Curious about the music industry? Find out stuff.

Recommended Videos

ChaoticKraus

New member
Jul 26, 2010
598
0
0
Ok, so a guy in my DJ group is pushing to record some rapping at his home and is wondering on how cheap we can get away. A good mic is essential ofc. If a mixer is needed we can steal one from our studio, can we get one of the small ones or is the big guns required?

Right now we are planning to unexpertedly record the stuff and mix them together with the beat in audacity. Is that a good idea or do you know of a better way? Any tips regarding microphone technique? Any miscelleanous tips would also be greatly appreciated.
 

Computer-Noob

New member
Mar 21, 2009
491
0
0
BonsaiK said:
Computer-Noob said:
Just wanted to know if you knew the average amount of time a record label will watch or follow a band in order to determine if they want to sign them or not.
About 30 seconds, but if we must, we'll wait until the end of their set before we approach them out of politeness.
So, you wouldnt care about whether or not they were organized, and therefore would be able to tour or promote themselves and succeed in doing so, it would just be based on their live performance, and only about 30 seconds worth of that?
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
ChaoticKraus said:
Ok, so a guy in my DJ group is pushing to record some rapping at his home and is wondering on how cheap we can get away. A good mic is essential ofc. If a mixer is needed we can steal one from our studio, can we get one of the small ones or is the big guns required?

Right now we are planning to unexpertedly record the stuff and mix them together with the beat in audacity. Is that a good idea or do you know of a better way? Any tips regarding microphone technique? Any miscelleanous tips would also be greatly appreciated.
If you're just using the mixer to get levels right into Audacity then I'd go for the smallest one you can possibly find that does the job. You shouldn't need anything bigger than a DJs crossfader mixer, and in fact some of those DJ mixers allow a mix on a separate channel so with luck and a bit of ingenuity you may not even need a separate mixer at all, because I'm sure your DJ already has a crossfade box, that's pretty standard kit.

There's plenty of "better ways" than using Audacity at home, going to a studio springs to mind, but the thing about Audacity is it's free, and studio time conversely is fuckin' pricey - even for a cheap studio. Another option would be to try and get better home kit but then once again you're spending money on what may be only marginal improvements over the free stuff. You do need audio compression though and the one that comes with Audacity is not great, however if you've got no money but lots of time on your hands you can compress vocals by hand waveform-editing, I've done it.

Mic technique is a big topic but I'll tell you the one big mistake that about 99% of rap MCs make - they hold the mic in a stupid fashion that blocks the rear air vents and talk with their lips pretty much touching the mic. This is not how to get a good sound out of any microphone - it'll be loud but it won't be good. I find it deliciously ironic that in a style where there's so much emphasis on "gettin' on tha mic" most practitioners are simply unskilled in even basic microphone technique - learning how to hold your instrument should be the first thing you learn with any instrument small enough to physically carry. Anyway the correct way to hold a dynamic vocal microphone is by the shaft, not the head, with the mic pointing directly at the back of your mouth (insert blowjob gag here but yes it's pretty much exactly the same angle). There should be a couple of inches distance between the mic and your lips - if you're pointing it the right way you shouldn't need to nearly swallow the mic like a lot of rappers do. You may need to vary the distance sometimes though, helps to pull it back for really loud stuff. For recording you'll need a pop shield as well to damped the 'p' in your voice and a mic stand is also useful for recording, you only need to physically hold a mic when you're playing live.

I wanted to go into more detail on this post but I didn't have time, got to get back to work, so let me know if youy still have questions or want me to expand on anything here, especially the mic stuff, and I'll revisit this later.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Computer-Noob said:
BonsaiK said:
Computer-Noob said:
Just wanted to know if you knew the average amount of time a record label will watch or follow a band in order to determine if they want to sign them or not.
About 30 seconds, but if we must, we'll wait until the end of their set before we approach them out of politeness.
So, you wouldnt care about whether or not they were organized, and therefore would be able to tour or promote themselves and succeed in doing so, it would just be based on their live performance, and only about 30 seconds worth of that?
You asked if a record label would want to sign them, and yes that would take about 30 seconds. I know something worth signing if I see it, pretty much straight away. Whether the label actually would sign them, that's another altogether different question and many factors are involved. The label might invite the band to a meeting to discuss this and maybe decide later that the group aren't worth the hassle for whatever reason. Or maybe negotiations take place but neither party sees eye to eye on the contract. Refusing to tour might be another reason why the label might cool off on the idea of having the band on the roster. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be negotiated and both parties usually have a lot of questions. It's almost unheard of in this day and age for someone to meet a band and the first thing they do after introducing themselves is present them a contract for them to sign and the band just do it. A court would typically null-and-void such a contract if it ever came to that, all the artist has to do is say "I was signed under duress, without legal representation" and the label wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Labels know this, so they tend to insist nowadays that a negotiation process take place and that the artist brings a laywer with them to any such negotiation.
 

Outright Villainy

New member
Jan 19, 2010
4,334
0
0
MisterGobbles said:
Solos have never really interested me, thus why I'm not too good at them. However, when the rest of the song is just as complex and engaging as any good solo could be, you don't really need them. Technicality is nice, but the music comes first.
I'd actually be the same. Well, not quite. I mean I do love a lot of solos, but only ones that are rooted in a really clear melody.

Shred solos I can't stand. Something by In flames would make me drool, even though I could play it myself, but it can often get a really cool musical idea across:

it's at 2:46

Man, I don't care if those kind of solos go out of fashion, they're amazing, and I usually find myself writing something like that in every song I do, even when I try not to. :p

Also, that band you linked is quite good. But then, I really like Periphery and stuff like that anyway, so that's to be expected. :D
 

bharding567

New member
Jul 24, 2010
2
0
0
Hi BonsaiK

You might not remember but I posted here way back regarding making an audio showreel and the legalities of 'borrowing' video game footage for it, etc. Anyways again thanks for the reply you were right about computer game companies not being particularly compliant in letting you use their work for a commercial purpose. As such I extended my search to independent filmmakers and the Vimeo community and received far better results. Anyways I know its probably quite a lot to ask but If you're willing to watch and give your opinion on my lasest showreel it would be much appreciated.

You can find it here:
http://www.hardturnproductions.com/

or direct from Vimeo:
http://vimeo.com/20248216
 

ChaoticKraus

New member
Jul 26, 2010
598
0
0
BonsaiK said:
ChaoticKraus said:
Ok, so a guy in my DJ group is pushing to record some rapping at his home and is wondering on how cheap we can get away. A good mic is essential ofc. If a mixer is needed we can steal one from our studio, can we get one of the small ones or is the big guns required?

Right now we are planning to unexpertedly record the stuff and mix them together with the beat in audacity. Is that a good idea or do you know of a better way? Any tips regarding microphone technique? Any miscelleanous tips would also be greatly appreciated.
If you're just using the mixer to get levels right into Audacity then I'd go for the smallest one you can possibly find that does the job. You shouldn't need anything bigger than a DJs crossfader mixer, and in fact some of those DJ mixers allow a mix on a separate channel so with luck and a bit of ingenuity you may not even need a separate mixer at all, because I'm sure your DJ already has a crossfade box, that's pretty standard kit.

There's plenty of "better ways" than using Audacity at home, going to a studio springs to mind, but the thing about Audacity is it's free, and studio time conversely is fuckin' pricey - even for a cheap studio. Another option would be to try and get better home kit but then once again you're spending money on what may be only marginal improvements over the free stuff. You do need audio compression though and the one that comes with Audacity is not great, however if you've got no money but lots of time on your hands you can compress vocals by hand waveform-editing, I've done it.

Mic technique is a big topic but I'll tell you the one big mistake that about 99% of rap MCs make - they hold the mic in a stupid fashion that blocks the rear air vents and talk with their lips pretty much touching the mic. This is not how to get a good sound out of any microphone - it'll be loud but it won't be good. I find it deliciously ironic that in a style where there's so much emphasis on "gettin' on tha mic" most practitioners are simply unskilled in even basic microphone technique - learning how to hold your instrument should be the first thing you learn with any instrument small enough to physically carry. Anyway the correct way to hold a dynamic vocal microphone is by the shaft, not the head, with the mic pointing directly at the back of your mouth (insert blowjob gag here but yes it's pretty much exactly the same angle). There should be a couple of inches distance between the mic and your lips - if you're pointing it the right way you shouldn't need to nearly swallow the mic like a lot of rappers do. You may need to vary the distance sometimes though, helps to pull it back for really loud stuff. For recording you'll need a pop shield as well to damped the 'p' in your voice and a mic stand is also useful for recording, you only need to physically hold a mic when you're playing live.

I wanted to go into more detail on this post but I didn't have time, got to get back to work, so let me know if youy still have questions or want me to expand on anything here, especially the mic stuff, and I'll revisit this later.
If we could see each other i would bow before you, you're really helpful to all the people in this thread. Thanks for reminding me of the pop screen, it really sound weird if you don't have it. If you have the time it would definitely be useful to know proper mic technique. On a related note, is there any good entry-level mic's i should get? I'll just grab one of the smaller mixers in our rehearsal space.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
bharding567 said:
Hi BonsaiK

You might not remember but I posted here way back regarding making an audio showreel and the legalities of 'borrowing' video game footage for it, etc. Anyways again thanks for the reply you were right about computer game companies not being particularly compliant in letting you use their work for a commercial purpose. As such I extended my search to independent filmmakers and the Vimeo community and received far better results. Anyways I know its probably quite a lot to ask but If you're willing to watch and give your opinion on my lasest showreel it would be much appreciated.

You can find it here:
http://www.hardturnproductions.com/

or direct from Vimeo:
http://vimeo.com/20248216
That's really quite good, and I think you made the right decision. You don't want to mess with big computer game companies, they're mostly run by paranoid assholes, and I think you would have struggled to get such a good result from machinima anyway.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
ChaoticKraus said:
If we could see each other i would bow before you, you're really helpful to all the people in this thread. Thanks for reminding me of the pop screen, it really sound weird if you don't have it. If you have the time it would definitely be useful to know proper mic technique. On a related note, is there any good entry-level mic's i should get? I'll just grab one of the smaller mixers in our rehearsal space.
Glad you're getting something out of this thread - hopefully the following is useful. this is the stuff I didn't have to time to do yesterday on my lunch break:

Pop screens are awesome, but whatever you do, don't buy a pop screen - waste of money unless it's for a photo shoot and you want to look all "professional". You can make a pop screen out of a microphone stand, a crappy used stocking (easy to get, girls are always throwing them out) and a bent wire coat hangar. Take the mic and the clip off the stand, bend the coat hangar so it's in the shape of a circle and straighten the hook so it's a straight line. Shove the now-straight hook upside-down into the hollow inside of the mic stand, so the circle points upward, maybe tape it up a bit for stability, then stretch the stocking over the circle part. Presto, you've got a pop screen and it cost you probably nothing unless you had to go out and buy a mic stand for it. Chances are you or somebody you know has got a broken mic stand sitting around gathering dust that won't hold a mic anymore but will still work fine for this purpose.

Entry level mic for vocals, the Shure SM-58. Don't get anything cheaper than this. It's the standard grey and silver mic you see at live gigs and there's a reason for that - it's a serviceable sound and it's practically bulletproof. For really good vocal recording you want a large diaphragm condensor microphone but they're really expensive (in Australia you won't see much change from $1000), the SM-58 will do the job on a budget and unlike the expensive condensors it's durable so you can sling it in your bag or whatever and take it to a friends' house without having to worry about accidentally sitting on it on the bus on the way there. You can get the SM-58 Beta if you want, they're fine too (more or less the same thing), but under no circumstances be talked into a cheaper mic than this. And don't get the SM-57, that's good too but it's designed for instruments, not vocals. Also make sure you're buying it from a music shop, not an electronics shop. Don't worry, every single music shop that deals in mics will have plenty of this model on the shelf. Those $20 mics you see in hobby shops are toys and the sound you get from them will reflect that. Microphones are one of those rare things where you always get what you pay for.

I've discussed mic technique before but I may as well revisit it with a new post, it'll give me a chance to say a few extra things. The singer with the most perfect mic technique I've ever seen is Mariah Carey:


I chose this video because the mic here is really big and the video quality is clear so it's easy to see what she's up to. The tip of the mic in this case is fuzzy, that's basically a pop screen. Fuzzy-tip pop screens are good for live work where using a normal pop screen would look stupid, but don't use the fuzzy-tip ones in the studio - an actual stocking screen works better believe it or not. Anyway - most of the time the mic is pointing at her throat, but notice how she swings it back away from her face and/or changes the angle whenever she does anything loud. All that mic waving isn't for show, she's regulating her voice volume, so she's always at more or less the same volume. Of course her voice will also be going through a compressor which will even out a lot of that anyway, but compressors aren't perfect (live you're lucky enough if the sound guy has one to put on your vocals at all and really lucky if he has got time to optimise it for your voice) and what the compressor won't catch, her mic technique will. The result - a nice, smooth, audible sound, where you can hear every word.

Now let's look at some rap music:


Rap music demands that you hold the mic wrong. You shouldn't hold it by the tip, however a lot of rappers feel a bit... well, gay if they hold it by the shaft. I'm not making this up - I told one rapper that I know how to hold a mic and he baulked, he was like "but... that's gay, dude". Whatever. Anyway, in this video you can see a clever compromise between looking cool and having good mic technique, and to explain what that compromises are and why they're important, I have to talk a a bit about how dynamic microphones work.

A dynamic microphone is basically the principle of a speaker in reverse - it picks up vibrations in the air through a little diaphragm and converts those vibrations into electrical signal.

Your average dynamic microphone is directional - in other words, it picks up more sound from the front than from the sides and the back. It's designed to be this way. There are words for this, "cardioid" (directional), "supercardioid" (very directional), "hypercardioid" (extremely directional) and those "shotgun" boom microphones that you see film studios use are the most directional things going, they pic up very little except what they're pointed directly at. There's also what's called an "omnidirectional" microphone, these are microphones that pick up all sounds in the area more or less euqally regardless of where you're pointing the thing, and there's a "figure 8" microphone which picks up from the from and the rear equally but nothing from the sides (some expensive studio vocal mics like those $1000 condensors I mentioned earlier are like this). But most mics are cardioid or super-cardioid. The name "cardioid" is because the pattern of frequency response mimics that of a heart, in case you're wondering.

So what determines a microphone's directionality? Well, a dynamic microphone has air vents at the rear of the capsule. Air from both the front and the rear of the microphone can get to the diaphragm inside. However, there's a slight delay between when the air hits the front vent and the rear one, due to the placement and shape of the vents, and it's this difference that gives the mic its directional properties. It's like getting two signals instead of one (well not really, but I'm simplifying this next bit a whole lot here because this is already a huge wall of text) and when those two air gusts hit with a slight delay they reinforce each other, strengthening the sound. However, if those two signals hit too close to each other then they will hit out of phase and cancel each other out and that's what the mic is designed to do when someone talks into it fromt he rear instead of the front. Hence, directionality.

Now, if you put your hand over the vents at the back of the capsule you fuck all of this up. There is no more directionality, your microphone has suddenly become omnidirectional. What's so bad about this? Well, you don't want your vocal mic to pick up anything else apart from your voice in most cases. Imagine performing live where you're singing (or rapping) away - stages are loud places, and there's a foldback wedge in front of you playing your own voice and the music back to you so you can hear it all, right? If you mic goes omnidirectional, suddenly it's going to be picking up a lot more of that foldback wedge, plus the sound from the venue's PA speakers and just whatever else is in the room, which means you've created a feedback loop, which means feedback, which means the sound guy then has to turn you down to stop you from feeding back, which means you are now quiet. So you cup the mic even closer to your mouth so you're practically eating it, so you get louder - oops, more feedback, now you sound all muffled because you're too close to the mic (see below), AND you have feedback, AND you're straining your voice, AND you're getting pissed off.

In the video, both Enimem and the D-12 guy are doing something clever - they're cupping the mic but they're leaving gaps between their fingers so the air can still get in the back way. You'll also notice that Mr. D-12 has his index finger pointed towards his nose - no, he's not trying to pick it, he's doing that so he can maintain the correct distance between his lips and the microphone. Live he probably wouldn't do that, but they're doing their thing in a radio station so he probably doesn't mind looking like he's picking his nose a bit.

With dynamic mics, if you move a sound source closer, it gets bassier (let's not go into why, my fingers need a rest). Bass is good but if you're eating the mic you're practically all bass and that's bad, you've probably noticed the effect yourself if you've ever tried to record yourself with your lips right up to the mic. Hence the index finger - he's got a really bassy voice already and he knows it, so he's making sure he keeps that little bit of distance so he doesn't muffle out. On the other hand the DJ in the green tracksuit who introduces the track is eating his mic and thus he sounds a bit distorted and it's a little harder to hear what he's saying at the start of the track (not impossible though, on the plus side he's got a clear voice).

Eminem could have used a pop shield though!
 

ChaoticKraus

New member
Jul 26, 2010
598
0
0
BonsaiK said:
Ginormous snip
Holy shit, this is an entire encyclopedia of useful knowledge. Go get some finger massage or something, you've certainly earned it. (If i would even have gotten the idea to make my own pop screen i would probably have done something stupid, throwing some cloth around a tennis racket comes to mind).

Thank you for giving me another reason to hear that freestyle again, it's a favourite of mine (though i agree on the pop shield, he has a pretty harsh delivery). Now i'll just have to save up for one of those microphones and i can start recording!

Hat's off to you for explaining many important things. If anyone i know ever needs to know about recording i'll show them this post.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
ChaoticKraus said:
BonsaiK said:
Ginormous snip
Holy shit, this is an entire encyclopedia of useful knowledge. Go get some finger massage or something, you've certainly earned it. (If i would even have gotten the idea to make my own pop screen i would probably have done something stupid, throwing some cloth around a tennis racket comes to mind).

Thank you for giving me another reason to hear that freestyle again, it's a favourite of mine (though i agree on the pop shield, he has a pretty harsh delivery). Now i'll just have to save up for one of those microphones and i can start recording!

Hat's off to you for explaining many important things. If anyone i know ever needs to know about recording i'll show them this post.
A tennis racket preferably with the strings removed would work but it's hard to attach to a mic stand. Cloth is thicker than stocking material and would cut too much treble. All pop shields cut some treble out of the voice, but with really thin material, like a stocking, or the stuff they actually make pop shields out of (which has a similar texture to a tightly stretched stocking) you lose almost none. The principle is that you want the thinnest material you can possibly get that will still block most of the air from your mouth when you exhale while saying "p-p-p-p-p" so you don't distort the microphone's diaphragm.

A Shure SM-58 new shouldn't cost you more than a student electric guitar. Try to resist the temptation to buy second-hand, people don't usually sell Shures unless there's something wrong with them, they're too useful.
 

Chefodeath

New member
Dec 31, 2009
759
0
0
Hey. You mentioned on the "Why are the Beatles so popular" thread that beauty in music is completely 100% subjective. This goes against my understanding that there are some basic mathematical principles inherint to "good" music, in regards to pleasing harmonic ratios, rhythms, etc.

I know you're going to show me 20th century music and show me how it just completely rips apart everything that was once considered pleasing in music. Pieces composed entirely of dissonances, pieces without meter. This music has always struck me as a rebellion against traditional form and structure, trying to see where music can go, but even these rebellions always keep as a frame of reference those classic musical beauties, even if just in order to try and get away from them.

This very frame of reference that the 20th century composers try to escape from strikes me as evidence that there really is at least some basic intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music, what is not. This intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music can be empirically shown to atleast roughly coresponds with objective and mathematical principles.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Chefodeath said:
Hey. You mentioned on the "Why are the Beatles so popular" thread that beauty in music is completely 100% subjective. This goes against my understanding that there are some basic mathematical principles inherint to "good" music, in regards to pleasing harmonic ratios, rhythms, etc.

I know you're going to show me 20th century music and show me how it just completely rips apart everything that was once considered pleasing in music. Pieces composed entirely of dissonances, pieces without meter. This music has always struck me as a rebellion against traditional form and structure, trying to see where music can go, but even these rebellions always keep as a frame of reference those classic musical beauties, even if just in order to try and get away from them.

This very frame of reference that the 20th century composers try to escape from strikes me as evidence that there really is at least some basic intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music, what is not. This intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music can be empirically shown to atleast roughly coresponds with objective and mathematical principles.
Without a specific question being asked from you, I assume what you want here is for me to attempt to "prove you wrong" or something like that.

However, you're actually not wrong. All music is based on objective mathematical principles to do with vibration of molecules, this is absolutely 100% correct.

However, there's a catch. How the brain interprets those vibrations and their related mathematical principles changes between one person and the next, because everyone's ears and everyone's brain is a little bit different. It also changes between one group of people/culture and the next. I don't have time to go into detail about this now, but I will later, if you want. And I'll do it without talking about any 20th or 21st century music or musicians at all, I promise.
 

Chefodeath

New member
Dec 31, 2009
759
0
0
BonsaiK said:
Chefodeath said:
Hey. You mentioned on the "Why are the Beatles so popular" thread that beauty in music is completely 100% subjective. This goes against my understanding that there are some basic mathematical principles inherint to "good" music, in regards to pleasing harmonic ratios, rhythms, etc.

I know you're going to show me 20th century music and show me how it just completely rips apart everything that was once considered pleasing in music. Pieces composed entirely of dissonances, pieces without meter. This music has always struck me as a rebellion against traditional form and structure, trying to see where music can go, but even these rebellions always keep as a frame of reference those classic musical beauties, even if just in order to try and get away from them.

This very frame of reference that the 20th century composers try to escape from strikes me as evidence that there really is at least some basic intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music, what is not. This intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music can be empirically shown to atleast roughly coresponds with objective and mathematical principles.
Without a specific question being asked from you, I assume what you want here is for me to attempt to "prove you wrong" or something like that.

However, you're actually not wrong. All music is based on objective mathematical principles to do with vibration of molecules, this is absolutely 100% correct.

However, there's a catch. How the brain interprets those vibrations and their related mathematical principles changes between one person and the next, because everyone's ears and everyone's brain is a little bit different. It also changes between one group of people/culture and the next. I don't have time to go into detail about this now, but I will later, if you want. And I'll do it without talking about any 20th or 21st century music or musicians at all, I promise.
I would very much appreciate that.
 

MisterGobbles

New member
Nov 30, 2009
747
0
0
Outright Villainy said:
Also, that band you linked is quite good. But then, I really like Periphery and stuff like that anyway, so that's to be expected. :D
I don't know if you remember, but you were the one who introduced that particular band to me. I thank you, kind sir =D

BonsaiK said:
I don't have time to go into detail about this now, but I will later, if you want. And I'll do it without talking about any 20th or 21st century music or musicians at all, I promise.
I second that, that should be interesting as hell.

I also want to personally thank you for starting this thread, even though I probably haven't asked the best questions it's been a very interesting and informing read, and entertaining considering I read most of it while sitting in the hospital bored out of my mind.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Chefodeath said:
BonsaiK said:
Chefodeath said:
Hey. You mentioned on the "Why are the Beatles so popular" thread that beauty in music is completely 100% subjective. This goes against my understanding that there are some basic mathematical principles inherint to "good" music, in regards to pleasing harmonic ratios, rhythms, etc.

I know you're going to show me 20th century music and show me how it just completely rips apart everything that was once considered pleasing in music. Pieces composed entirely of dissonances, pieces without meter. This music has always struck me as a rebellion against traditional form and structure, trying to see where music can go, but even these rebellions always keep as a frame of reference those classic musical beauties, even if just in order to try and get away from them.

This very frame of reference that the 20th century composers try to escape from strikes me as evidence that there really is at least some basic intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music, what is not. This intuitive understanding of what is beautiful in music can be empirically shown to atleast roughly coresponds with objective and mathematical principles.
Without a specific question being asked from you, I assume what you want here is for me to attempt to "prove you wrong" or something like that.

However, you're actually not wrong. All music is based on objective mathematical principles to do with vibration of molecules, this is absolutely 100% correct.

However, there's a catch. How the brain interprets those vibrations and their related mathematical principles changes between one person and the next, because everyone's ears and everyone's brain is a little bit different. It also changes between one group of people/culture and the next. I don't have time to go into detail about this now, but I will later, if you want. And I'll do it without talking about any 20th or 21st century music or musicians at all, I promise.
I would very much appreciate that.
Okay, so here we go, I've got about 20 minutes, let's see how many words I can spit out in that time. I know I've told this anecdote somewhere before on this forum, perhaps earlier in this thread, or maybe in another thread but anyway, it fits, and I can't find it, so here goes:

Many years ago, there was an anthropologist who liked classical music. He decided that he was going to introduce the natives of the Amazon to the beauty of Mozart and Beethoven. So he got one of the world's first portable music playback devices (I think it worked on wax cylinders, which he had to store very carefully so they didn't get corrupted in the heat of the jungle) and trekked out into the jungle. Eventually he found this particular tribe and he set up his device to play some classical recording, I'm not sure what it was, Beethoven's 5th or something similar. Anyway, the tribe eagerly sat around while he set up the device. Then the device started playing back the music, and when this happened the tribe screamed and ran away.

The anthropologist stopped the device. It then took a fair bit of coaxing to get the natives to come out from behind the trees and talk to him again. When they finally did, he asked them what was wrong and it gradually became clear that they thought his playback device was a portal to hell and that they had just heard the sound of the devil.

The reason why they didn't have the typical western reaction to western music was because, where was their reference point? Sure, the music may be mathematically "harmonious" but if your brain isn't trained to hear and understand "mathematical harmony" as a pleasing thing then the noises suddenly have no context. Current western music tastes are something that has evolved through time, with various practices falling in and out of favour, none necessarily more harmonious than the next.

Another anthropological example - the western musical scale, as you probably know, is logarithmic - each successive octave note is twice the vibration of the octave below, so one A is 440Hz (Hz = Hertz, which is a mesurement of vibration, so 440 vibrations per second - I know you know this, just thought I'd throw that in for other readers) the next one up is 880Hz, then 1720Hz, 3440Hz, etc. Therefore, our ears hear logarithmically and each semitone as you go up the scale has a greater distance in Hz than the one before it. But guess what? People who aren't brought up in the western music tradition don't hear this way. Studying the music and chants of a partiocular tribe of Australian aboriginies who had very limited exposure to western music, ethnomusicologists found out something unprecedented - their perception of music wasn't logaritmic, it was "additive". So their scale would go 400Hz, 450Hz, 500Hz, 550Hz etc (migth not have been 50Hz exactly, just using as an example)... the same vibration amount would get added on eith each new note. Their ears had been culturally trained to hear additive intervals, not logarithmic ones. Did this tribe think western music was a pile of shit? No, but they sure heard it differently. If western ears hear an additive scale, progressing downward (as all the tribal music from this trible had melodies that went from the highest note to the lowerst one), the notes start off with very little difference between them, and as you get lower and lower, the differences become greater (like gravity making an object fall) as easch sucessive step downward occupies in equal Hz represents a greater pitch distance. But when they sing their own scales, they didn't perceive this increase in pitch difference as the notes went downward. Why? Because that's not how their brain was trained to hear it. As far as they were concerned, such a difference didn't exist and each step was equal.

Nobody processes music in a vaccuum, everyone filters sound through prior learning, their brain makeup and cultural experience. That's why some people are tone deaf and others have perfect pitch, it's also why some people find Slayer is a good release of tension but other people find it aggravating.

MisterGobbles said:
I also want to personally thank you for starting this thread, even though I probably haven't asked the best questions it's been a very interesting and informing read, and entertaining considering I read most of it while sitting in the hospital bored out of my mind.
Glad I'm giving you something to do in there. I'll try to think of you and type as much as I possibly can, seeing as you've got time on your hands...
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
Do you know anything about Micro-tonality? If so, could you tell us "the basics" about the concept and about what music uses it? I ask this because I was reading the above post about the "450 Hz, 500 Hz, 550 Hz," system and that sounded like pretty small intervals...

On a different note, I love this thread and thank you for making it. No class in school would have covered this many subjects at once.
 

Chefodeath

New member
Dec 31, 2009
759
0
0
BonsaiK said:
Another anthropological example - the western musical scale, as you probably know, is logarithmic - each successive octave note is twice the vibration of the octave below, so one A is 440Hz (Hz = Hertz, which is a mesurement of vibration, so 440 vibrations per second - I know you know this, just thought I'd throw that in for other readers) the next one up is 880Hz, then 1720Hz, 3440Hz, etc. Therefore, our ears hear logarithmically and each semitone as you go up the scale has a greater distance in Hz than the one before it. But guess what? People who aren't brought up in the western music tradition don't hear this way. Studying the music and chants of a partiocular tribe of Australian aboriginies who had very limited exposure to western music, ethnomusicologists found out something unprecedented - their perception of music wasn't logaritmic, it was "additive". So their scale would go 400Hz, 450Hz, 500Hz, 550Hz etc (migth not have been 50Hz exactly, just using as an example)... the same vibration amount would get added on eith each new note. Their ears had been culturally trained to hear additive intervals, not logarithmic ones. Did this tribe think western music was a pile of shit? No, but they sure heard it differently. If western ears hear an additive scale, progressing downward (as all the tribal music from this trible had melodies that went from the highest note to the lowerst one), the notes start off with very little difference between them, and as you get lower and lower, the differences become greater (like gravity making an object fall) as easch sucessive step downward occupies in equal Hz represents a greater pitch distance. But when they sing their own scales, they didn't perceive this increase in pitch difference as the notes went downward. Why? Because that's not how their brain was trained to hear it. As far as they were concerned, such a difference didn't exist and each step was equal.
What a strange system, I wonder what it sounds like.

Anyway, I acknowledge just how much of music understanding is culturally grounded, frame of reference etc. but I still don't want to give you that 100% label. I think there is still some basic cross-cultural principles inherint to music no matter who you ask. How we react to them might be changes, but there are still those basic principles. A 5th will always have some pull to its tonal center, maybe not the extra oomph provided by the leading tone, but still that naturally draw.

I have another question I thought I'd pose about popular music. How did the guitar become so prominent I wonder. I mean, the violin was the shit in both classical and folk music, still is, so one would think it would naturally lend itself to newer musics like jazz, blues, and rock. Violin has some chordal ability, and it seems a natural fit to fill the role that the lead guitar does now. It is able to do acoustically what a guitar needs to be amplified to accomplish, I.E. sustained notes, variety in timbre, fancy embellishments etc.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Chefodeath said:
BonsaiK said:
Another anthropological example - the western musical scale, as you probably know, is logarithmic - each successive octave note is twice the vibration of the octave below, so one A is 440Hz (Hz = Hertz, which is a mesurement of vibration, so 440 vibrations per second - I know you know this, just thought I'd throw that in for other readers) the next one up is 880Hz, then 1720Hz, 3440Hz, etc. Therefore, our ears hear logarithmically and each semitone as you go up the scale has a greater distance in Hz than the one before it. But guess what? People who aren't brought up in the western music tradition don't hear this way. Studying the music and chants of a partiocular tribe of Australian aboriginies who had very limited exposure to western music, ethnomusicologists found out something unprecedented - their perception of music wasn't logaritmic, it was "additive". So their scale would go 400Hz, 450Hz, 500Hz, 550Hz etc (migth not have been 50Hz exactly, just using as an example)... the same vibration amount would get added on eith each new note. Their ears had been culturally trained to hear additive intervals, not logarithmic ones. Did this tribe think western music was a pile of shit? No, but they sure heard it differently. If western ears hear an additive scale, progressing downward (as all the tribal music from this trible had melodies that went from the highest note to the lowerst one), the notes start off with very little difference between them, and as you get lower and lower, the differences become greater (like gravity making an object fall) as easch sucessive step downward occupies in equal Hz represents a greater pitch distance. But when they sing their own scales, they didn't perceive this increase in pitch difference as the notes went downward. Why? Because that's not how their brain was trained to hear it. As far as they were concerned, such a difference didn't exist and each step was equal.
What a strange system, I wonder what it sounds like.

Anyway, I acknowledge just how much of music understanding is culturally grounded, frame of reference etc. but I still don't want to give you that 100% label. I think there is still some basic cross-cultural principles inherint to music no matter who you ask. How we react to them might be changes, but there are still those basic principles. A 5th will always have some pull to its tonal center, maybe not the extra oomph provided by the leading tone, but still that naturally draw.

I have another question I thought I'd pose about popular music. How did the guitar become so prominent I wonder. I mean, the violin was the shit in both classical and folk music, still is, so one would think it would naturally lend itself to newer musics like jazz, blues, and rock. Violin has some chordal ability, and it seems a natural fit to fill the role that the lead guitar does now. It is able to do acoustically what a guitar needs to be amplified to accomplish, I.E. sustained notes, variety in timbre, fancy embellishments etc.
The relationship between the 5th and the octave is mathematically very powerful (being vibrations divided into multiples of 2 and 3 respectively), however whether a listener actually cares about that powerful relationship is entirely another question. They'll care if they're trained to care. Fifths in music haven't always been desirable things and they haven't always had "gravitational pull to the tonal center" properties, these attributes are entirely constructed in the same sense that gold isn't a precious metal objectively, it's a precious metal because society places value on that metal. We expect to hear the I follow the V because we've heard it so many times before.

I'd say the prominence of guitar in recent years is because the guitar is a lot easier to play. The violin is an absolute ass of an instrument to get proficient at. The original blues guys were tired, they just spent all fucking day picking cotton in the fields, think they wanted to spend hours a day practicing some little thing with a bow? Hell no, they wanted something portable, cheap, and not too challenging, not some expensive fancy-schmancy thing that wasn't particularly durable and took months of practice just to make it sound like anything other than a strangled cat. And since blues begat most modern styles of popular music I think the instrument just stuck.
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
BonsaiK said:
* "Personal differences" - basically someone isn't getting along with someone else. This affects all genres equally. When starting a band priority #1 should be finding people who you get along with. Skill deficits can often be worked on, but an asshole is usually always going to be an asshole. Drugs and alcohol certainly have an effect on this but that's something that also applies across the board in all music styles with the exception of classical musicians who are utterly loaded with pharmaceuticals in a manner with puts other genres to shame.
Do you mean that classical musicians take a lot of pills and end up being "enhanced" by them?