Do you use chord generator tools or similar plugins to create chords? Which ones?

[BlackWinny]

This is my "Beyonce" and my "Solange" in a one and unique body. If there was a female singer that I'd fuggin love it would be... her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmSHVAlghCw

Yes, obviously, it is another kind (and certainly another voice level) of "R'n'B".

You should listen to other voice performances from Jane Zhang...

An example (more "R'n'B-ish"):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaXWpGI9mU4

Be sure... she DOES know the chord progression rules. Because she is also an incredible composer and songwriter. And she doesn't use anything else than her piano to compose. No DAW, no tool... The arrangements using a DAW and other tools and real musicians are made after the composition steps.

[telecode]

For OP, a good tutorial on some of the advanced musical functionality in DAWs

https://splice.com/blog/chord-progressi ... gic-pro-x/

As the guy mentions, if you are on the laptop and working more remotely, (which I current am as I work a lot on my commute) you won't have access to a regular midi controller keyboard. so the tools *are* useful in getting things done.

[jancivil]

Not only were there no attacks, or particularly unfair characterizations, we had moved on to affirm actual interest in using generative tools, as an alternative to using plugins to give you chords. But no, one supposes the side of no interest had to be shored up and now defended as though under attack from a knowledge perspective. FO.

One member states, yes I use them because I'm weak at chords; how do you become stronger at chords, then? Continue using a crutch? Is characterizing it as a crutch unfair? Are people that would like to say a couple of things of music theory sort of interest expected to happily accept actively regressing the thread to tilt the balance back to 'Yeah, I don't really want to deal with it, chords, but I do want chords in my track' on the board which really functions in_order_to_deal? It's obtuse af, telecode. In any case, telling us we've been unfair is just bullshit. This was the latest in a series of 'do you use plugins to come up with chords?' threads. It had done got old. I would in general recommend see if you can get a sense of the room.
Ya never do, tho, isn't it.

In the first place, "here we go again" directly refers to the OP taking out a second thread for the same topic. Then there's the other two or three threads concurrent with that, on the self-same topic. Then, 'Yeah, no, I have ideas.' That's actually a statement in the affirmative. Its consequent 'the plugin can't know so it's no help.'? This is the truth about it. Reality check.

But you want to act like you want to use chords, WHY? What is the music? Why are there chords? If there is a music that doesn't need chords, that's an idea. More typically I make music that doesn't.
Is there supposed to be music which uses chords but competence is of no concern? New one on me!
But ok then, just receive the chords from somewhere safe. Steal Pachelbel's bit there and glom something over the top and no one's the wiser? Receive the Tarnce chords which are de rigeur for that and have a blast. Receive the cookie cutter filled with teh EDM dough and never be arsed.
But here there is a sub-forum for the understanding. "Do you use plugins to give you the chords' is not a music theory question at all.

Everyone is a beginner when they begin. If you gain some experience with extant music, you can 'get it' thru osmosis.
You don't have to get into it further than your use value. But no, people with no interest get a DAW and in that vacuum there are all these crutches. How long before you want to get your legs under you? In the numerous threads on this now, I and others who advise against using a crutch for writing have also affirmed that, sure it can be used as a tool towards your basic grasp of 'chord theory'.
What is the context? It's not that hard to sort.

[Hink]

"here we go again"

ftr that's a two way street

[jancivil]

Yeah, I absolutely repeat myself. "Here we go again"; CONTEXT: the same person started two threads on the same subject. On top of two others concurrent with it.

Do you have any point at all or are you only here to suggest I shut up.
That's a rhetorical question. For the record I have zero interest in what you think about what I do like that unless I broke some rule. Maybe you could check yourself once in a while.

[jancivil]

IE: you're not addressing any point or idea; you're focused on what a person does. I did zoom in on what telecode does but I was talking about ideas.

Everyone is a beginner when they begin. If you gain some experience with extant music, you can 'get it' thru osmosis.
You don't have to get into it further than your use value. is my most recent guiding statement in the affirmative.

Yeah, I should never counter anti-knowledge with ideas, I'm
Telecode can waste all this space doubling down, "I felt people were unfairly attacking" but do focus on the real crime, trying to say something.
It was on my mind, I posted again. Sue me.

[telecode]

Not only were there no attacks, or particularly unfair characterizations, we had moved on to affirm actual interest in using generative tools, as an alternative to using plugins to give you chords. But no, one supposes the side of no interest had to be shored up and now defended as though under attack from a knowledge perspective. FO.

One member states, yes I use them because I'm weak at chords; how do you become stronger at chords, then? Continue using a crutch? Is characterizing it as a crutch unfair? Are people that would like to say a couple of things of music theory sort of interest expected to happily accept actively regressing the thread to tilt the balance back to 'Yeah, I don't really want to deal with it, chords, but I do want chords in my track' on the board which really functions in_order_to_deal? It's obtuse af, telecode. In any case, telling us we've been unfair is just bullshit. This was the latest in a series of 'do you use plugins to come up with chords?' threads. It had done got old. I would in general recommend see if you can get a sense of the room.
Ya never do, tho, isn't it.

In the first place, "here we go again" directly refers to the OP taking out a second thread for the same topic. Then there's the other two or three threads concurrent with that, on the self-same topic. Then, 'Yeah, no, I have ideas.' That's actually a statement in the affirmative. Its consequent 'the plugin can't know so it's no help.'? This is the truth about it. Reality check.

But you want to act like you want to use chords, WHY? What is the music? Why are there chords? If there is a music that doesn't need chords, that's an idea. More typically I make music that doesn't.
Is there supposed to be music which uses chords but competence is of no concern? New one on me!
But ok then, just receive the chords from somewhere safe. Steal Pachelbel's bit there and glom something over the top and no one's the wiser? Receive the Tarnce chords which are de rigeur for that and have a blast. Receive the cookie cutter filled with teh EDM dough and never be arsed.
But here there is a sub-forum for the understanding. "Do you use plugins to give you the chords' is not a music theory question at all.

Everyone is a beginner when they begin. If you gain some experience with extant music, you can 'get it' thru osmosis.
You don't have to get into it further than your use value. But no, people with no interest get a DAW and in that vacuum there are all these crutches. How long before you want to get your legs under you? In the numerous threads on this now, I and others who advise against using a crutch for writing have also affirmed that, sure it can be used as a tool towards your basic grasp of 'chord theory'.
What is the context? It's not that hard to sort.

I think with some of the newer EDM rooted styles of music, the tools used to make it and sticking to the limited pallet of what the music genre requires is what makes the music what it is. (Ableton + Massive + Serum + chord generators + a 150 to 160 bpm beat). If they were to get too fancy musically, they would lose the essence of what the music (and most probably lose their audience!).

It's really no different than other older genres of music and artists. You can't assume that everyone should naturally want to progress to a higher level of musicality. Just like some late 60s and 70s rock artists of Frank Zappa's generation did not go on to make the rock/jazz fusion records he did. They just stuck to their limited pallet of chords and scales that they always used to make the music they make and they had a very successful careers.

We had the great Stompin Tom who is considered a musical national treasure of central and Eastern Canada on par with Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly. Tom probably used 3 or 4 chords and had a very limited vocal range (and he stomped!) but he also captured the spirit of the nation, the culture and the people (as it used to exist back in the 50s and 60s) in his songs. Can you imagine the disaster if he had gone on to learn jazz chords and took vocal lessons to sound like Peter Cetera?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl751CDdRZI

[telecode]

IE: you're not addressing any point or idea; you're focused on what a person does. I did zoom in on what telecode does but I was talking about ideas.

Everyone is a beginner when they begin. If you gain some experience with extant music, you can 'get it' thru osmosis.
You don't have to get into it further than your use value. is my most recent guiding statement in the affirmative.

Yeah, I should never counter anti-knowledge with ideas, I'm
Telecode can waste all this space doubling down, "I felt people were unfairly attacking" but do focus on the real crime, trying to say something.
It was on my mind, I posted again. Sue me.

I am not "doing" anything. Just carrying on a normal intelligent discussion about tools included in DAWs and options available to people these days. I did say, it doesn't hurt to learn music theory, but it's not necessarily going to make a person better at the genre of music they want to make. Last time I checked, we don't dump on Depeche Mode because they still use sequencers and synths in their music and they don't use Steve Gadd type drummers or Richard Tee type keyboard players -- why is that? I guess because they are successful.

[telecode]

Everyone is a beginner when they begin. If you gain some experience with extant music, you can 'get it' thru osmosis.

May I make a casual observation. Do you ever consider that you might be passing on your own value system and aesthetics when it comes to music onto a world that is very different than the one you inhabit?

What I am trying to say is, there might be a big difference between the EDM electronic world of music and the faculty of music *.* environments that the upper echelons of white middle to upper class inhabit.

Have a look at a doc 808. It should be available for free in your area. What you will notice it is was not a music movement that was bred in suburbia or faculty of music type environments. It was a movement that simmered in urban areas, low income areas and dance clubs. The rules and aesthetics that govern the early electronic hip hop/house e.t.c. genres are very different and are sort of particular and unique to that movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIS-o_--wqY

A very similar process can be applied to modern EDM and chillstep genres. It's a music movement that simmers and breeds in online areas like YouTube, forums, chat rooms, e.t.c. It's a music that is exclusively created by computer tools and is particular to a particular demographic and separate and distinct from the over 40+ upper white middle class society.

A lot of it is very generic. But some of it I find very very very good. They may not be classically trained musicians in the traditional sense, but they are very very good at making, arranging, mixing instrumental music that keeps the listeners interested for the 4 or so minutes that the songs last for. They are not little repetitive instrumental pieces and they are also not big fancy musically complex instrumental pieces either, but they are very well made in some cases.

https://soundcloud.com/bitbird/duskusxs ... takemehome

[jancivil]

I think a lot of this is centered around what kind of music you make and what kind of music you like to listen. Not all of it requires advanced musical mastery or orchestration skills and some of it just requires very good technical mastery of the tools and an exploratory mind.

Not only that, but if you're not really interested in the theory, then don't study it.

This throws a light on a basic misunderstanding. On this board we'll talk about the roman numerals and root movement in an academic terminology but that isn't necessarily it. To the assertion 'what kind of music you make', there is, for instance literally no one doing 12-bar blues that needs a program to provide the answer to 'where do you go to IV', 'back to I, now to V' for whichever turnaround you think is the thing to do. They may not be thinking of roman numerals, but the_most_basic music has things known about it. The device of those numbers does two things: measures the distance and gives the quality of the triad (major, minor, dim, aug).
The most rudimentary riff in a club EDM banger is known for its minor pentatonic or what-have-you.

R&B was brought in: every person that wrote a song which suited the style understands from the machinations or devices involved, whether that was someone that was schooled or someone totally street who has internalized it from the practice of that music.

So this is purely a question of wouldn't you like to understand it in order to have some kind of fluency? Some people don't care if they're illiterate or use 'there' for they're, for that matter. It would never occur to a certain type of person to be able to distinguish the real object of a sentence if only to avoid confusion if the object is more complex than the simplest of constructions may have it. Would we be happily bogged down by that kind of thing on a grammar forum?

[telecode]

All true. You could say that about anything though. Like for instance I am into modular stuff these days. If I had a good background in electronics I would probably have a much richer experience experimenting with it and understanding it better. But it's not really essential because I am not building electronics, I and just using it to create something musical. So I keep experimenting and seeing which osilator, filter , LFO combination do what appeals to me ear.

[Forgotten]

If I had a good background in electronics I would probably have a much richer experience experimenting with it and understanding it better.

Probably not, as it would only give you a better understanding of how they work internally, but that would give you no education into how to make sounds with it.

One of my degrees is in electronic engineering, but it's of no help in making sounds with a modular system.

[Hink]

Yeah, I absolutely repeat myself. "Here we go again"; CONTEXT: the same person started two threads on the same subject. On top of two others concurrent with it.

Do you have any point at all or are you only here to suggest I shut up.
That's a rhetorical question. For the record I have zero interest in what you think about what I do like that unless I broke some rule. Maybe you could check yourself once in a while.

my point was it's odd to complain about "here we go again" by not letting go yourself, hence my simple statement that it's a two way street...obviously you'll turn into whatever you want

[vil_tonicmint]

My answer for the original question:
Im using ChordLine, of course,
but im on Reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCx4QFDKJW0

[StompIt]

My answer for the original question:
Im using ChordLine, of course,
but im on Reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCx4QFDKJW0

I gotta try this.. thanks!