Audiobus: Use your music apps together.
What is Audiobus? — Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.
Download on the App StoreAudiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.
Do you lack technical skill, knowledge of theory, etc.?
I certainly do & go thru many a box of kleenex reliving my wasted years, but I came upon this Brian Eno interview this morning and it's like my dead grandmother cone back to hug me & promise that everything is OK.
http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/interviews/musn79.html
Comments
I think Eno is the exception to the rule, though. Hans-Joachim Roedelius from Cluster and producer Conny Plank also rank highly up there. However, most people with no theory or technical skill just keep on reinventing the wheel. I think electronic music has already given us enough pre-school level melodies. A little knowledge and skill would go a long way to making more interesting music. I certainly wished I'd had better music training as a kid...
I wish I had better Kleenex.
A curse upon anyone who shatters the pretty little delusion that reading that interview has created for me. They are few and far between, be charitable.
Hey, I'm not saying you aren't one of the exceptions.
Anyway, great article. Another Green World is a classic. In my top 10.
I love Cluster and J.R's stuff.
For some types of music a good formal knowledge in theory and technique is probably going to be essential, for others though it can almost be a hindrance.
Just enjoy playing, there are no rules.
Rules are only a hinderence if you let them be. When I'm composing with synths and effects creating soundscapes I don't think about harmony and scales I just use my ears. But when I'm on the guitar knowledge of chords and scales goes a long way to opening up the instruments cababilities. Horses for courses.
Eno had an excellelent ear and knew how to find the right notes. Most importantly he listened. He took all his influences and figured out a way to make them his own.
I'm a big fan of Brian Eno, but I always felt he was a tad disingenuous when he said he isn't a musician. He's a talented singer and a 'natural' musican. He isn't a 'non-musician' or a 'muso', but somewhere in between.
It was just very liberating for me to read that today (and I've been googling other interviews all day), because my brain shuts down as soon as I'm confronted with THEORY in the textbook sense. I needed a little validation from a pro that it is possible to go it alone in the void (or whatever).
I'm not building a house though, so I don't have to worry about badly constructed chords collapsing onto my head.
I like new things, surprises, strange noises, abstract concepts, boundary pushing, meaning, energy and passion.
I've got nothing against technique and craft, but I don't obey rules, I break them. If everyone followed the rules they'd be no new stuff, just regurgitated hymns.
I did, and what I said still applies. Many of the great musical innovations over the last 60 years have come from musicians who didn't know the rules in the first place, they just did their thing.
The ‘theory’ behind conventional ‘music’ is horrendously inelegant, and takes far too long to learn, and at no time does any of it even begin to make any more sense — which is usually an indication of a flawed theoretical basis. My advice is to reject music theory, don’t learn it, because it clearly doesn’t culminate in understanding. Anyone can see that it’ll be too much work to make the slightest sense out of. It’s simply a red herring — it seems like a workable model that provides advantages, but it’s basically an illusion.
I would say learn to compose, that is when and where to make musical shifts and changes. This can be learned BOTH formally and informally, and I personally believe that either way takes a lot of going at it for it to make sense.
Like everything, it depends what/how/why you're doing. When I was in more traditional type bands, for example the Eastern European/Irish jig combo I played mandolin in, then being able to read music would have cut the time it took me to play some of the tunes properly. In the avant space-rock noise drug band I pulled tortured squonks out of an MS20 for, whilst covered in mud, paint and dreams, then not knowing anything at all was a definite advantage.
Hafta say I fancy a night out with the former more, but might prefer to play in the latter
There's a nice word for 'drawing a non-existant correlation' and I'd like to use it now but I can't remember it. I'd say most people, training or otherwise, keep on reinventing the wheel.
It seems to me, correct me if I am off-base, that making music consists of three mechanisms: your ear; pattern recogition; and music theory. I am not talking about reading music notion, or tabs; I am talking about creating music through performing; its what you bring to the table without learning someone elses song by wrote.
On the guitar or keyboards, you can learn quite a lot of musical expression by picking up patterns from riffs and licks, without learning musical theory. If you have a good ear, you can expand on it; finding out which notes belong and don't belong to a particular scale. Then, muscle-memorizing the patterns in various keys.
I am one of those musicians who cannot read music notation or tabs, what so ever. I studied a lot of music theory on my own (scale modes, harmony, composition); but picked up most of my musical chops by listening, and practicing patterns on my instrument, which is mostly keyboards, and some guitar. If I were to learn how to read music, at this late stage, I could become a better musician; but I am content to be an advanced amateur, mostly for my own pleasure of doing multitrack recordings, and giving friends and family copies of my CDs. I play with other musicians occasionally for fun; definitely not for profit.
Interesting thread. Technical skill in music making or music technology is something we develop and polish to varying degrees in an ongoing process. Whether it be playing an instrument, writing music, singing, working with midi or audio streams, recording and mastering, or mangling sound molecules in some way with some unsuspecting device.
Along the way we learned to formalize the process. That led to music notation, music theory, and all manner of documentation on the subject. That formal process is not as much a set of rules but rather a starting point if you choose. The value of that formal process for music is that it allows others to hopefully perform or interpret your music. Even if that music makes new rules;)
The world of musical notation and music theory is always advancing. It is fascinating to read a Zappa orchestral score like Pedro's Dowery and see notation for micro-tonal technique or notation for a musician to play "the highest possible sound" on the instrument. Modern day analog and digital instruments are expanding and extending music notation and theory such that others can experience and perform your music rather than just listening to a recording.
This is a fine article related to this thread.
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/04/music-notation-what-is-it-good-for-how-about-humans/
Zappa would have loved the iPad, if he was starting out now it's unlikely he'd have bothered with the score writing and orchestra hiring that was the bane of his life. A decent MIDI controller, a few synths, Auria and he'd have been in compositional heaven.
@monzo Which is where he may well be now, depending on the way the mop flops etc.
Well, I should clarify. When I said that we should reject music theory, the motivation behind that is because I believe that almost all of music theory is cultural rather than universal, and that all possibilities are possible with sound generation, and what classifies as music is again a norm. I’m convinced there are unheard musics, but a lot of it won't be acceptable, either as music nor as compulsive to consume. However, that’s more due to what we’re used to rather than any actual sonic rules or biology of the hearers. If we could hear the commonplace music of many many generations hence, we may not consider that as valid music at all, but they would. We won’t get there by following rules, though.
Any possible sound can be made. We know that. So make a sound. Then comes the philosophy part. When should the sound end? What happens after that? Another sound, or no sound? The same sound, or a different sound? How long for? After that second sound, what should the third one be (if there is one)? Should it be like the second, or the first, or different again?
The deviation in frequency follows three options: same frequency as before; lower; or higher. What if they’re all the same? Is that music? If the frequencies vary, how much of a distance or interval should they be? Does it matter? Probably not, as long as there’s a general pattern of ‘same as / lower than / higher than’, then it’s music, because music does that. Does it repeat? Do the repeated bits repeat? Do the repeated repeated bits repeat? Do the gaps repeat, etc? What if the music is all gaps? Is humming music? Is drumming music? Is coughing singing? Why do we laugh? Now that’s a biological universal — but music theory (harmony, rhythm, scales, chords) certainly isn’t.
I know a lot of theory like Scales, modes, chord substitutions, altered dominants, tritones...etc a lot of which I haven’t yet utilised in a musical context, because it hasn’t yet become second nature. Sometimes I wonder if it ever will, but that’s down to practice or in my case the lack of.
Learning theory is in my nature and I love it. But in my musical journey I’ve played music with people who knew diddly-squat and couldn’t play a particular chord if you asked them to; for instance E7#9 would be met with a blank stare yet, “play the Hendrix chord!” and then they might get it. Yet it didn’t matter, they could often play, intuitively just using their ears and with patterns they’d developed. Often they played with more freedom and groove than me.
So I have no answer, I think a certain amount of theory is good for me so that I can notate ideas and transcribe. But you can go from the extremes of no-theory to intense theory with examples like ’The Sex Pistols’ to ‘Frank Zappa’ and both are valid.
I personally like learning theory and if you don’t enjoy that aspect don’t let it stop you creating. Just try to live in the moment and enjoy the sound you make or in the case of Cage’s 4’33” the lack of sound.
PS. Enjoyed reading your post @u0421793 it’s like ‘musical existentialism’ and agree with your view. We tend to view music through a Western prism of tone and harmony and tempered tuning that fits only one type of system but it’s not the be-all and end-all.
I've never really been into his music but he's clearly an inventive man. Some people have an a natural gift or aptitude for music that people respond to like Kate Bush, i think she had formal training but she's a once in a generation artist like Bowie.
Check this out from Mike Monday, he has an oxford music degree and successful music career and went into coaching, he's written a bunch of free guides on how to get the most out of yourself based on his experience and brings some ideas you might not think of, the main focus being on getting stuff finished even if it sucks.
http://startnowfinishfast.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/7-Steps-Every-Successful-Music-Producer-Needs-To-Take.pdf
And full disclosure i took his SNFF course and it's the best thing i ever did.
Frank would certainly have enjoyed the iPad:) Composition heaven indeed! I believe he still would be writing music on paper for any sound generator including electronic instruments. He wrote scores on paper up to the last days. Probably would use an ipad for that too. The orchestra was not the bane as much as the musicians unions and the drunken brass section of the LSO.;) After that experience he spent enormous sums of money on his Synclavier system and personally oversaw the recordings of his sound libraries (imagine the sax player being asked to make every conceivable squeek,squawk,belch,noise possible as will as the traditional sax sounds). In the long run he did not release much material from the Synclavier (Jazz from Hell most notable).
One of his last projects to be performed was the Yellow Shark piece performed by the Ensemble Modern, complete with notation to the contra-basoonist to play a certain passage with their expensive instrument immersed in water in one of those glass coffee carafes one sees in diners.
Frank would never have given up notation...it's what got him into music in the first place before he even understood what it was! If all your machines died and you had to sell all your instruments you'd still be able to compose with just a pen and paper. That's the beauty of it. Unfortunately I don't have that talent and rely on tech to compile my compositions.
Theory and notation became important when music became more complex with large ensembles - it's a means of communicating ideas to other musicians, a common language, not a straight jacket.
That was a well stated clarification! I will clarify as well:) I should state that I myself hate the term music theory. Discussing that term always leads down a slippery slope since it is laden with one's cultural tradition of scale, harmony, rhythm, meter and such. Ultimately I am a fan of the various music notation systems that have been devised across many cultures. Much of what you mention in terms of frequency, pattern, repeat, sound, silence, can be notated in these systems. The choices are ultimately up to the composer of the "music" and the notation systems themselves do not impose rules.
A composer is a guy who goes around forcing his will on unsuspecting air molecules, often with the assistance of unsuspecting musicians. -Frank Zappa
It helps to have some system in place to get that assistance:)
i often imagine a gridless future in a mild state of panic. i will have literally no skills left if the power goes out for good. so yes maybe i should learn notation to prepare for an ipadless post-apocalyptic tomorrow. at least i have some bongos...
A ton of terrible music has been made the same way. Learning will never hurt anyone, you can still make whatever you want even as a theory wizard.
I believe there have been some amazing innate innovators (Mozart, Jaco Pastorius, Brian Wilson, etc), but for each one of those geniuses there's millions like me...
Making music is a lot like cooking. A well done steak can be a major acomplishment for a first time cook, but it doesn't compare to a masterchef's medium rare.
Technical skills and knowledge of music theory are overrated.
so you know how to play 4 chords in a progression, so you can play it fast, well does that make it have more emotional impact?
No.
I think it's very simple, if the music picks you up and takes you to places none of this stuff matters, who cares if it's some clever counterpoint or technically challenging ...
I had years and years of piano lessons, now it would take me forever to play something from paper, I could still play Beethoven from memory if I had to, but that isn't creative - a well trained monkey could do that ...
Btw. nice to see hyperreal still exists