LMAO - You may be right about that.Rick Averill wrote:Banjo is never wrong for any moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgzs6pT2 ... ure=colike" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Moderators: Frodo, FMiguelez, MIDI Life Crisis
LMAO - You may be right about that.Rick Averill wrote:Banjo is never wrong for any moment.
MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I'm self-taught but have studied a lot of scores by the great masters. I probably make a lot of 'mistakes' but when I hear them played by real orchestras they sound the way I intended them to and I don't get too many complaints.
So the answer for me is there is no book. If it sounds good, it is good. If it sounds right, it is right.
YMMV and I'm sure the more learned orchestrators will have something to say about it. But for my money, art has no rules, just 'good' and 'bad' practitioners. Of course there are mediocre practitioners as well, but they actually count for less than 'bad' ones IMO. A lot can be learned from 'bad' work. More can be learned from 'good' work. But mediocre work seems to do no more than to restate what the 'proper rules' are and in doing so, do nothing to really advance an art form.
I could not disagree more even if I wanted to.skyy38 wrote:
If Jerry Goldsmith had followed "the rules" we would not have "Planet Of The Apes".
If John Williams had followed "the rules" we would not have "Cantina Band".
Your response seems a little strawman-ish...KenNickels wrote: I know what you mean, but I'm going to disagree a little, because there are rules and then there are "rules." If you were going to write a fugue, you'd have to follow fugue rules or it wouldn't be a fugue. Or if you wanted to write something in the style of Mozart, for example, you'd have to adopt Mozart like rules. Modern music is interesting because you can make up your own rules. But rules are useful there too because they can restrain you and rein you in from the anxiety of having too many choices. Like, if you can do anything, you may wind up doing nothing. So, if you say, "I'm going to use ONLY strings for this piece," that's a sort of rule, right?
Here is a broad "suggestion" for good music that you all know by practice or by teacher. Keep a balance between Contrast and uniformity. Too much contrast and the listener won't know what he's listening to. Too much uniformity and you'll put the listener to sleep.
Strawman ... I had to look up that word in the dictionary! No problem. I was trying to broaden the dialogue, not derail it. These threads have a tendency to mutate from one post to the next. But MOVIES' original thread title should have been, "Musical Rules:how do they work?," because that's what we're talking about. Sky made some vague generalizations to which you followed up with appropriate challenges, and your statement, 'Music is not about rules, or the lack thereof...' prompted my 2 cent flesh-out, because this was also a generalization. But yes, we are in agreement.FMiguelez wrote:Your response seems a little strawman-ish...KenNickels wrote: I know what you mean, but I'm going to disagree a little, because there are rules and then there are "rules." If you were going to write a fugue, you'd have to follow fugue rules or it wouldn't be a fugue. Or if you wanted to write something in the style of Mozart, for example, you'd have to adopt Mozart like rules. Modern music is interesting because you can make up your own rules. But rules are useful there too because they can restrain you and rein you in from the anxiety of having too many choices. Like, if you can do anything, you may wind up doing nothing. So, if you say, "I'm going to use ONLY strings for this piece," that's a sort of rule, right?
Here is a broad "suggestion" for good music that you all know by practice or by teacher. Keep a balance between Contrast and uniformity. Too much contrast and the listener won't know what he's listening to. Too much uniformity and you'll put the listener to sleep.
Everything I wrote was in the context of a response to skyy38's comment. I never said anything about what you just mentioned (not following rules -so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing to).
Of course there are rules and conventions and all that, depending on styles. I'm not disagreeing there! Sky is actually implying that if they had followed the rules they couldn't have written that music. That's what I'm challenging. (You and I are actually in agreement).
***************************************************************************FMiguelez wrote:I could not disagree more even if I wanted to.skyy38 wrote:
If Jerry Goldsmith had followed "the rules" we would not have "Planet Of The Apes".
If John Williams had followed "the rules" we would not have "Cantina Band".
Do you have any substance to back up those outrageous claims?
Did THEY tell you that, or is that simply how you want to understand it?
Also, what exactly do you mean by "The Rules"?
Also, what is it about the rules they broke that allowed them to write the music you mentioned?
What do you think it would have sounded like had they followed "the rules"?
Music is not about rules (or lack of them)!
Please don't tell me about those evil parallel 5ths...
By-the-book = The rules, meaning further, are you conventional or unconventional or perhaps , BOTH?Movies wrote:How by-the-book are your orchestrations generally? Like, in a given project, do you tend to make a lot of choices that suit the circumstances, but might stray from strict counterpoint/voice-leading or do you try to keep things as, like, clinical as possible?
Could be...skyy38 wrote:"Outrageous claims" ? A little heavy handed, don't you think...
I see.skyy38 wrote: By-the-book = The rules, meaning further, are you conventional or unconventional or perhaps , BOTH?