It uses novel models of tonality that will make you productive. Write 10 albums in the time of 1. It doesn’t dumb anything down, it actually let’s you explore the entirety of the musical space. (Goes beyond tonality).
Right now writing music in a DAW is surprisingly time consuming. Too much clicking, not enought exploring. I’m trying to change that.
That definitely sounds interesting, but I'm also a little blazé at this kind of announcement. I have vague recollection of seeing this kind of ambition multiple times, and zero recollection of seeing any of them concertize. I guess there is a lot of hidden difficulty in the task.
I'm also not sure about that IDE analogy. IDEs and advanced code editors are basically notepad with lots of extra features that increase productivity, at the cost of added complexity and some extra learning effort. Meanwhile, current DAWs can already be very complex and hard to learn fully, because they already have a million features to boost productivity in various ways. So if current DAWs are "notepad", I'm not sure I want to know what an "IDE" even looks like.
Because of that, I wouldn't belittle the existing tools so much. Several DAWs are deeply scriptable and extensible, on top of the plethora of rapid-workflow features they possess. This can get you pretty far in terms of creative productivity.
That being said, I'm sure there is a world of unexplored workflows and musical frameworks, and I want to see more people digging into that. But when you casually say you're going to pull a revolution out of nowhere, you can expect grumpy replies like this.
> That definitely sounds interesting, but I'm also a little blazé at this kind of announcement.
I can't blame you and if I were you I would be a bit skeptical too.
> I have vague recollection of seeing this kind of ambition multiple times, and zero recollection of seeing any of them concertize.
Which ones for example? You are right, it's problem that people have been trying to solve however most of the proposed solutions were either very academical or very specific. They weren't trying to help you with composition.
> I guess there is a lot of hidden difficulty in the task.
There is however I like to think I've managed to remove quite a bit of it.
> I'm also not sure about that IDE analogy. IDEs and advanced code editors are basically notepad with lots of extra features that increase productivity, at the cost of added complexity and some extra learning effort.
Don't strain the analogy. It's a music composition software that tries to help you.
> Meanwhile, current DAWs can already be very complex and hard to learn fully, because they already have a million features to boost productivity in various ways. So if current DAWs are "notepad", I'm not sure I want to know what an "IDE" even looks like.
Here's the thing, most of current DAWs are for editing of sound. Cutting, mixing etc, they have surprisingly few features that are related to tonality and composition. And Sibelius and all that sucks a stiff one too. How many DAWs actually understand the concept of a scale and how many understand this concept "productively". Ive tried all of them and they are all terrible for this. E.g. if you have 10 tracks playing a chord, and you want to change said chord, you have to go through all the tracks and change the notes manually. That's very annoying.
Not to mention that all current DAWs have terrible, terrible interfaces. I can go for hours on each of them and why it sucks, so pick one, I'll try to tell you why I hate that particular one.
> In any case, I wouldn't belittle the existing tools so much. Several DAWs are deeply scriptable and extensible, on top of the plethora of rapid-workflow features they possess.
I don't want to script things. I want a tool, not a toolkit. And not all things are scriptable. And I also want really good visualization and fast workflows. And you can't really build new UIs.
If you want to talk about this more, send me an email (it's in my profile), I can talk about this for hours.
I don’t think it’s outstandingly great, but it suggests a lot of people are going to be moving into this space.
The problem is automated composition is incredibly unpopular with pop writers - they’d rather use samples anyway - and academic composers would rather do their own thing the hard way.
Most people are very concrete thinkers. IMO the number of people who can handle the kind of musical abstractions you’re talking about is tiny.
I haven’t no. It’s somewhat similar but very different actually.
I wouldn’t call it automated composition either. My thing isn’t too abstract I think.
Edit: I've looked at the sw now and I also hate it. Terrible UI, seems to be stuck in the 18th century as far as music theory goes, etc etc. and they want 700 eur for this?
>E.g. if you have 10 tracks playing a chord, and you want to change said chord, you have to go through all the tracks and change the notes manually. That's very annoying.
Harmony is only the third of it. Does your app offer the same flexibility with respect to melody and rhythm?
Haha yeah I know. Yes my app works fundamentally with periodicities of music. It lets you extract “ideas” out of a song and apply those ideas to your song. These ideas are melodic, harmonic and rhythmic.
Are you familiar with Overtone[1]? I'm no musician, but as a developer I'd think building your own musical abstractions via code would be better than any visual IDE.
Images are inherently visual, and they seem to have more irreducible complexity than music. Music has a lot of structure and repetition that seems like it could benefit from abstraction (as Chris Ford demonstrates with some Bach in this entertaining talk[1]).
On the other hand, there are vector graphics editors that let you work in terms of shapes and paths instead of pixels. Would you say you are trying to build the musical equivalent of that?
I'm aware. However the scripting is like an extra feature, not the main interface. The OP was saying that code > UI, however I disagree. It's useful, however not superior.
OP was saying that code > UI "for developpers". Something like one of Brett Victor's UI[0] integrated in GIMP would be quite nice for a dev who can draw, or a painter who can code.
Having used a bunch of different tools for composition, recording and synthesis, from DAWs, to Max/MSP, to CSound, to ChucK, to Finale, I look forward to seeing a new take.
I kind of do but to be honest the cool parts will be hard to see on a screenshot. I'll just have you wait. Sorry about that. Sign up in the google forms above.
thanks a lot, I was going to ask about suggestions on this vein. The audible at 14$ with membership looks like a very good deal too.
I have effectively no knowledge or understanding of classical music, and it seems there is no obvious way of learning other than "just listen to a lot of it".
Ok obviously that works, but I'd rather have an equivalent of SICP or CTM :)
Maybe one of the books that might be an SICP type book could be The Classical Style by Charles Rosen but I'm not sure how accessible it is to a nonmusician...
I found biographies helped build my appreciation of the music. A good one will cover both the personal life of the composer and their musical development (which are often intertwined), with some light commentary on specific works.
Something I love doing these days is witnessing the evolution of the composer by listening to their works across their life. At least for Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven and Chopin I can say that I personally detect this maturity in their late music that experiments more with chromaticism and harmony. The late music also tends to have a slightly more conservative sense of emotion which I feel must be some reflection of how people's emotional range develops as they get older. (early Chopin is this sentimental romantic adolescent, while late Chopin has this refinement and grace about it)
I tried getting into western classical music several times, but always aborted. I find it really difficult, as it is so diverse and complex, yet beautiful and satisfying at the same time.
Its vastness is astonishing and is the main reason why I always stopped. Where to start? Why? How does it all connect? There are so many more angles to western classical music than one would think.
There are a couple of ways to cut it up, for instance you could segment by:
Mood
Form
Period
Instrument
For me, I started with solo piano mainly, and some light chamber music and worked through periods (at a natural rate rather than any rigorous scheme). I found solo piano somewhat easier to analyze by ear and deliberately stayed away from things like symphonies as they were way too complex to appreciate to a depth that I am personally inclined.
Once I developed an ear for periodic styles and musicianship, it became natural to branch out into orchestration and more composers.
In terms of solo piano works that are famous:
Bach Goldberg variations/preludes and fugues/english and French suites
Mozart piano sonatas k310-333 are decent.
Beethoven piano sonatas pathetique, moonlight, les adieux, appassionata, waldstein (maybe also hammerklavier)
Chopin nocturnes, waltzes, preludes and sonata 2
Debussy - arabesques, suite bergamasque, piano pieces, preludes
This is not the way the cogniscenti would suggest it, but I would look at some 'classical hits' type playlists. These tend to give you a variety of fairly melodic and easy to grasp excerpts from longer pieces.
Find some that take your fancy and then listen to the whole piece, to see if you like that. Rinse and repeat.
Oh and Holst's The Planets is a nice varied introduction to things with some rip-roaring tunes and interesting orchestral effects. Try that.
It sounds like "Hooked On Classics" was made for the likes of you. These albums consist of medleys of selections from classical music. You're bound to hear music you like, and especially music you'll recognize (I was obsessed with old Warner Bros. cartoons when I got my Hooked cassette and recognized much of the music from those), and you can look up the piece title and composer in the liner notes to discover more once you find something you do like.
Hooked was also often used in schools to get kids interested in classical music.
It is vast, you are right. But it is not all a sacred tome. There are a lot of different styles of composition, some which you, depending on tastes, will simply not like, just like any other music.
The mainstays of popular classical music, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all practically defined the 3 main "periods" of the genre; Baroque, Classical, and Romantic respectively (though Beethoven is often considered as somewhat of a bridge between late classical and romantic, details..). Thus each of these periods has a unique character and sound, which is as distinct as different genres of modern music, despite mostly using the same instruments.
It is unfortunate that all that variety has been slapped the label of "classical", and somewhat ironic, considering the Classical period of classical music was seen at the time as a reaction to the "overly complex, aristocratic", style of baroque. It was the pop music of its day, now of course regarded as somewhat elitist.
Anyways, I'm somewhat of the Glenn Gould opinion that Mozart is mostly trash (though his keyboard concertos are pure gold). I suppose the wannabe elitist in me gravitates towards baroque, it's intricacy, specifically counterpoint. If the idea of multiple independent melodies playing at the same time, transforming and complementing each other like some kind of musical puzzle fascinates you, as it does me, then I'd suggest binging on some sweet J.S. Bach. You've surely heard BWV 565 at least once every Halloween, and a few of the Brandenburg's. I'd suggest listening to some of his keyboard works, which are easier to digest and comprehend the contrapuntal melodies than some of the orchestral works. Two Part Inventions/Sinofas, WTC I && II, Goldberg variations, etc. Youtube will provide. A lot of these songs are very energetic, with a steady driving beat that you could dance to if you didn't care about getting made fun of by your friends. There's an almost classic VGM style to some of it (or maybe it's the other way around..).
But this is all just like, my opinion, man. Point is to find a song that you like, find who wrote it, and then find more from that same person. Then expand to their contemporaries. If you hear something that does not appeal to you, even if it is a purported super classic, move on. The popular classical music that literally every body nowadays has heard, tend to be shallow and trite examples of what the composer produced in their time (Beethoven was reportedly quite peeved even then that so many obsessed over the Moonlight Sonata. "Surely I have written better things"). Dig beyond the stereotypes and you will find some real gems.
Classical music is a literal treasure trove for those who enjoy instrumental music, and even mad guitar solos (piano was the guitar of the day. The level histrionics, hype, and raw skill demonstration that can be achieved on the piano keyboard can be truly mind blowing. I've always been a big fan of guitar solo legends, David Gilmour, SRV, Eddy Van Halen....but damn. (Check out the cadenza in Brandenburg 5 [1], or almost any Liszt piano solo [2])
I don't know much of classical music, but browsing around I also found some of the Two Part Inventions you mention. Listened to a couple of them, played by two different pianists, and wasn't overly impressed. Then found her playing them, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFKbmBPaeus, thanks youtube, and I was blown away.
Start with Mozart, move to Beethoven. Wrapping your head around classical styles is easier when you directly compare the Classical and Romantic styles since they are quite different. That gives you a foundation to understand other forms.
Palestrina is an interesting suggestion. That makes sense from a perspective of chronology and the development of the form, but Bach and Mozart have a big advantage of familiarity. I've heard Palestrina's music in university classes, but I can't recall any of it at the moment.
I discovered this website https://classicalmusiconly.com/ on a SHOW HN post several months ago. Really nice for anybody who's interested in classical music
One thing I never quite understood was - are today's rock / pop music in any way related to the development of classical music or branched off from it? It seems like classical music keeps developing into the post modern era and is still being experimented and toyed with but without many new instruments added, while the other type of music can be lumped into "non-classical" and has their own separate branches of development. It's surprising to me that some form of music similar to art rock or pop was not developed in the 1400s, was it because the technologies to create some of the instruments weren't available?
Today's rock/pop music is a direct descendant of classical music. The similarity to baroque sonatas and concertos is
the clearest - that is why Bach Handel Teleman etc. make the easiest path into classical music to someone familiar with modern rock/pop. Baroque music has the same structure as modern rock/pop - a tune on top of a chord progression. It's a running joke in music circles that Pachelbel's Canon in D sounds familiar the first time you hear it because its chord progression appears in countless modern pop tunes. The basic baroque ensemble is like an unamplified rock band without drums. There is a rhythm section called the "continuo"
constisting of a bass instrument like a cello or viola da gamba or bassoon - that's like the bass guitar - and a chordal instrument like a harpsichord or organ or lute or
theorbo or ... that's like the rhythm guitar or piano or organ. Then there is a violin and/or flute or other melody instruments - that's like the lead guitar and/or saxophone or singer. The continuo part was
usually written in a notation called 'figured bass' that was
analogous to modern chord charts. Besides that, the soulful singer songwriter goes back at least to the medieval troubadours, but appears in essentially modern form with the lute song composers of the 16th and 17th century - the model here is John Dowland, who in addition to composing a lot of
melancholy songs, also composed some guitar-god-like solo instrumentals. And, this lute music was typically published
in a tabular notation a lot like modern guitar tab.
Not to downplay the influence that the classical music tradition has had on popular music, I think it's incorrect to say that rock and pop are direct descendants of classical music. Rock music, for example, is very clearly directly descended from folk music traditions.
There was "popular" (secular) music back then: think of troubadors playing bawdy songs accompanied by lute, pipe, and drum. But there was no way to disseminate a great song to the masses until the advent of the phonograph (and even more so the radio).
The most interesting thing so far about this for me is the bizarre twitter and Facebook sharing buttons that dance around the page, following some strange beat. Wtf.
See also: Joining the dots (Steve Hobson) and Inside Music (Karl Haas).
The latter also has/had a great radio program “Adventures in good music” introducing different aspect of classical music. You can find some of the episodes at the internet archives:
This intro seems to be very close to the Yale coursera course on Western Classical Music, which is the most amazing Coursera course I ever took.
For anyone without musical culture, this is the place to start: https://www.coursera.org/learn/introclassicalmusic
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-aQzVbkbGwv2BMQsvuoneOUPgyr...
It uses novel models of tonality that will make you productive. Write 10 albums in the time of 1. It doesn’t dumb anything down, it actually let’s you explore the entirety of the musical space. (Goes beyond tonality).
Right now writing music in a DAW is surprisingly time consuming. Too much clicking, not enought exploring. I’m trying to change that.