0898 10y ago
  I think this is known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia Paul McCartney dreamt the melody for 'Yesterday'. He was sure he'd heard it before, so he went around for weeks humming the tune to people, before deciding it was original. (I just found this story in my swipe file!)
6stringmerc 10y ago
Very well stated and I completely back your perspective both as an occasional user of Royalty Free Loops & 100% From Scratch Production approaches. The tools now are so powerful to create new sounds - Figure by Propellerhead, Garageband, etc - that it seems just dishonest to argue sampling is a "necessary" function of art. Maybe it was for the Beastie Boys, but not for some up and comer with even basic access to a phone. Really, it's that low-level and accessible now. Fundamentally I dislike people claiming that jacking a sample, adding an MPC hip-hop beat over the top, and then rapping / adding vocals is an impressive accomplishment. There's an artistic process in there, sure, but it's built on the skill of others fundamentally. Not a popular opinion, but I'm also able to compose without lifting other people's stuff to start with...because, well, 20+ years of practice and effort is a lot more investment than buying a turntable, records, MPC & a mic.

zupreme 10y ago

Have you considered the possibility that you're actually "copying and pasting" at the subconscious level? For example when you "create" a drum pattern are you really "creating" it or are you simply remembering a drum pattern you've heard or played before that works well with the song or composition you are making. As you probably know brand new drum patterns are rare. Most of the time the specific instrument choices change but the pattern itself is familiar.

scarecrowbob 10y ago
To a certain extent, it's not possible to produce something that is both recognizable as "music" (much less as a specific genera) and which is devoid of pre-existing patterns, and I don't think that's what the parent post is claiming. I'm not familiar with the parent poster's music, but I am pretty sure that "create basic components" refers specifically to that "copy-and-paste" from a concept into a more tangible form (like a drum loop). So it seems like they have considered this idea explicitly. I'm not a pro, though I have to play a 3-hour solo gig tonight on piano, and most of it will be improvising ornaments over blues and jazz tunes that I already know. One of the problems in this gig is that it becomes very easy to fall into rather generic patterns. That repetition is a real short-coming of a lot of so-called original music that I, and many musicians I have heard and work with run into: a lot of original music is a bad copy of something that already exists. However, in the process of re-implementing existing stuff (as opposed to consciously reworking a tune, re-performing a piece, or literally resampling audio) I tend to make mistakes, and I find that to be a good source of actually 'new' music. I can't say for sure if my understanding is correct, but that's how I understand the parent poster's motivation. Of course, I'm not a "composer" and I often have to create a whole lot of music without a lot of prep, so I am perhapshappier to have a large-ish library of known things in my brain that I can directly quote when I play.
- somedumbguy22 10y ago
  I agree with your statements about the parent's train of thought. I also compose music from time to time, and starting off a piece boils down to three methods (taking drums for example): 1. Copy/pasting a drum loop 2. Writing your own drum loop, although it's most likely a common pattern from the genre of music you intend to create 3. A hybrid of the two, meaning you paste in a drum loop and chop it up to make something unique out of it. The parent was stating that they don't do the first option, and prefer the second choice. For example, if he/she wanted to make a drum and bass track, they might write their own version of the amen break [1], rather than use a sample from someone else [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
whiddershins 10y ago
In an ideal world I would like to assert that rather than mentally "copy and pasting" what I've done is deconstructed and analyzed why a certain existing musical construct creates the effect it does. A hip-hop beat from a certain time period, for example, has certain characteristic quntization and accent patterns that makes it recognizable as from a certain genre. So my brain hopefully has a huge library of meta-constructs and analysis that I can draw upon to make elements with a controlled amount of familiarity. Yes, similar in some ways to copy and paste, but really more like understanding meta-templates. Ideally. :-) edit Some people are incredible at recreating things they heard accurately. They can do stuff I can't even pretend to attempt. That isn't my forte. Even if I try to recreate something I heard precisely, there is huge error in the reproduction process and I end up with what I would have done. A Dorian melody becomes harmonic minor. A hi hat pattern becomes a shaker with twice as many hits. Etc.
- scarecrowbob 10y ago
  "In an ideal world I would like to assert that rather than mentally "copy and pasting" what I've done is deconstructed and analyzed why a certain existing musical construct creates the effect it does." Well, I dunno. The limitation is that most audiences have little or no context for this kind of work. On one hand, the audience that is aware of the form usually has little tolerance for messing with the form outside of kitschy appropriations. Think about how a bluegrass band can play purple rain in their idiom, but if they replaced the upright bass with a synth their audiences would (and I say this from experience) probably not be very interested. On the other hand, the kind of audience that is okay with that kind of recontextualization usually hasn't invested a lot of time in learning event the generic conventions. Like, when I didn't know how to play cello, I didn't really appreciate how cheesy and plain most pop music was, until I tried to find some arrangements of pop music for string quartet and realized that a lot of elton john stuff arranged for string quartet is super boring musically... prior to playing cello I would have thought it was kind of cool to change contexts, now I just want to play Bach as well as I can pull it off. "Some people are incredible at recreating things they heard accurately." IME, this is a learned and not inborn, though I think intelligence helps. The combination of having to quickly apply those 'constructs' to specific music in performance help, as does expanding number of constructs.... at some point most folks musicians playing by ear just thinking some version of "okay, that's plastic jesus, melody and all, done really slow, but then the bridge is the stormy monday turn around".

edgarvaldes 10y ago

There is anecdota about classical composers playing other pieces (often from another musician) then developing variations and improvisation, then catching inspiration and creating their own new music.

0898 10y ago
I think this is known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia Paul McCartney dreamt the melody for 'Yesterday'. He was sure he'd heard it before, so he went around for weeks humming the tune to people, before deciding it was original. (I just found this story in my swipe file!)

6stringmerc 10y ago

Very well stated and I completely back your perspective both as an occasional user of Royalty Free Loops & 100% From Scratch Production approaches. The tools now are so powerful to create new sounds - Figure by Propellerhead, Garageband, etc - that it seems just dishonest to argue sampling is a "necessary" function of art. Maybe it was for the Beastie Boys, but not for some up and comer with even basic access to a phone. Really, it's that low-level and accessible now. Fundamentally I dislike people claiming that jacking a sample, adding an MPC hip-hop beat over the top, and then rapping / adding vocals is an impressive accomplishment. There's an artistic process in there, sure, but it's built on the skill of others fundamentally. Not a popular opinion, but I'm also able to compose without lifting other people's stuff to start with...because, well, 20+ years of practice and effort is a lot more investment than buying a turntable, records, MPC & a mic.