of no fixed subtitle
November 28, 2003
"Hit Song Science," an application that can analyze a song and determine it's "hitability."
is worth poking around in as well. Does this scare anyone else?
18 years ago
...aspiring songwriters can have MP3s of their songs analyzed for $49.99 per song...
I'll do it for $39.99, and do a much better job!
I want to review them in the style of that Simon guy from American Idol. I'd do it for free, too, if I could be as nasty as he is.
They should try and employ that sad-arse from Nickelback...This from Rolling Stone:
Kroeger approaches songwriting like a science -- he actually dissects the ingredients of a hit song. "If you study songwriting, you can learn so much," he says. "That's why there are so many one-hit wonders -- they don't know how to write. They stumble onto it by accident once. I study everything -- everything sonically, everything lyrically, everything musically, chord structure."
Sure, given today's cookie-cutter, imitative top 40 parade I suppose you can identify the elements of a "hit", but I have to wonder how this software would have rated "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or any other song that breaks the mold. That being said I would love to run my 30+ tunes through it. I have only written one song that I feel has "hit" potential and I wonder if it would agree.
The only sucking sound I can hear from here is these marketing ticks wanting to hoover the bucks out of your pocket for rating your music on their conformity index.
That's why there are so many one-hit wonders -- they don't know how to write. They stumble onto it by accident once. I study everything -- everything sonically, everything lyrically, everything musically, chord structure.
The creative process is not formulaic. All creativity is essentially accident.
I prefer the word "improvisation" over "accident." Accident implies that you did nothing in preparation
I prefer the word "improvisation" over "accident."
But 'improvisation' connotes that you knew what changes to make. That wouldn't be an accident. The way I see it, the new ideas pop into your head by accident. Your preparation and experience allow you to reject or mold your ideas to within workable constraints. But the root ideas themselves are accidental.
But 'improvisation' connotes that you knew what changes to make.
Only insofar as you have a basic understanding of craft.
That wouldn't be an accident. The way I see it, the new ideas pop into your head by accident. Your preparation and experience allow you to reject or mold your ideas to within workable constraints.
But "rejecting" is exactly what you
do in improvisation. The first lesson of improv is to say "yes" to whatever comes and go with it.
But the root ideas themselves are accidental.
I think we have differing opinions on this is all -- I don't think that any root idea is accidental. In my view, everything comes out of what's come before. It may not be
(on that I think we agree), but to me it's no accident where ideas come from
[sorry, this is kinda long] As a conductor and (unpublished) composer, I have a slightly different perspective on the interesting points raised by gyan and certainsome1. True, the process by which a decent melody line/chord progression/motive is created can be somewhat mysterious, but it usually takes some work to make the initial idea germinate. To pull an example from the classical canon, Beethoven for one was almost obsessive about revising and improving his initial impulses. In an undergrad music theory course, I remember a professor showing us slides of Beethoven's sketches of the opening of the 5th Symphony, and the progress of Beethoven's revisions. Interesting stuff. (If I recall correctly, Leonard Bernstein wrote a wonderful essay about this process... I think it's in his book
The Infinite Variety of Music
.) In music, improvisation can be described as "simultaneous composition and performance." Many composers will come up with their initial ideas by improvising, but will need to put in a lot of time with harmonization, structure etc. Interestingly enough (and as much as it galls me to say it), the mallcore rock guy quoted
is not completely out of his mind. Kroeger's comment is a little pretentious and doesn't take into account that there are all sorts of cultural and cognitive processes that color our musical tastes; there is no magical
that speaks to everyone... but he's correct that in Western musical culture there are just some things that seem to work more effectively than others. Of course, the idea that there are computer programs that can analyze these diverse musical elements, contextualize them within what the average American expects in his/her pop music, and game a song's potential profitability is frightening. The arts are so much of what makes us human (that's largely why they're called the
, for Christ's sake), and taking the "human element" out of the aesthetics question in the search for more cash seems like a profundly bad idea. To me, anyway. [/didacticism]
geez... like a
profoundly bad idea
. Sorry for monopolizing the commentary for a bit there.
Improvisation opens the door to accident, but does not admit mistakes.
Only insofar as you have a basic understanding of craft.
No. What I meant was you can't approach music like mathematics. Even after you make changes, those changes might not be good changes. In maths, you solve four differential equations(experience). Now, if you encounter a fifth problem, similar to one or more of the earlier ones, you can be reasonably certain what path to take. In music, if you implement some good idea from earlier compositions, you still can't be sure of its suitablilty within your current composition.
In my view, everything comes out of what's come before. It may not be intentional (on that I think we agree), but to me it's no accident where ideas come from � they bubble up from depths or are reworked from the immediate surroundings (emotional and physical).
Exactly, They aren't under conscious purview. So, "you" don't have "control" over what comes out. Your conscious self hopes your cortex does the trick.
do you believe that each moment is free of the weight of the moments that come before and that an accidental thought can come into existance without any forebearers in a person's mind?
Yes, in so far as 'mind' refers to what we humans consciously experience and 'accidental' denotes lack of conscious intent. My argument is on thin philosophical ice, since even our "conscious" decisions are mediated by unconscious uncontrolled ones.
. With an update: supposedly this thing really
Good lord, I can't believe you remember an over-three-month-old post.
Yeah. I have a problem, I know...
Yay! My first MeFi FPP! (plus, it was a mathowie post) ;)
Proud moment for the_bone (^_^)
My god, we were little wannabe's back then, weren't we? No offense to any ex-wannabe's. I was one myself.
back on the farm...
the natives were restless.