The Song Fight Bulletin Board

What follows is a rambly way to ask people to teach me about music:

I have only been submitting regularly since April 2005. I'm still kind of a nôöb. Some of you have managed to only hear one of my tracks, but it seems like that isn't keeping you down. If you know of a way to make Phunt better (and I really believe there are more than I can count to), I would personally love to see you in my chambers.

I've made similar requests to members of the community before in private. Now, it seems like people are chomping at the bit to make me better and not have to listen to minutes of overlaid guitar samples that can feel like 3 hours.

I really like those RE-VC tracks, but I know that some of your criticisms are pointy and true! Just message me. We can work on a song together. You can show me how to build up a piece or how to stop one with potential from going into the land of wankery.

I'm definitely egocentric to the point where it can easily be perceived as a weakness. But it makes me really eager to improve myself and to get free advice.

I might get feisty and defensive, but please try to help me. I come from such a weird place in my "musical" "education" that ANYBODY could teach me something in this community.

SongFight often has a quasiworkshop feel because of the reviews. But I think a lot of the time, it feels like I'm never going to remix or edit the song based on the reviews I read. And I imagine, desipte the occasional remix or rerecording, that this sentiment is pretty widespread. Recently, a songfighter sent me a really detailed way to look at a previous entry and totally rework it, and I really appreciate the advice. Even though it kills what I was going for with the "piece", it's providing for an interesting excerise to make it more "song-like" and ya.

If you can find time for phunting, then you would be welcomed amongst us. We are not some unreachable academia or elite. We are just a little different and not necessarily because we chose to be that way. It's just where we find ourselves. Come on over. We are barbecuing.

Well, let's have a look at what you did this week.

Part I: Rockopolousaninjananophone Eternal

The main problem with this is one of volume. There's usually something going on in the background, but I can never hear what it is. I get that you're going for this: [quote]“Nanophoneâ€

Hahaha. Yes, Egg, what is it?

You're right about the lack of cohesion, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I guess if they're supposed to be taken all as one piece... I dunno. It's just inconsistent with the meaning we were trying to convey, which is mainly the three facets of god, and how they're perceived (that being vastly different for each one). In hopes of adding some small cohesion, I ended the piano with this little motif that's in a ton of phuntsongs, but I left off the end half of it, and put it at the very beginning of Section I. That's about as good as it's gonna get, though (for this particular piece).

You're also right about the bad midi sound. Wish we had a better one, but we don't, and I was running out of time. You really think it doesn't tell a story, though? I'm not lying when I say that every single part is telling a pretty specific part of the Vishnu cycle. The Buddha and Krishna parts are fairly vague, relatively, in that they just represent settings and moods more than plots, but like... Parasurama's part, for example, is really insanely specific to the plot. So are Kurma, Matsya, Vamana... Really, everything but Krishna and Buddha has at least four major plot points (Kalki being the next least specific, and Rama after that, with only six major plot points). I guess you kinda have to know the story to tell what's going on, but it's totally there. My biggest criticism of it is that it goes way too fast (cuz there's so much to tell!). This could easily have been thirty minutes long and still not be fleshed out enough. I guess that's where the triteness and lack of weight comes in.

As for the length of the other ones--there's that consistency in meaning thing again. We decided that sections I and II had to be exactly half as long as section III, to accurately portray what we meant to portray. Section II was actually a good four minutes longer, and I had to cut stuff out--broke my heart.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the in-depth analysis! I have found it at least somewhat useful, and then some.

I'll give a proper explanation as to why I don't get a sense of plot from Part 3 after I wake up. But, while I'm thinking about it, I just wanted to say that if you guys don't listen to Godspeed You Black Emperor, you totally should.

Thanks for the super-listen and I will go back to some Godspeed You Black Emperor while I marvel at some of what you've shared, Tonamel.

In response to previous question, I have listened to music and been given the opportunity to watch people play a lot. I took a theory class once, but it was slower than some of our worst songs and I just couldn't stick with it. So, no musical education in any recognizable form! But I think everything is educational and a lot is musical. My lack of formal education leaves me in a spot where I favor other experiences and relating them to music. Then limited exposure to technical knowledge and already existing theory gets assimilated into that weird picture of music I have. I don't want to poopoo technical knowledge or training. I admire it. BABBLE. Thanks for contributing!

Here's an idea, and I'm not trying to bring up the argument about what a song is what it isn't, but why don't you try to make something like what the prevailing majority [here] thinks of as a song?

I bet that with a more traditional song structure, and some focus on intelligible lyrics, your production ideas would be pretty sweet. In fact, you have at least one song with singing and melody and stuff, and I like it a lot, up until the point where you shoot yourself in the head and it all goes to Shittsburgh.

-craig

Mogosagatai wrote:I guess you kinda have to know the story to tell what's going on, but it's totally there.

There's no "kinda" about it. Have you played this for anyone who has figured out the story behind the song, without having it explained to them? Whether or not you have a story in mind when you right a piece is completely irrelevant for everyone except you. If you have to tell them the story before you play them the song, then the song isn't telling the story.

Yes, if you want to tell people a story then giving them the means to understand it without research is not 'selling out' - it is a neccessity. Nothing outside of the picture frame, so to speak ....

j$

j$ wrote:Nothing outside of the picture frame, so to speak ....

j$

It depends on how you define the picture frame. If everything has to be in the music itself, you have set the bar too high, in my opinion. I think that cultural references, reference to other music with which the listener might be familiar, references to known rhythms, beats, and natural sounds all play a role. In our SongFight entries, we very much take into account all of these as well as the title, the audience, and the mood of the board lately. We hope that we are connecting with someone through these references. If your music doesn't connect with anyone, what's the point? You already know the story. You are trying to communicate it to someone else. Well, at least, WE are. I do not know your motives.

Spud wrote:It depends on how you define the picture frame. If everything has to be in the music itself, you have set the bar too high, in my opinion. I think that cultural references, reference to other music with which the listener might be familiar, references to known rhythms, beats, and natural sounds all play a role.

Sure. But a clever musician will 1) find a way to make music such that the understanding of the references is not a prerequisite to enjoying the music, or 2) place the references in the music in such a way that the audience has a high probability of knowing that the music relates to something outside of the song or 3) not expect the audience to get the references, and not care if they don't get them.

erikb wrote:There's no "kinda" about it. Have you played this for anyone who has figured out the story behind the song, without having it explained to them? Whether or not you have a story in mind when you right a piece is completely irrelevant for everyone except you. If you have to tell them the story before you play them the song, then the song isn't telling the story.

Yeah, that's basically what I was going to say.

Mogosagatai wrote:You're also right about the bad midi sound. Wish we had a better one, but we don't

True, it's not a great sound, but with a little love from a few plugins, it's not quite so bad. Before and after. Paying some attention to velocity would have improved it even more.

And Egg, I don't mean for this to sound too harsh, but I could tell you'd never really had much theory training. It's something that you really should get into. Boring as it may be, it's vital that you know the rules so that you can learn to break them effectively.

Spud wrote:

j$ wrote:Nothing outside of the picture frame, so to speak ....

j$

It depends on how you define the picture frame. If everything has to be in the music itself, you have set the bar too high.

Good point - I agree that cultural influences, and the self-expression that makes # uniquely # (for exmaple) is a great part of music, and not something anyone has to get to enjoy.

Or in terms of the picture - In a gallery you decide if a painting is good on what's before your eyes. What's in the guidebook, or what you read about the exhibition in the paper the day before, can only be additional material. You shouldn't have to understand something before you can enjoy it.

I was using the 'frame' comparision only in terms of story telling (as opposed to other forms of lyrical expression.) That if you are keen that someone should be able to understand the 'beginning, middle and end' of your story, it's a bit much not to give them the middle and then complain that they don't get it.

j$

Yeah, music should definitely be made to be enjoyable without a frame. Believe it or not, we make it with that in mind. A lot of people seem to be saying "how can you expect people to get this story?", but the thing is, I don't expect people to get it. I expect (some) people to enjoy the music, and then when I tell them that there's a huge story behind it, be even more interested in it. Meaning is icing on the cake (I love icing, by the way). I don't think there's anyone out there who could possibly infer from the music alone, even knowing the titles, what the music is about. That's why I've been making extra efforts to tell people what it's about, because I find the icing to be interesting enough in its own regard that it can be enjoyed even without the cake.

I think maybe that's a major thing that Phunt is about. Making cake that's good enough to stand alone, but also making icing that's good enough to stand alone. And then putting them together in a complimentary and enhancing way, a sum greater than its parts. A lot of people seem to really dislike our cake, though.

Also, I noticed that two different meanings of "getting" something are being tossed around, and perhaps being confused. There's "get" as in "figure out what the icing of is", and there's "get" as in "enjoy the cake of". I don't think <i>anybody</i> gets Phunt's icing in full, because it's admittedly very convoluted. Luke Henley sort of does, because we've told him a lot, but even Egg and I are still fleshing out the icing, retrospectively. We're even writing novels about it. So we're not particularly worried about anybody getting our icing just yet. We primarily want people to get our cake. To like the music, regardless of its frame. The icing is pretty cool (on this song in particular--I love the Ouroboral Trifecta concept), and I encourage people to "get" it if they're into that sort of thing, but I'd rather you got the cake first.

Interesting side examples:
I get Styx's icing (and like it) but don't get most of their cake.
I get the Mars Volta's cake but don't get most of their icing.

Which of those bands is more successful (at reaching me)? Volta by a longshot.
(Incidentally, the parts of the Mars Volta's song meanings that I <i>do</i> get, I find extremely intriguing. Look into that if you like cool shit.)

Mogosagatai wrote:Yeah, music should definitely be made to be enjoyable without a frame. Believe it or not, we make it with that in mind. A lot of people seem to be saying "how can you expect people to get this story?", but the thing is, I don't expect people to get it. I expect (some) people to enjoy the music, and then when I tell them that there's a huge story behind it, be even more interested in it.

Well, alot of people seem to be saying that, but the same people also seem to be saying "This music isn't telling any story, let alone the story which you claim it does. You are fucking around."

Do you expect people to know that you aren't fucking around? If so, how do expect them to know? Do you care if people think that about you?

There's this thing they do in the practice of Zen, summarized by the word MU. It's hard to say exactly what it means. Not the greek letter--just, MU. I think it's great.

Okay.

Wow, see: that was awesome. Mogosagatai had not told me about mu or anything like this. But his response to the question intrigued me enough to look for potential meaning, because I assume he's not just babbling. And man, what an intensely intelligent way to present that particular response. But at the same time that I am consumed by and consuming MU, I have to keep being plagued by questions of authenticity.

Does this relate to songwriting?

How do I make sure that people will assume that I am at least trying to make cake? I mean, I'm not surprised that a ton of people don't like 8 minutes of the same guitar sample played in only slightly different ways. But how can I make it clear that every second of that track represented a new choice for me that I looked at alternatives for and eventually made a concious decision to go with the way it was in my submission? And how do I convince people that I'm making that choice in order to increase pleasure for the potential listeners?

I mean, a lot of people already know I'm trying. A lot of people think I'm a musical wanker. Those two aren't mutually exclusive though, so it's okay. My question is more, "Should I try to do something different so that people don't get the idea that I'm actually putting songs into existence for the purpose of being annoying?" And: "If so, then what should I do differently?" Once I get over that basic notion, I can move on to "How can I stop being a musical wanker?"

PS - If anybody wants to give me a good place to start theory wise, that would be cool. And I understand how it might be painfully obvious that I don't have any formal training. That's because I don't. It's not offensive or something I'm terribly ashamed of. I'm willing to get trained a little though. Also, is this important for songwriting?

Oh, and thanks for that demo of the plugins, Tonamel. That does change a lot!

Egg wrote:How do I make sure that people will assume that I am at least trying to make cake? I mean, I'm not surprised that a ton of people don't like 8 minutes of the same guitar sample played in only slightly different ways. But how can I make it clear that every second of that track represented a new choice for me that I looked at alternatives for and eventually made a concious decision to go with the way it was in my submission? And how do I convince people that I'm making that choice in order to increase pleasure for the potential listeners?

I mean, a lot of people already know I'm trying. A lot of people think I'm a musical wanker. Those two aren't mutually exclusive though, so it's okay. My question is more, "Should I try to do something different so that people don't get the idea that I'm actually putting songs into existence for the purpose of being annoying?" And: "If so, then what should I do differently?" Once I get over that basic notion, I can move on to "How can I stop being a musical wanker?"

You have rephrased and expanded on my questions eloquently. Now, without resorting to Zen koans, can you answer any of the questions that either I or you have posed? (If you can do so without employing metaphors about cake or anything else, that would be great.)

Egg wrote:...I don't have any formal training... ...is this important for songwriting?

For the kind of thing that you do, I would say that theory is important. Especially if you intend to write more instrumental stuff. The best place to learn it is probably the class you took before. If it was too slow then ask the teacher if private lessons are an option. Theory is definitely something that should be taught, not gleaned from the internet.

Erik, your questions are walking the line between “help and how toâ€

Mogosagatai wrote:There's this thing they do in the practice of Zen, summarized by the word MU. It's hard to say exactly what it means. Not the greek letter--just, MU. I think it's great.

Which reminds me: Y'all would probably enjoy Goedel Escher Bach, if you haven't read it already. It's kind of hard reading in places, but you can learn an awful lot about life, zen and (by sterling coincidence) music theory. I mean, it's no substitute for a real theory class, but the structure of the book is based around classical music, on multiple levels.

And the pictures are neat, too!

Hahaha, I just read that! It's where I learned about MU, among many other things. Yeah, I second that emotion. Brilliant book. Bits of things weaned from it may be popping up in many future phuntsongs. Like, for one, I learned how to make a canon!