Music Theory vs Chord VST

[donkey tugger]

it's all just tools. in the end, the music-maker uses their ears and decides what to keep and what to reject?

i mean if i am using a chord generator, one that spits out random chord progressions, i wont just automatically keep the first set that it spits out. i would keep searching for a set that my ears likes.

how is that different from using a guitar or piano and searching for "nice" chord progressions?

The choice is being limited and therefore the scope for imagination is removed. Where is the inspired key change/move to a chord that 'shouldn't' work, but does (as in an example I've used before there's famously something like 13 key changes in 'Penny Lane', none of them obvious, but they work), or the characteristics that writing on a particular instrument produces. I'm not against any technology per-se (sinthesisers... ), but to rely on these tools is to remove a whole set of options.

but couldn't a great software developer create one to suit your needs?
you want complex key changes? that's codeable by a developer?

Why would I want it? The fun and creative satisfaction is coming up with it yourself.

[Forgotten]

mccartney also had help remember.
george martin would often help flesh out arrangements not sure how much or on which tracks, but that was his "job" as producer.

With arrangements maybe, but I would take an educated guess that the key changes are the work of McCartney’s ear for what works and what doesn’t.

[jancivil]

. What I dont understand is why we feel we need to improve others, the ol' leading a horse to water and all.

You don’t seem to understand replies may be written for a potentially wider readership than the one person who doesn’t want the knowledge and keeps telling us. I don’t understand being cynical about imparting ideas or knowledge.

[vurt]

mccartney also had help remember.
george martin would often help flesh out arrangements not sure how much or on which tracks, but that was his "job" as producer.

With arrangements maybe, but I would take an educated guess that the key changes are the work of McCartney’s ear for what works and what doesn’t.

indeed, wasnt trying to belittle mccartney, just chattin

[Forgotten]

mccartney also had help remember.
george martin would often help flesh out arrangements not sure how much or on which tracks, but that was his "job" as producer.

With arrangements maybe, but I would take an educated guess that the key changes are the work of McCartney’s ear for what works and what doesn’t.

indeed, wasnt trying to belittle mccartney, just chattin

Actually, it’s kind of funny if you hear GM talk about McCartney wanting to learn about arranging, and how he argued against George’s advice sometimes. He always seemed like he was on the verge of laughter.

[Hink]

. What I dont understand is why we feel we need to improve others, the ol' leading a horse to water and all.

You don’t seem to understand replies may be written for a potentially wider readership than the one person who doesn’t want the knowledge and keeps telling us. I don’t understand being cynical about imparting ideas or knowledge.

you see that right there, selective quoting and misrepresenting my point? Moving goal posts and a strawman...leave me alone and let me do my job

edit: please back to my question, should we move these type of threads to a different forum

[harryupbabble]

hink, i'm for a "generative music" forum.

my first thread there would be titled "would music-makers using the same music generators sound alike?"

aarrghh, i don't really know any famous users of generative music software. just eno. and maybe bowie, not sure if he stuck with it though.

but maybe others know of more. kraftwerk maybe?

[Forgotten]

Why not just create a generative music thread under Production Techniques?

[Kalamata Kid]

Check out the KVR generative search
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1758& ... CAs&uact=5

[Frantz]

aarrghh, i don't really know any famous users of generative music software. just eno. and maybe bowie, not sure if he stuck with it though.

but maybe others know of more. kraftwerk maybe?

Jan Hammer, who has plenty of theory knowledge and chops, used an "algorithmic composer" to generate ideas when working on Miami Vice scores in the 80s.

https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/mirro ... matrix.htm

Actually Dr T kicked it off with the Algorithmic Composer package for the Commodore 64. A certain Jan Hammer found out about it and had to purchase a Commodore 64 system to put next to his $30,000 Fairlite just to run Algorithmic Composer! He used it on his Miami Vice scores.
....
From the manual, "Tunesmith is a program for generating musical themes and variations. Themes may be played using hundreds of different scales, and an accompaniment generator allows the creation of an infinite number of accompaniments based on these themes. Themes can be linked to form a complete song."

[harryupbabble]

okay, so there is jan hammer and there is eno. two different kinds of music but same tool used?

maybe not exact same software... but generative.
i wonder what it sounds like if a rocker used it.

okay it's time to feed the cat and to type "goodnight".

[vurt]

hink, i'm for a "generative music" forum.

my first thread there would be titled "would music-makers using the same music generators sound alike?"

aarrghh, i don't really know any famous users of generative music software. just eno. and maybe bowie, not sure if he stuck with it though.

but maybe others know of more. kraftwerk maybe?

it's an interesting question, how much does the ai actually do?
would 2 beginners with no history of music making sound closer than if we gave the same software to two people who had a long history of music making.

but as you say, not really a theory question.
probably more philosophy.

[Forgotten]

I think I would draw a distinction between generative music and software that creates a chord progression.

I think of generative music as something dynamic and evolving, usually with some input from its creator, either seeding an algorithm or tweaking parameters as it evolves. Chord generation software creates something much more static.

[Gamma-UT]

it's an interesting question, how much does the ai actually do?
would 2 beginners with no history of music making sound closer than if we gave the same software to two people who had a long history of music making.

A generative adversarial network (GAN) trained on Mozart will pretty much hand you something that uses lots of Mozart-type phrases assembled into a bundle that sounds plausibly Mozart-like. The way the systems built so far work have limited user interaction - but that's the way they're designed as the aim is to demonstrate how the technology works.

Something trained more generically on voice leading (and perhaps maybe on different forms that go from organum through Palestrina to Neo-Riemmanian) would have a lot more interactivity in principle. Give it a chord or figured-bass sequence and a period and...bingo, passage with more or less correct and idiomatic voiceleading.

I'd bet you'd get different results out based on experience simply because the more experienced users would structure lots of deceptive cadences and structures that were idiomatically "correct" whereas the beginners would just try stuff out more or less at random.

I'd also bet the voice leading would be less interesting than if done (or at least edited) by a human. It's a different area but I think it was a study by David Huron or some of his students where they analysed 12-tone music vs what the theory says - and they found significant differences mainly to make the music sound less tonal. Similarly, one famous composer compiled a list of voice leading "mistakes" made by the great and the good (which they used because they sound good, direct fifths or octaves notwithstanding).

In general, the generative tools as they are implemented today tend to make stuff that sounds quite static: very little tension and release. However, with things like Eno's installations that's not a big deal as ambient (at least in theory - again, not really the case in Music for Airports) doesn't go in for that whole tension and release thing.

[harryupbabble]

einstein was a proponent of shortcuts or doing things the fastest way, that's why he was into wormholes for a while?

since the topic title has the words "chord vst", and that's what drew me to this thread in the first place thinking "hey, chord vst freeware might be mentioned in that thread", i might as well check it out.

learning to play guitar or piano to do chord progressions... takes too long. and then there is the trying out of "okay i just played a c chord, what other chords that i know shall i play next, okay i know how to play a dm chord lets hear how that sounds after the c chord", and so on.

why do it that way when there is a software that lets you do that so much faster?

this reaper script by pandabot, for example.

https://youtu.be/U_cqFfeOQYo