Phunt Phunt

[Tonamel]

My formal musical training is next to none.

Yet you claim to be able to do signifigant analyses of complex music.

Are you familiar with the old robot saying "Does Not Compute"?

Now for a question that seems hostile, but is actually quite honest:

Why do you participate in SongFight? Most of the people here are clearly not your audience, so why bother sticking around? Why not find a group of people who do work similar to your own, so that you can not only have a more appreciative audience, but get advice from people who are more qualified on the subject than we are? Interesting as these discussions can be, I can only go so far, as my personal style leans more towards Autechre, Manitoba, and Boards of Canada than the more hardcore experimentation you do.

As for the listening, no problem. I reccomend starting with the oldest, and working your way to the modern ones, just to get a sense of how things changed.

[Mogosagatai]

My formal musical training is next to none.

Yet you claim to be able to do signifigant analyses of complex music.

Let's say I'm a very selective learner. I learn about things that interest me, on my own time outside of class. (I learn things in class sometimes too, when it interests me.) No one has ever formally trained me in music theory, is what I should have said. I'm not really a fan of talking about myself, but you asked.

Why do you participate in SongFight?

Songfight is an amazing place! I don't know of any better music-based communities out there, and I doubt there are any. We're not gonna stop submitting what we think is awesome music just because a lot of people don't like it. This isn't SongLove, you know! I mean, why do <i>you</i> do it? If, every week, one person other than Egg and I likes the song, then it wasn't a waste of time.

Go ahead, make the joke. Johnny, Erik, Blue, Danno? Anyone?

WHAT IF NO ONE LIKES IT?? LIKE ALL THE TIME! /burn

[erik]

MU

[Egg]

Johnny Cashpoint:
I haven't actually followed your suggestion with pen and paper yet. But I have been doing something similar when I review. I notice that I'm complaining about things in the music of others that I often find and try to fix in my own music... but a lot of the time, it feels like there's a difference. Because I'm like "well, I wish the drums were real because this song needs to be badass" or something and I look at my songs and I don't have songs that need to be badass... but ya, I'll try making a big ol' list and I imagine I'll find a lot of things to work in my own songs... but this feeling I have that there's no direct comparison sometimes is connected to

Tonamel:
I think you're saying that I don't have the tools to make artistic songs. And I know you're not posting to intentionally annoy me and I even assume you're being helpful But, I have ears. And I feel like that's enough to hear Knee Play 5 and be like "wow!" And if I had to write an essay, it would be very clumsy since I don't really have the vocabulary to express my thoughts which are probably very simplistic compared to somebody who has devoted a huge amount of themselves to learning how to talk about music. But I feel like I can still like Knee Play 5 or any song without being super well-read or knowing how modern compositions started diverging from strict forms and whatnot. I mean, I'd enjoy getting into a conversation about that with somebody, but I don't know if I'd shut the door on creativity at the point where a person doesn't know the difference between a Rondo and Rando. And then if I can appreciate music without a formal education, I can also create it... even if just by making it, listening to it and throwing it out if it's no good. It might surprise people that I do that a lot.

But the fact is that what you're saying isn't way out of left field. My work isn't affecting everybody and maybe it would affect more people positively if I read up. Is that what people have to do to write artistic songs?

I think all songs are artistic. Some are bad, but it's hard for me to think of any intentionally juxtaposed objects as something other than art. So as soon as it's audio, I tend to feel like it's music. And then once the creator intentionally takes into account elements of pitch, volume, rhythm (which is already mentioned as the medium is timebased), timber, structure (which I tend to think of as the transitions between these elements) and other sonic qualities, I feel like it's a song. But whatever you call it, as soon as it's intentional, it can be viewed as art, right? And I feel like you're telling me that if I wrote more conventional songs, I wouldn't need training because they're not as artistic. Is that your point? I don't know. I feel like songwriters make choices. And some of those choices are dictated by guidelines or conventions. A lot of them even. Even my own choices. My guidelines might be personal and lack centuries of language to describe them, but they're still akin to normal conventions. ... rambly.. rambly.. I'm trying to figure out if anybody thinks there are ways to write songs that involve honing those personal guidelines. Just using your ears and whatever falls under your hands? And to sort of think of ways to use those limitations interestingly... Is that an okay way to write songs? Isn't it sort of the only way?

Assorted other stuff:
Sorry if it seems like this thread is fishing for compliments. Drew, adjust your tone accordingly. Uh, I think everybody is really raising the bar on this discussion and being super reasonable in this thread. And sometimes when people suggest something to help us, it seems like we have reservations because we're not sure that it will be helpful. But I'm definitely looking at everything really openly and I'm the one who started this thread to sort of make a resource that all the kids who find themselves in my spot can look at on songfight.. and I think that's a large number since my spot is "I like music and have finite formalized training. What are ways to capitalize on this?" (finite for me is just far more extreme) and it's looking largely like "There are no ways to capitalize on this!".. hehe .. But I don't write music accidentally. I use the rules accidentally. They're all the right notes in that they're the ones I wanted to use. Every now and then a songwriter with no formal training will write a melody that follows conventional wisdom and that's normal since conventional wisdom was derived by making music. Right?

It's an extreme minority that is saying, "Egg, you are just here to annoy us." Most of the message seems to be more "Egg, why don't you get better and then come back." If Phunt Your Friends submitted songs like our Left at the Mortuary every week, would people still be saying that? Should songwriters have diplomas or big personal libraries before they try to challenge themselves? Should I sit on all my recordings and not make use of the wonderful community here to get feedback? All honest questions! But I can't promise that Mogosagatai won't get catty if you try helping us. We're conditioned to be afraid of zings from around every corner.

Oh and pleasantess:
How can a songwriter strive for a pleasant sound without conventional wisdom? Do you really think PYF songs are all unpleasant sounding? Mostly? I read a review of TMK this week that said it was great but too bad that the song parts are in different keys. hehe, if it sounds great than that means those keys work together in the song, right? Maybe that adds to the backandforth choppiness of the piece and thus the pleasantness? hmm.. I know it's really demanding to ask people to respond about Phunt songs specifically and I don't expect it of anybody, but that's what makes it so nice when somebody does come forward and say like "Egg, your Tigerlily harp is objectively unlistenable" or "You are the bizz!"

edit: in light of posts typed while I was typing this one: ya, SF rocks. We met Luke Henley who is now a great friend. Plus we've gotten to work with Boltoph, THC, Caravan Ray, WreckdoM, and again Luke. That's amazing! Upcoming pieces with 4 artists we've never worked with too. People with all sorts of different influences converge on Song Fight and I learn a lot here about music, people, zinging and MU.

[Tonamel]

I mean, why do <i>you</i> [participate in SongFight]?

Heh, I take it you're not familiar with my track record here. That's not to say I only tried SF once. There are a few other fights that I started songs for, but never finished due to lack of time.

My favorite idea that never saw the light of day: "Sign my Box" - a chiptune piece about trying to get Shigeru Miyamoto to autograph my NES (not based on a true story).

But, to answer the question, I started because I wanted to challenge my creativity. What I found is that my creativity is very slow. Meh.

But I feel like I can still like Knee Play 5 or any song without being super well-read or knowing how modern compositions started diverging from strict forms and whatnot. I mean, I'd enjoy getting into a conversation about that with somebody, but I don't know if I'd shut the door on creativity at the point where a person doesn't know the difference between a Rondo and Rando.

I will now freely acknowledge that I got a bit carried away.

So forget all the talk about theory (unless you go writing another 15 min classical piano epic. Theory's very important there), and scale everything back to the one question that everyone wants you to figure out the answer to: Who is your audience? And that's not really an answer that can be written down. Your music lacks accessibility. You can't just sit down and enjoy it the way you might with Koyaanisqatsi or Sunshine Recorder. That's only a problem if you want your stuff to be approachable.

And I feel like you're telling me that if I wrote more conventional songs, I wouldn't need training because they're not as artistic. Is that your point?

Absolutely not.

It's not that pop/rock is less artistic, it's that it's less complex, from a theory standpoint. Which isn't to say that they don't use theory, either. I would venture that most rock groups learn theory via the guitar. They learn chords, then they learn tabs to other songs, and that's how they start to find chord progressions they like. And in that manner they find their voice and style.

I think I was under the impression that you wanted your music to be really complex in its melodies, harmonies, and forms. Now I'm not so sure. Which takes us back to the question: What do you want your music to be?

And sometimes when people suggest something to help us, it seems like we have reservations because we're not sure that it will be helpful.

A guilty pleasure of mine is the TV show "What Not to Wear." It's one of those makeover shows that takes a slob and pretties them up. I like it for two reasons: 1) The slob doesn't know they're going to be on TV until the moment they are. They're volunteered to the show by friends and family. 2) They don't just give them a suit and a haircut and call it a day. They take the time to actually teach the person what's right for them and what isn't.

One of the recurring trends for the people on the show is, when the slob is out buying clothes unassisted, they'll look a shirt, comment on how it follows their style guidelines, and then leave it on the rack. Lo, and behold, when the hosts show up and make them try it on, it works perfectly. The moral of the story is: You won't know if it works unless you give it a shot.

If Phunt Your Friends submitted songs like our Left at the Mortuary every week, would people still be saying [go away]?

Maybe, but you wouldn't be happy doing it, so that's not really an option anyway, is it?

I think j$ had the right idea (I think it was him): Find some songs that you like. Figure out what it is about those songs that makes you like them. Look at your own stuff. Are those "likeable things" anywhere to be found? If not, that's something you should fix.

[Rabid Garfunkel]

I can't believe it's not butter... Been thinking about this thread since it appeared on the boards.

Music is a language of expression. And quite often your songs come across like the stereotypical U.S. tourist in a non-English speaking country who speaks louder and slower in the hopes of being understood. Or like a hula dancer having a Pentocostal fit in front of the whole church.

Experiements to try. Opposites. As in, if you find yourself writing long songs, try and write a short one (that still expresses what you want to say). Instead of telling a story (that requires a few thousand words of explanation) condense it to its core idea, like those one line movie pitches, and expand from there. I'm not going to reread your vishnu thread to give an example there, just try it for yourself and see.

Never say in a hundred words what can clearly be expressed in ten.
/2 cents

[Future Boy]

I think all songs are artistic. Some are bad, but it's hard for me to think of any intentionally juxtaposed objects as something other than art. So as soon as it's audio, I tend to feel like it's music. And then once the creator intentionally takes into account elements of pitch, volume, rhythm (which is already mentioned as the medium is timebased), timber, structure (which I tend to think of as the transitions between these elements) and other sonic qualities, I feel like it's a song. But whatever you call it, as soon as it's intentional, it can be viewed as art, right? And I feel like you're telling me that if I wrote more conventional songs, I wouldn't need training because they're not as artistic. Is that your point? I don't know. I feel like songwriters make choices. And some of those choices are dictated by guidelines or conventions. A lot of them even. Even my own choices. My guidelines might be personal and lack centuries of language to describe them, but they're still akin to normal conventions. ... rambly.. rambly.. I'm trying to figure out if anybody thinks there are ways to write songs that involve honing those personal guidelines. Just using your ears and whatever falls under your hands? And to sort of think of ways to use those limitations interestingly... Is that an okay way to write songs? Isn't it sort of the only way?

Historically, and formally, a Song is a "brief composition written or adapted for singing." However, in the above paragraph, you use the word song to mean any intentionally constructed sound object. This is not a good generalization to make, especially since the greater majority of people on songfight subscribe to the definition of a song that has evolved over the past 50 years or so. If you make a piece of the type that PYF typically makes and say to songfighters, "Hey, do you like my song?" they will inevitably reply, "No, that's not a song!" and then you will get into an argument with them about whether or not it is a song because you have a different definition of what a "song" is. If you think that you can single-handedly change the way people define the word "song" by submitting your kind of "song" to songfight, you are mistaken. So, first and foremost, do not think of what you are doing as writing songs.

Your acceptance of "any intentionally juxtaposed objects" as being art, and to be very clear you really mean to say Art, is an atypical stance, especially on songfight (and some would disagree with you in any arena). If you ask people here for suggestions about how to improve, they will be coming from a POV that has a much tighter field. You will always think that suggestions don't apply to your work because your idea of what is "good" or "bad" is wildly different (ie more accepting) than the people trying to give you constructive criticism. You will never improve by their standards if that is your stance.

Finding a voice is entirely about honing personal guidelines. But it takes a long time. I think songfight is a good place for pop musicians to hone personal guidelines because the time restraint and the title restraint force people to focus on finishing things, to sit back and listen to somthing that is "complete" and figure out what kind of chords and progressions they like by writing lots of songs in a short period of time. Given that a great many songfighters are working within this paradigm, it means that reviews from other songfighters can be very helpful. But, you have to understand that anybody who listens to pop music regularly and has learned how to play guitar has *already* internalized a great deal of convention, before ever writing a single song, from which they will be subconsciously (or sometimes not) drawing upon when they make music.

How much Art music have you two listened to? Have you done a survey of the history of electroacoustic music as Tonamel suggested? Have you listened to the works of particular composers that you admire over and over again? Have you tried to write pieces that sound like those composers to try to figure out how to do it? Glass has been mentioned a lot, but none of the PYF pieces sound like Glass. The opinion you seem to be giving is that while you are *aware* of certain all embracing ideas about what is music and who can make it and how they can make it, you are intentionally living in a kind of vacuum, figuring that your own wits are all you need to write music. This is simply not true. Or, more specifically, the likelihood that anyone other than you will comprehend and appreciate what you are doing is close to nil. You will never make good music in a vacuum unless you are so single-minded in your approach that through endless repetition of the same ideas you finally hit upon versions of them that are compelling simply because of their internal consistency (take Jandek, for example, although with recent events even his apparent isolation is becoming suspect).

Songfight is not a good place to find a voice in this way. You are intentionally starting from a place of no-reference and expecting people to actually try to appreciate what you are doing. Your music lacks a common ground and people who come to songfight for songs (which is pretty much everybody) will not be willing spend the time you apparently think is necessary to understand it. Finally, understanding is not necessarily the same as enjoying. Try this: compose a piece that is a verbal description of the piece, rather than an audio recording, and see how people respond to it.

[Tonamel]

Indeed. If you're looking for a place to hold discussions/collaborate with like-minded individuals, you may have success over at The Infinite Sector. I know a couple of the members (Full On, Lysdexic), and I hear they're recruiting.

And I mean that in a "No, I'm not actively trying to get rid of you" kind of way.

[Egg]

haha, harsh tones, but well-received.

[Mogosagatai]

The opinion you seem to be giving is that while you are *aware* of certain all embracing ideas about what is music and who can make it and how they can make it, you are intentionally living in a kind of vacuum, figuring that your own wits are all you need to write music.

Well actually, we embrace pretty much everything we like, and try to incorporate cool things we've heard into our own music. We just have a knack for shooting for one thing and hitting something else, in a sort of deliberately awkward manner. A few of our songs are direct "references" or "tributes" to another band that we really like and used as our primary inspiration. Examples: "Pasty White Man"--the Books; "Janjaweed"--Animal Collective"; "Happy Life"--Philip Glass. I know those don't sound close to what they would sound like if written by their respective tributee, but the point wasn't really to sound exactly like them. It was to expound upon their (what we consider to be awesome) ideas.

[WeaselSlayer]

IF YOU COMPARE YOURSELF TO THE BOOKS ONE MORE FUCKING TIME!

[Egg]

Hahaha

and Tonamel and I were just observing that our A & A is strikingly like Dandelions from BoC.. I mean, we didn't know about them yet, but we love them now. And ya ya, there were also observations about how much better Boards of Canada are. They spent years honing their craft and so on. We put an ox moaning at the end of ours after writing it in a week. But we do end up finding our music reflecting our musical loves. I think you're right that one should be careful about writing in a vacuum. I meant to suggest that budding songwriters should definitely use their own internal guidelines and self-taught musical conventions. I thought I said that it was natural and okay to do that. I certainly meant to.

[Future Boy]

What do consider to be a self-taught musical convention??

[Egg]

I thought it was you who summarized it above, but whoever did it did a good job. It's the sort of natural inclinations you pick up through practice of an instrument or practice of any other kind including hearing other musicians. Sort of like, after a lot of practice on one scale, you know your way around it pretty well and can make some pretty sweet melodies out of it so you might go and do that rather than mash at random frets. Or if you listen to some musician and really like the way they syncopate things, you might find yourself doing some weird rhythm work. All of it is because you made some observation about music and ended up applying it to your own work. Regardless of how conciously I do this, I figure it's applying self-taught musical conventions. Interesting sidenote, self-taught can be "wrong" or contradictory to standard conventions. But a lot of the time they're "right" since that's where the theory came from. Right?

[erik]

Specifically, can you describe a musical convention that you have taught yourself?

[Egg]

EDIT: I thought of a good normal one. If you play one note at a time, you have way more leeway for dissonance than when playing notes simultaneously. Playing multiple notes out of tune is deadly hard to make good-sounding.

I honestly can't think of any normalish ones off the top of my head. I don't know if it might be helpful to name the weird ones that are coming to me. There's this one thing where I play two notes (spaced apart in frequencies by x) simulatneously and a third note in between them twice and I noticed when recording guitar that I did it a lot. The only thing we've subjected you to that has that odd little formation in it is in Some Kind of Licking, I think. It's especially odd because it's different notes, but with similar relationships each time I do it. And I wasn't mapping out stuff for the sessions where I recorded it. It was just something I seemed to do during improvised sessions like in the first couple weeks that I had the guitar and before I had learned anything about guitar.

Uh, another thing is layered arrangements that build up and then leave in little steps. That's really simple and maybe that one's normal.

One that I feel is so basic it must be natural is to use sounds that sound right. I'm inclined to pick notes that seem right over open chaotic dischord. Of course, sometimes it's fun to try to find a way to make apparently dissonant sounds fit a piece. And this doesn't just apply to pitch but also goes for say noise-recordings.

Hmm.. I seem to like wandery main melody lines too. Most of the time that I've been responsible for the rhythm section of a song, the piece has ended up with a rhythm that allowed that wandering to really come through. I don't know if you want me to point to examples, but I can say that Bioluminescence, I Hate You, and A&A were all greatly affected by this tendency of mine. And anything that's Phunt; don't tell. is just me. But I'm usually just being too weird to work into a normal evaluation of my tendencies in those songs.