i'm also an audio nerd and although I do everything in the box when i'm recording, i agree completely that it's way easier to use outboard stuff for this case. i had an analog channel strip but decided to try one of the very inexpensive behringer uv1 strips with an integrated usb interface and it's been great, the gate and compressor work well, and i have a rolls audio parametric eq in the effects loop to high pass and de-essing.
since it's convenient to use the headphone out on the uv1 for the headset, i do use a limiter plugin in Rogue Amoeba Soundsource to compress the output from the conferencing software we use, it's nice being able to do that per-application since i listen to music through the headset a lot and don't want to have to take the limiter in and out.
analog headsets are so much less annoying and flexible, huge fan
I've struggled to teach this to jazz students, I know when I was a kid I read the same kind of advice in guitar magazines, and while I don't think that the theory-first advocates are malevolent, I think most of them were not serious jazz players and were getting paid to deliver a monthly column.
The analogy I've tried to use in teaching is that learning to play jazz is like being a comedian; when your skills are at their peak you're going to be inventing jokes regularly, but in the decades before you get there, you're going to be delivering other people's jokes putting a little of your own spin on them. The delivery matters a lot, and like good jazz playing it's pretty much impossible to write a book called "How to be Funny" that wouldn't just be an academic analysis rather than an instructional guide.
I struggled with jazz for the reasons I've alluded to above, and it wasn't until I started studying with a teacher who just had me memorize hundreds of standards that I got my playing together. We definitely talked about the technical bits of what was happening in the tunes, but those were really just interesting observations; repeatedly playing them in a group setting after woodshedding them at home between lessons, then taking a lot of solos was really what made it happen.
It really makes me happy to see up-and-coming killer players like Patrick Bartley espousing this same approach. Yeah it means you're going to spend thousands of hours memorizing tunes, but if that's not fun then playing jazz isn't going to be fun either.
As I alluded to in another comment, you are fighting upstream against the dominant Western conception of learning. But any musician I have ever met worth their salt knows the importance of learning songs and transcribing their favorite artists.
I think one of the causes is that some people struggle for years with music and then one day they learn a bit of theory and they experience a moment of enlightenment. Suddenly, all of their confusion is dispelled and what was once difficult is clear as day. They then think "if I had only know this years ago I wouldn't have struggled!". But they are wrong. It was the years of struggle that helped them understand the theory, not the other way around.
It's the "wax on, wax off" of Karate Kid and the wise old Mr. Miyagi.
I read a music theory book from the 1800s and in the first chapter the author stated that while he endeavored to write useful theory to help students they must realize that if some composition they write follows all of his rules but sounds bad, it is bad. And if they write a composition that breaks his rules but it sounds good then it is good. These are old, old ideas that we re-learn over and over.
I’ve played mostly hard rock and metal, and am often the only band member with actual music theory knowledge (as the drummer, no less!). I’ve watched a number of bandmates resist learning any music theory because, “I don’t want to have to play by the rules” - as if they were some 16th century court composer.
Inevitably, they end up reinventing the wheel, in order to understand music they learn or write and then share with other musicians.
I think one thing that gets lost is that beyond being rules (more like observations these days) about how to write music, music theory is also a language that allows you to communicate with other musicians.
Good analogy. There's a flip side to it though. You can be a great comedian on the level of individual jokes, or short bits, but be unable to write a story. And you can be a great jazz musician when it comes to soloing, but be unable to write a song. Stan Getz was a famous example. So yeah, learning jazz by imitation and immersion (as one learns a language) is very cool: learning these hundreds of songs will most certainly teach you how to solo. But it won't teach you how to make a song. Not nearly as reliably. It needs something else, I don't know what.
I don't know quite what it is either, but I do know with certainty because it was my own experience that the act of inventing songs doesn't require any kind of experience at all, as some of my earliest memories as a child were riding in a car with a radio playing in the background, having some melody occur to me, and then being unable to get it out of my head. They weren't novel because they wouldn't have come to me had I not been idly listening to a lot of music, but neither were they just a slight variation on what I had been listening to.
I am by no means a prolific or genius songwriter, nobody would know any of my music, and I don't believe that any of it is particularly impressive. However I've always found the fact that it happened spontaneously way to be a source of wonder, and as I've aged as a musician its delightful to see the endless stream of new songs and that it doesn't seem to matter whether you're a prodigy when it comes to writing songs that impact listeners. It seems to be a fundamental aspect of the human experience.
I grew up in this area of West Virginia, it's such a crazy thing that a community of really amazing scientists are nestled in the middle of this incredibly rural area. It's really neat to see the old blue trucks if you take the tour, and the Cass Scenic Railroad is just nearby and gives a really beautiful view of the telescope array. The National Youth Science Academy Camp is also surprisingly located nearby, it was wild as a kid knowing that this batch of future scientists were flying in from all over the country and once I learned of it I wished I'd studied a bit harder. Such a beautiful, strange place.
If you consider the idea of music as language, genre as somewhat akin to regional dialects, and performance as akin to a recitation in that dialect to an audience, then the most fundamental prerequisite for composition is having something to say.
My background is in jazz, and often I encounter beginner students who have learned enough about the pedagogical aspects of music to know about a thing called theory and that there is virtue in knowing it, but they also mistakenly believe that an knowledge of theory is sort of the fountain from which ideas flow, which is not the case. For example to learn to compose and improvise in the jazz idiom, the way I learned it, the way essentially all the people I play with learned it, and how I teach my own students to do it is to internalize a great deal of music in your chosen style by players whose style resonates most with you. Memorizing changes, transcribing recorded parts on whatever instrument you enjoy playing, and so on. After doing this for a while you will start to develop a vocabulary of musical phrases which will occur to you spontaneously as a reaction to some kind of prompt, for example in jazz there are common sequences of chords that occur frequently in compositions, and by absorbing thousands of melodic phrases that occur over those changes you will have an innate idea of what you like to hear over them without having to think analytically about the relationships between tones and scales. You can certainly apply knowledge of theory to expand on your ideas in an analytical way, but the intuitive part needs to be developed first.
Many beginners balk at this idea because they like the idea of having purely new ideas, and you can certainly do music however you want, but I think ultimately most composers/performers want audiences to hear their work and there is a tacit relationship between the two; the audiences have an opinion about what sounds good and if your compositions don't sound like the genre of music they enjoy, neither of you are likely to be happy. I like to use the analogy of stand-up comedy; your jokes may crack you up but people don't want to watch somebody else laughing, so you have to meet them partway.
So having said all this, I think step one is to develop some opinions about what you think sounds good. Make a list of your favorite recordings and your favorite performances on those recordings and learn to reproduce them somehow. If you don't play an instrument, figure out how to sequence the changes, or noodle out a melody on the piano (if you don't play any instruments the piano is the smart choice, since it's like knowing how to type if you're a musician). The act of making these reproductions will tune your ear to hear chord qualities that might not be apparent to you until you try to recreate them, and relationships between notes in a melody and the supporting changes that you missed when just listening.
During that process, take time to just play. Undirected noodling on an instrument is the way you develop an intuition about where the notes you like live in relation to each other, and bumping around the space of notes on an instrument is a great way to learn.
At some point during those play sessions, you'll have an idea that'll get stuck in your head. Capture those ideas, save them, and then when you have a few you like, its time to start working on the composition process, either by notating/sequencing them with software instruments, or making a recording of mixed live/sequenced performance. I generally use Garage Band for making demos that I give to people I perform tunes with, some of my friends love Ableton Live, and the friends I know who do arranging for a living typically use something like Sibelius to produce scores.
I think that after you've made a few compositions of your own, if you decide you want to continue, its not a bad idea to take an introductory course on harmony to help develop your ear so that you can identify sounds that you like, but I think its best to do that after you have started to develop an intuitive sense of what sounds good, since that's the skill thats going to determine whether you make something that is interesting and not built from a formula.
At risk of sounding argumentative, another way of looking at this I think is that the community of people in the US who have known only a facts-first approach to reality are now discovering the size of the community of people whose worldview is effectively tribal. I was raised in a very rural community and many of my most vivid memories are of members of my extended family recounting stories which I now know are urban legends, joking knowingly with one another about how so called experts in far-off cities were confused, and cautionary tales about the horrible things that members of other races would do to you. You can imagine how confusing it was then to go off to college and then to see the world and meet people and discover how much of the mythology I'd absorbed was no more than that.
The bulk of the people I've described had very little interaction with the world outside the area where they lived, and the only way they were likely to interact with someone from the facts-first community was via a letter to the editor of some magazine (which might not be published), or if an outsider came to visit, in which case politeness might avoid a confrontation.
Social media introduced these two groups to each other, each group thinks the other is comprised of fools and neither is shy about saying so, and here we are. In my own family, I have yet to see a case in which a member of the tribal knowledge community was moved by an argument from a member of the facts-first community; their belief structure seems to ossify at around pubescence and compromising on it in any way would risk a loss of status in that community.
I take some comfort in believing that we have not been plopped into a post-truth reality, but rather that providing the internet to rural tribal communities was rather like switching on a light and discovering what things had been hiding before our eyes in the dark. I think its also a generational issue because the difference between my old relatives and their offspring my childrens' age is nearly as stark as the difference between the facts-first and tribal-knowledge communities on the whole. While it sucks that this post-truth era will be with us for a while I'm hopeful that the same internet access that led to this schism will also allow at least some of the kids who grew up like I did to be skeptical about tribal knowledge from a younger age. However you might also argue that now the segment of the entire population who are susceptible to misinformation will be poisoned in the same way I was.
Anyhow thanks for your comment; reading it made me stop to think about something that had been bothering me a great deal lately and it was helpful writing this response.
The closing on the sale of my house in Quincy was that day. I was moving far away immediately after the closing, had my car packed with most of my worldly goods and all I had left to do was to drive up to Reading to sign the papers. Not long before I needed to leave, I happened to check boston.com and saw that 93 was closed, and figured I was doomed as it had been tough selling the house.
As it happened both parties arrived way late, and the deal went down. I'm still a little salty about it after all this time.
i wouldn't sweat it. if orch-or works out it won't matter who was on board early. sometimes i think that a group of people guess that some theory is correct before some clever academics figure out how to prove it in a manner that satisfies the community of science, but without that rigor we'd be buried in bullshit.
reply