# Is there a list of chords, intervals, and progressions by emotions?



## merlinhimself

I never went to music school, but have an alright understanding of theory. As an assistant, this past year I've been given a lot of cues to write and have been handling it pretty well for the amount I know, but I was wondering if there is a book or list of most, if not every, chord, chord progression and interval and what feeling or emotion it invokes. Having something like this available to me would tremendously speed up my process in writing. At the moment I look at a cue and think "alright it needs to be ominous here and then shift to triumphant at this moment" and I sit there going from chord to chord, shooting in the dark, until I find the right match. But if I had a resource, that eventually I wouldnt need but know from the top of my head, I would be able to immediately go to what will work instead of digging for it.


----------



## Replicant

What you're looking for is "chromatic mediants".

Chords that move by distance of thirds/sixths and also tritones are popular.

A concept that became popular in the Romantic era and became like, the go-to in film and games.

Want to sound "spacey"? Go from say, A Major to F#/Gb Major.

"Adventurous?" There's a movement for that.

"Scary?" Yep.

"Romantic?" Got it.

and they almost all involve movement by a third.

This technique is everywhere, to the point it's become a trope ; you've likely never heard a film score that didn't do it.


----------



## merlinhimself

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!!


----------



## BenG

Capturing emotion is one of the truly amazing aspects of music considering how certain sounds in succession can evoke such deep feelings! 

There are a lot of tips, tricks, devices, and idioms out there and I would suggest a few things to get started...

1. Modes/Modal Harmony!

There are a ton of unique sounds that modal harmony can unlock and using different modes interchangeably even further expands your palette.

2. Experiment!

Test out weird chords, voicings, progressions, suspensions, etc. Anything that sounds out there which can develop into sonethjng new and cool.

3. TRANSCRIBE!

Most important, transcribe tons of music. Find music you like and try and recreate it on the piano. What is going on, why certain progressions work, cool devices to copy. Look up music that you feel represents an emotion/style well and analyze (in your own way) what is going on! When you hear something you like, copy it and extract it's essential elements.

These are three great tools to help you start coming up with some fresh ideas about capturing different emotions. There are also many other musical possibilities out there such as: rhythm, intervalix structure, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. All of which add to your arsenal!

(Also, be sure to check out some fantastic tutorials/courses from Mike Verta, Rick Beato, Thinkspace and Scoreclub to name a few)


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

This thread is depressing.


----------



## JonAdamich

Study scores and/or listen to music and figure out the progression. Doing that will help immeasurably.

I know a list of "jump a major third for this sound, etc etc" could seem helpful. But that is just going to box you in and create some very bad habits. Also, be a little wary of youtube channels. Some are helpful, of course! But many of them teach you how to emulate being a composer, without actually knowing why you are doing these things or how they function.


----------



## merlinhimself

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> This thread is depressing.


How so?


----------



## Replicant

merlinhimself said:


> How so?



Because *insert pretentious music snob reason here*


----------



## Rohann

merlinhimself said:


> How so?


My guess is because you're asking for a by-the-books, formula-based approach to music, which is an approach no noteworthy composer has ever written anything memorable by.
I completely understand the idea, and I've gone hunting myself, but what you're better off doing is learning this over time through transcription, or learning existing pieces. Getting piano lessons can be immensely helpful.

There's nothing wrong, _at root_, with looking up chord progressions (i.e. common jazz progressions, etc), as well as typical "movie" progressions. But those do not make the song. Theory is _descriptive; _it's poorly used _pre_scriptively. As mentioned, you're basically learning composing via a "cookbook" method, which is frighteningly removed, practically and at heart, from how people write music. There are no shortcuts, you have to learn this stuff the way everyone else does, and there's a reason composing is a lifelong endeavour.
This is all aside from the fact that many of these ideas become cliche, and when taken out of the context of a piece can mean something completely different to you or others, emotionally. One person's "sad" is another's "somber", one person's "evil" is another's "mysterious", etc.

For the record -- nothing wrong with what you're asking for, but what I'm perceiving and what it looks like others are perceiving is that you're asking for prescriptive shortcuts, which will lead you to predictable and unmemorable music unless you can effectively apply them. As vague as it may be, it's more useful to transcribe pieces you find embody these emotions and analyze them afterwards (getting help with this is perfectly alright too, I still do).

If I were you, I'd try one or two of Mike Verta's classes, i.e. Composition 1, and maybe Structure. $30 each, hard to go wrong.



Replicant said:


> Because *insert pretentious music snob reason here*


Don't cut yourself on all that edge.


----------



## merlinhimself

Replicant said:


> Because *insert pretentious music snob reason here*


I wouldnt want to assume before hearing, but I also had that in my head as well haha


----------



## merlinhimself

Rohann said:


> My guess is because you're asking for a by-the-books, formula-based approach to music, which is an approach no noteworthy composer has ever written anything memorable by.
> I completely understand the idea, and I've gone hunting myself, but what you're better off doing is learning this over time through transcription, or learning existing pieces. Getting piano lessons can drastically help too.
> 
> There's nothing wrong, _at root_, with looking up chord progressions (i.e. common jazz progressions, etc), as well as typical "movie" progressions. But those do not make the song. Theory is _descriptive; _it's poorly used _pre_scriptively. As mentioned, you're basically learning composing via a "cookbook" method, which is frighteningly removed, practically and at heart, from how people write music. There are no shortcuts, you have to learn this stuff the way everyone else does, and there's a reason composing is a lifelong endeavour.
> 
> If I were you, I'd try one or two of Mike Verta's classes, i.e. Composition 1, and maybe Structure. $30 each, hard to go wrong.



Absolutely I agree with what youre saying. I think my question comes off in a way that seems I want a quick and easy way to learn, because I have little knowledge on the subject I dont know exactly what I'm trying to ask for, if that makes any sense. I'm really asking for any resource that would teach me what I now know is "chromatic mediants". Maybe a "list" was the wrong wording. But I do disagree with "learning it like everyone else". I couldnt afford music school or piano lessons. Literally everything I know that enabled me to be in the position I'm in now, including piano, was self taught.


----------



## Replicant

Rohann said:


> I completely understand the idea, and I've gone hunting myself, but what you're better off doing is learning this over time through transcription, or learning existing pieces.



Right, so you can learn something that can be broken down to a $#%*in' formula that you're better off learning in five minutes by actually having the concept explained to you.

My god, do you people realize what you're saying?

With one hand, you're telling him not to bother with anything that's a sort of pre-determined "formula".

But then, with the other, you tell him to study scores so he _can absorb existing techniques. _Just lol

And guess what? This exact thing is what the OP will come across, time and again.

I know the hipsters and the "I have a degree in Bach fugues" don't want to accept it, but music, specifically the study of harmony, is in fact bound by rules (physics) and our perception of them; and much like with symbolism in literature, people have collectively prescribed certain things with particular emotions and meanings and it's _never going to change_.

So yes, learn these things. They are important, and you will absolutely find your own "voice" while utilizing them; it's possible.


----------



## Rohann

merlinhimself said:


> Absolutely I agree with what youre saying. I think my question comes off in a way that seems I want a quick and easy way to learn, because I have little knowledge on the subject I dont know exactly what I'm trying to ask for, if that makes any sense. I'm really asking for any resource that would teach me what I now know is "chromatic mediants". Maybe a "list" was the wrong wording.


I was in this position about a year ago, and as much as these theory concepts are interesting and informative, they're no replacement for internalizing it. Think of learning musical principles like learning a language -- learning grammar, verb conjugation, etc, can be quite helpful, but it's not replacement for being forced to speak it, make mistakes, etc. There's no better way to learn a language then by diving in and immersing yourself. Transcribing pieces is _tremendously _helpful in this regard. Simple pieces with simple melodies are a great place to start. You could also take chord progressions you learn and write new melodies overtop of them, or write a melody and figure out how to move chords in a certain way underneath it -- all useful exercises, but considerably more so if done so along transcription.


----------



## Rohann

Replicant said:


> Right, so you can learn something that can be broken down to a $#%*in' formula that you're better off learning in five minutes by actually having the concept explained to you.
> 
> My god, do you people realize what you're saying?



I realize precisely what I'm saying. It's what damn near _every competent composer throughout history _has done, _regardless of genre_. It's also what competent composers continue to teach.
I'm baffled about why this is so difficult to understand, but let's apply your logic to other scenarios:
-Don't learn to throw a ball by watching people throw a ball and studying what they do, and then try it yourself. Simply have someone _explain _how to throw a ball -- it's all "just rules (physics) and our perception of them".
-Don't learn to write good stories by _reading books _and _studying literature_ -- have someone explain literary symbolism to you.
-Don't learn to speak a language by hearing people speak it, repeating phrases, studying what they say and generally be immersed in the language. Have someone explain the grammatical structure to you.
Etc.



> With one hand, you're telling him not to bother with anything that's a sort of pre-determined "formula".
> 
> But then, with the other, you tell him to study scores so he _can absorb existing techniques. _Just lol


Actually I didn't, if you bothered to read my post. The implication here, is that by learning it through _listening to the music _and following along, one will understand how it is used _in the context of a whole piece_. By transcribing it, you get it under your fingers and actually internalize the music, as well as being able to do the above, precisely how we learn other highly complex skills throughout life that don't require analysis to successfully accomplish.


OP: Again, theory can certainly be useful, as are concepts. But don't be fooled into thinking that _simply_ having rules explained to you will make you a better composer. You'll learn these things eventually, but why many will caution you is because theory can sometimes become a "crutch" for some -- too much theory, without internalization and practical application, can give the illusion of advancing skill without really doing so. By all means learn it, but heed the cautions and successful approaches of serious composers throughout history in this regard. Neurologically, music learning is quite similar to language learning, which is why internalizing the "language of music" is so extraordinarily helpful in actually internalizing these concepts.


----------



## Replicant

Rohann said:


> I realize precisely what I'm saying. It's what damn near _every competent composer throughout history _has done, _regardless of genre_. It's also what competent composers continue to teach.
> I'm baffled about why this is so difficult to understand, but let's apply your logic to other scenarios



You're examples fail for exactly the reason the naysayers in this thread fail. Here's an alternative:

• Someone TEACHES you how to throw the ball, rather than you just sit and watch and hope you figure it out?

Also, I'm not sure if you've ever taken a language course. But they typically DO teach you the grammar structure and stuff as best they can before they just immerse you in it; understanding nothing.

You do know that it's possible to do both right?

This kind of thing set me back years in learning anything I wanted to about music.

Because all I could do was study existing music or maybe find a book; god forbid anyone just explain what was going on. I couldn't afford teachers.

Yeah, he COULD just study scores until his eyes bleed, until he eventually finds the common thread.

or he could study scores, and have someone just explain to him "Hey, did you know about this technique/concept that can explained with some simple music theory and will let you do exactly what you want?"

Personally, I'm just tired of musicians acting like that's somehow a BAD approach. I hate to drag anyone else into this, but @JohnG has wisely stated many times on here, that it's better to just LEARN what you want to learn instead of all these "pre-requisite" steps beforehand.


----------



## Rohann

Replicant said:


> You're examples fail for exactly the reason the naysayers in this thread fail. Here's an alternative:
> 
> • Someone TEACHES you how to throw the ball, rather than you just sit and watch and hope you figure it out?


That wasn't your point. Quote: _Right, so you can learn something that can be broken down to a $#%*in' formula that you're better off learning in five minutes by actually *having the concept explained to you*._
Having someone explain something to you is not "being taught". Your implication is that someone walking you through the steps of throwing a ball, helping correct your mistakes, providing you with examples, getting you to practice on your own, etc, is somehow the same as explaining a singular harmonic concept to a person. If anything this supports the validity of my examples -- I'm saying that theory is useful, but you need to _understand how these things work in context and internalize them, _not just understand them conceptually.



> You do know that it's possible to do both right?


Yes, hence my recommendation to do that?


> This kind of thing set me back years in learning anything I wanted to about music.
> 
> Because all I could do was study existing music or maybe find a book; god forbid anyone just explain what was going on. I couldn't afford teachers.
> 
> Yeah, he COULD just study scores until his eyes bleed, until he eventually finds the common thread.
> 
> or he could study scores, and have someone just explain to him "Hey, did you know about this technique/concept that can explained with some simple music theory and will let you do exactly what you want?"
> 
> Personally, I'm just tired of musicians acting like that's somehow a BAD approach. I had to drag anyone else into this, but @JohnG has wisely stated many times on here, that it's better to just LEARN what you want to learn instead of all these "pre-requisite" steps beforehand.


Again, the problem isn't learning theory, it's thinking that learning theoretical points and formulas (in absence of internalizing concepts via practically "learning the language") will make you a good composer. It's clear now that this isn't what the OP was asking, considering his clarification as response to my post (I understand where he's coming from now), but the point still stands and the caution still exists (not my own, but simply passed from other composers); my point was simply as a caution to not use it as a substitute, something I've learned practically and have had many experienced (and good) composers recommend. In fact, I've had and seen John recommend transcription and score study at least a handful of times, and in a recent post regarding orchestration he said "_I like Adler's orchestration book for this, but perhaps the cheapest / best way to learn orchestration is to look at John Williams' scores. They are very inexpensive for what you get, and each one is an orchestration class in itself._"
(https://vi-control.net/community/th...virtual-orchestra-strings.69039/#post-4191064)

For the sake of clarity, again -- nothing wrong with theory and these concepts, hence the reason theory exists, but for someone who's newer, _learn and apply them first in the context of music, _rather than removed from it.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Replicant said:


> Because *insert pretentious music snob reason here*


That sounded a bit like feelings of inadequacy.


----------



## merlinhimself

Rohann said:


> Having someone explain something to you is not "being taught"


I both agree and disagree? thats weird.

I dont think i need to explain my discordance with this statement.

But I agree in that, which I think is your point, that a teacher can explain but the student has to do the work. If nobody told me the term "chromatic mediants" I'd be in the exact same spot before I posted this thread. The video
@Replicant posted explains the how and why of it. My question is being taken to seriously. I presented the problem that there is a hole in my knowledge and would like to know where I can get a resource to learn it. I'm sure the best way to learn all of this would be school, but not everyone can afford the luxury of going to a music school, so the traditional means of learning something are impractical to those who cant.


----------



## merlinhimself

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> That sounded a bit like feelings of inadequacy.





Jimmy Hellfire said:


> This thread is depressing.


This kind of does too. Everyone needs to take a step back and look at what you're arguing over.


----------



## merlinhimself

douggibson said:


> Things are getting a little conflated here. Studying what a listener (audience) hears and how
> to gain mastery of compositional craft are two seperate things. Both related and important.
> 
> Of course the topic is has many layers and like other aspects of music once you learn one thing three or four more ideas will appear.
> 
> Basically there is a lot of material written on this subject already.
> Of course, most of us already know a lot more of "cliches" intuitively already. You most likely would not score a love scene kiss with Tuba's Tam-tams and semi tone clusters, unless you are doing satire.
> 
> If you want some comprehensive material on the subject I can point you towards the following:
> 
> https://www.bookdepository.com/Handbook-Music-Emotion-Patrik-N-
> 
> Juslin/9780199604968https://scarab.bates.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=honorstheses
> http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.2/mto.15.21.2.gjerdingen_bourne.html


Thanks! Will definetly be ordering this soon!


----------



## Replicant

You can misread it however you want; you know full-well what I mean.

If the concept is explained, and demonstrated (such as in the video) that is really the best we can do on the internet and is a hell of a lot better than being like "oh go study all these scores, blah blah" Nope. Just "Here's something that will help you with what you want to do, here's how it works, now go for it".

It's irrelevant anyway, the OP has been helped.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> That sounded a bit like feelings of inadequacy.



That's nothing compared to elitists such as yourself. How are those trailer composer death camps that, as I recall, you support, coming along?

I've seen this stuff for years dude; it's the same reason you have John Williams haters and stuff: They get the work, they make stuff a lot of people like, and it's not what you like and it stings.

*Here's some real advice for any newbs ever reading this:*

What anyone else thinks is cool, or what you SHOULD do, or any of that, doesn't matter: Ignore anything that's just someone on a high horse. If you want to learn how to do something, but don't know where to start; get a straight-to-the-point, no bullshit answer that points you in the direction YOU want to go.

Music is a gift; one far too precious to waste it molding it to what strangers on VI-C think it should be.


----------



## NoamL

merlinhimself said:


> I never went to music school, but have an alright understanding of theory. As an assistant, this past year I've been given a lot of cues to write and have been handling it pretty well for the amount I know, but I was wondering if there is a book or list of most, if not every, chord, chord progression and interval and what feeling or emotion it invokes. Having something like this available to me would tremendously speed up my process in writing. At the moment I look at a cue and think "alright it needs to be ominous here and then shift to triumphant at this moment" and I sit there going from chord to chord, shooting in the dark, until I find the right match. But if I had a resource, that eventually I wouldnt need but know from the top of my head, I would be able to immediately go to what will work instead of digging for it.



It's all about *modes*! Know the modes! *Stop thinking of chord progressions forever* and start thinking in terms of pitch collections which can be arranged as either scales OR collections of chords.

The major and minor scales are only two possible collections. As long as you stay in the world of major/minor your writing will be very limited and many different kinds of moods or tones will be quite difficult to accomplish.

Over time you will see that composers are using the same modes and collections of pitches to create moods.

Every time you listen to something and recognize a musical mood that you don't know how to recreate, just record it to your computer, name it "mysterious" or "tense" or "romantic," and stick it in a folder. Then transcribe when you have time. Do this as you're watching Netflix, Youtube, etc.

*DON'T take a class.* Nothing against Mike Verta or Rick Beato, I'm just saying, you need to collect knowledge based on what interests YOU, and what sorts of effects YOU recognize you are not yet able to do in music. Not based on a guy handing down a list of "these are the film music scales."

In addition, when you see these tools of the trade in action you will recognize that it's about so much more than formula.

Let me give you an example of how I did this. Check out these tracks by the following composers. The first two are the ones that made me have that "I don't know how to do this" feeling (probably 8-10 years ago now), so I transcribed them.

Basil Poledouris (at 0:00)



Alan Silvestri (at 1:08)



Having internalized this musical device through transcription, I am now able to recognize it WITHOUT having to transcribe, unless I want to!, in the following examples -

Henry Jackman (at 2:00)



Hans Zimmer



Rupert Gregson-Williams (0:38)



(etc. this could go on with A LOT more composers)

As I said before each composer, despite using the same idea, maintains their own voice.

You're getting some pushback in this thread, which I agree/disagree about.

There is *nothing wrong* with wanting to know musical devices. As these above examples should show, every mature composer uses musical devices, that is, they are making a conscious association between their choice of tool and the effect they want the music to have on the audience. You can't write a tense sneaky scene with the major scale, you just can't. And no composer is just using or discovering these accidentally. They are informed. Yes, even Hans "doesn't know theory" Zimmer knows exactly what these ideas are. Knowing the Greek and French names for all this stuff is not the point.

So, to recap - nothing wrong, or "depressing" LOL Jimmy, with wanting to know musical devices.

What would be _very_ wrong is if you took this knowledge and then just slapped it on a scene like "It's a funny scene, therefore I shall use scale #479. Time for lunch!" without thinking about what you want the music to actually accomplish. I sense a little bit of that when you say you have laid out a series of moods: first the music needs to be tense, then triumphant, etc. Are you just replicating the moods that are already in the scene? Think beyond that. What are the characters thinking and feeling, and how will they change as a result of what's happening? What role does this scene play in the larger story? Which character is in control of the scene, and does that change? What is the editing of this scene like, and what moment is "the turn"? What do you want the audience to think about that's NOT onscreen?




I will give you one more piece of advice. The most important thing you can learn about a mode is the *differentiating note.*

There is *one note* that makes Lydian different from major. What is it? There is *one note* that makes Phrygian different from minor. What is it? Study until you make this stuff like multiplication tables - you don't even need to think to say the answer.

Let's assume that you know Lydian is "Major and the differentiating note is #4." so how do you apply this? You have to make the listener hear that #4. So this means we can create Lydian effortlessly by going from a C major chord to D major (or D/C). Because those two chords are diatonic to Lydian _*and only*_ Lydian. Similarly, we can give the #4 a prominent place in the melody.

Then you can apply this more broadly. For example, the fun scale I showed you in the above soundtracks is somewhat similar to the minor scale. How much of the minor scale is exactly like it, and what is the first note we bump into going up from the tonic, or down from the tonic, that says it's definitely not a simple minor scale? How can you create ostinatos or melodies that emphasize that note so that the audience hears we're definitely in That-Fun-Scale Land? Now look back at the examples I showed and see how each composer is doing exactly that?



Now consider this. This is a wonderful theme written by a composer I assisted on his children's TV show.







This is chord scale theory at its best. Both the melody and the harmony are very clearly outlining Lydian. At the same time, it's not just inert musical material. It's a great tune. See music is about craft and artistry hand in hand. 

I think your question is a great question and don't let anyone discourage you. If you aim at craft plus artistry you are headed in the right direction.


----------



## merlinhimself

NoamL said:


> It's all about *modes*! Know the modes! *Stop thinking of chord progressions forever* and start thinking in terms of pitch collections which can be arranged as either scales OR collections of chords.
> 
> The major and minor scales are only two possible collections. As long as you stay in the world of major/minor your writing will be very limited and many different kinds of moods or tones will be quite difficult to accomplish.
> 
> Over time you will see that composers are using the same modes and collections of pitches to create moods.
> 
> Every time you listen to something and recognize a musical mood that you don't know how to recreate, just record it to your computer, name it "mysterious" or "tense" or "romantic," and stick it in a folder. Then transcribe when you have time. Do this as you're watching Netflix, Youtube, etc.
> 
> *DON'T take a class.* Nothing against Mike Verta or Rick Beato, I'm just saying, you need to collect knowledge based on what interests YOU, and what sorts of effects YOU recognize you are not yet able to do in music. Not based on a guy handing down a list of "these are the film music scales."
> 
> In addition, when you see these tools of the trade in action you will recognize that it's about so much more than formula.
> 
> Let me give you an example of how I did this. Check out these tracks by the following composers. The first two are the ones that made me have that "I don't know how to do this" feeling (probably 8-10 years ago now), so I transcribed them.
> 
> Basil Poledouris (at 0:00)
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Silvestri (at 1:08)
> 
> 
> 
> Having internalized this musical device through transcription, I am now able to recognize it WITHOUT having to transcribe, unless I want to!, in the following examples -
> 
> Henry Jackman (at 2:00)
> 
> 
> 
> Hans Zimmer
> 
> 
> 
> Rupert Gregson-Williams (0:38)
> 
> 
> 
> (etc. this could go on with A LOT more composers)
> 
> As I said before each composer, despite using the same idea, maintains their own voice.
> 
> You're getting some pushback in this thread, which I agree/disagree about.
> 
> There is *nothing wrong* with wanting to know musical devices. As these above examples should show, every mature composer uses musical devices, that is, they are making a conscious association between their choice of tool and the effect they want the music to have on the audience. You can't write a tense sneaky scene with the major scale, you just can't.
> 
> What would be _very_ wrong is if you took this knowledge and then just slapped it on a scene like "It's a funny scene, therefore I shall use scale #479. Time for lunch!" without thinking about what you want the music to actually accomplish. I sense a little bit of that when you say you have laid out a series of moods: first the music needs to be tense, then triumphant, etc. Are you just replicating the moods that are already in the scene? Think beyond that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you one more piece of advice. The most important thing you can learn about a mode is the *differentiating note.*
> 
> There is *one note* that makes Lydian different from major. What is it? There is *one note* that makes Phrygian different from minor. What is it? This should be tip of the tongue knowledge for you. You don't need to do subtraction to figure out 12 minus 4, right?
> 
> Then you can apply this more broadly. For example, the scale I showed you in the above soundtracks is somewhat similar to the minor scale. How much of the minor scale is exactly like it, and what is the one note we bump into going up, or going down, that says it's definitely not a simple minor scale?
> 
> Let's assume that you know Lydian is "Major and the differentiating note is #4." so how do you apply this? You have to make the listener hear that #4. So this means we can create Lydian effortlessly by going from a C major chord to D major (or D/C). Because those two chords are diatonic to Lydian _*and only*_ Lydian. Similarly, we can give the #4 a prominent place in the melody.
> 
> Now consider this. This is a wonderful theme written by a composer I assisted on his children's TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See music is about craft and artistry hand in hand. The craft is "I know this motif needs to be Lydian, and communicate it clearly and unambiguously" and the artistry aspect is creating something that rises above that to actually be a beautiful tune



Thanks! A lot of great advice Will definitely be reading this a few times. As far as the "ominous to triumphant" that was purely an off of the top of my head example. I more meant it as how would I paint ominous and how would I paint triumphant. If I were to write something ominous right now, Id be starting with a root and playing around until I thought it was "ominous". But I really would like to have knowledge that would allow me to have better options of a starting point so I can expand off of that and actually begin to write. Right now the time between me starting a cue and me actually writing a cue is too big and I want to better myself in learning these things.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Replicant said:


> That's nothing compared to elitists such as yourself. How are those trailer composer death camps that, as I recall, you support, coming along?
> 
> I've seen this stuff for years dude; it's the same reason you have John Williams haters and stuff: They get the work, they make stuff a lot of people like, and it's not what you like and it stings.



Phew, that's a whole lot of baseless assumptions and also a little bit of malicious lying in such a short paragraph. Don't be a twat™.


----------



## Rohann

merlinhimself said:


> I both agree and disagree? thats weird.
> 
> I dont think i need to explain my discordance with this statement.
> 
> But I agree in that, which I think is your point, that a teacher can explain but the student has to do the work. If nobody told me the term "chromatic mediants" I'd be in the exact same spot before I posted this thread. The video
> @Replicant posted explains the how and why of it. My question is being taken to seriously. I presented the problem that there is a hole in my knowledge and would like to know where I can get a resource to learn it. I'm sure the best way to learn all of this would be school, but not everyone can afford the luxury of going to a music school, so the traditional means of learning something are impractical to those who cant.


Of course the statement was simplified. What I _originally _replied to was your first post, where it looked like you wanted a shortcut, hence simply repeating the precaution I've learned practically and have heard from many experienced musicians and composers. My further replies were to Replicant's abrasive post and subsequent misinterpretations of what I was saying.
In short, what I'm getting at is pretty much what Noam is writing (him, of course, being a more experienced composer and articulating it more usefully) -- learning this stuff in context is what will make it really useful, and transcription is a very practical, fun, and extraordinarily useful way of doing that. Referencing pieces you find embody those particular emotions is a really fantastic way of understanding them -- this is what I mean by a _de_scriptive approach vs a _pre_scriptive approach, i.e. "I really like the sound of X part in this piece, it sounds very ominous, I wonder what they're doing and how to understand it", vs "use this chord progression for this emotion" (though I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea that you shouldn't take a class -- what's more useful is learning the skill of determining what you find useful, what can be applied universally, vs a particular composer's opinion. You don't have to become a student of Mike Verta, but one of the biggest thing he emphasizes is transcribing and understanding the pieces you like, something I've found extremely helpful. YMMV though).

I understand what you're after now, and definitely listen to Doug in that regard -- he's one of the composers who I typically will follow direction from (now at least) without really questioning it too much. It doesn't seem like you're purely after a handbook of shortcuts to be used prescriptively, so the links provided will be helpful.

You might be surprised to learn that a good many people who went to music school would disagree that music school is the best place to learn. School seems to be rather helpful for motivation, though, and readily available resources.

Even if you have some composition experience, this class can be rather helpful in a "get back to basics" kind of way: http://mikeverta.com/online-masterclass-composition-1/


----------



## Replicant

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Don't be a twat™.



Practice what you preach lol.

Anyway, great post @NoamL


----------



## NoamL

If you want to learn ominous there's no better place to start than the best!



Now listen to these two also great composers putting their own spins on it: (3:51)



and this: (3:30 but the whole track is fantastic)


----------



## merlinhimself

Rohann said:


> Of course the statement was simplified. What I _originally _replied to was your first post, where it looked like you wanted a shortcut, hence simply repeating the precaution I've learned practically and have heard from many experienced musicians and composers. My further replies were to Replicant's abrasive post and subsequent misinterpretations of what I was saying.
> 
> I understand what you're after now, and definitely listen to Doug in that regard -- he's one of the composers who I typically will follow direction from (now at least) without really questioning it too much. It doesn't seem like you're purely after a handbook of shortcuts to be used prescriptively, so the links provided will be helpful.
> 
> You might be surprised to learn that a good many people who went to music school would disagree that music school is the best place to learn. School seems to be rather helpful for motivation, though, and readily available resources.
> 
> Even if you have some composition experience, this class can be rather helpful in a "get back to basics" kind of way: http://mikeverta.com/online-masterclass-composition-1/


I think this thread has been convoluted by everyone, including myself's, misinterpretations. I appreciate you're advice and will definitely give it a shot! (along with everyone else's, I have a lot of studying to do haha)


----------



## Rohann

merlinhimself said:


> I think this thread has been convoluted by everyone, including myself's, misinterpretations. I appreciate you're advice and will definitely give it a shot! (along with everyone else's, I have a lot of studying to do haha)


Haha, such is the nature of the internet. Lots of helpful advice in this thread already though!


----------



## merlinhimself

NoamL said:


> If you want to learn ominous there's no better place to start than the best!
> 
> 
> 
> Now listen to these two also great composers putting their own spins on it: (3:51)
> 
> 
> 
> and this: (3:30 but the whole track is fantastic)



Seriously, thank you! I sometimes forget how generous people can be with their time to give advice and show them which way to go.


----------



## Rohann

merlinhimself said:


> Seriously, thank you! I sometimes forget how generous people can be with their time to give advice and show them which way to go.


Noam and Doug have both been really helpful in my experience (in addition to being rather musically competent), we're fortunate they're as generous with their time as they are!



NoamL said:


> Let's assume that you know Lydian is "Major and the differentiating note is #4." so how do you apply this? You have to make the listener hear that #4. So this means we can create Lydian effortlessly by going from a C major chord to D major (or D/C). Because those two chords are diatonic to Lydian _*and only*_ Lydian. Similarly, we can give the #4 a prominent place in the melody.
> 
> Then you can apply this more broadly. For example, the fun scale I showed you in the above soundtracks is somewhat similar to the minor scale. How much of the minor scale is exactly like it, and what is the first note we bump into going up from the tonic, or down from the tonic, that says it's definitely not a simple minor scale? How can you create ostinatos or melodies that emphasize that note so that the audience hears we're definitely in That-Fun-Scale Land? Now look back at the examples I showed and see how each composer is doing exactly that?



OP:
This is a great example of where I've found both theory and transcription/experience helpful. i.e., after recently writing a melody and arpeggiated chord thing on piano, I wanted to make sure I was emphasizing the "Dorian note" so it sounded somewhat adventurous and vulnerable and not too "minor" (i.e. sad). The encouraging thing, though, is that I found I had already done that, thanks to both having internalized the sound via transcribing things I found sounded "adventurous and vulnerable", and simply having learned and played around with modes enough to know where I was intuitively.


----------



## Rohann

Sorry, another late-night thought that may or may not be of interest.

In regard to drawing from existing sources and "learning from the best", what distinguishes a lot of unique musicians tends to be the diverse pool from which they draw inspiration (i.e. John Williams and jazz, Nobuo Uematsu [if you're a game fan] and progressive rock, etc).

If you're trying to learn "ominous", for instance, it can be helpful to also listen to and play around with the structure of pieces like this (this is also just an excuse to post this awesomely creepy ambient piece). I've come up with ideas for pieces and moods simply by sitting down with something like this and plinking away on piano, trying to figure out what each element (or even just the main elements) are doing and where they are in relation to one another. In many cases you'll discover that the particular "thing" that provides a certain mood is encouragingly simple.


----------



## ka00

I found this useful: https://www.macprovideo.com/tutorial/music-scoring-101-creating-moods-and-styles


----------



## JohnG

Rohann said:


> don't be fooled into thinking that having rules explained to you will make you a better composer.



Why not? 

There are plenty of tricks of the trade that are effective and that can speed the process of getting something down on paper on into your sequencer. If you are new at this and also under a deadline, it's really helpful to know them. They could be called "rules" or something else, but to suggest that a new composer should ignore them and substitute nothing blood, toil, sweat and tears is, in my view, a bit bleak.

It goes without saying that mindlessly applying hackneyed ideas won't win any prizes for creativity or freshness, but there are many effective short cuts to creating feelings that still work. Learn those, then go from there.

Rohann is right to urge transcription and a bit of hard work. I agree that one can learn a lot by transcribing, but you don't have to copy out all of Beethoven's symphonies, as I read that Wagner did when he was a teenager. I mean, if you are diligent enough, great, but even four bars here and there will help immensely.


----------



## Rohann

JohnG said:


> Why not?
> 
> There are plenty of tricks of the trade that are effective and that can speed the process of getting something down on paper on into your sequencer. If you are new at this and also under a deadline, it's really helpful to know them. They could be called "rules" or something else, but to suggest that a new composer should ignore them and substitute nothing blood, toil, sweat and tears is, in my view, a bit bleak.
> 
> It goes without saying that mindlessly applying hackneyed ideas won't win any prizes for creativity or freshness, but there are many effective short cuts to creating feelings that still work. Learn those, then go from there.
> 
> Rohann is right to urge transcription and a bit of hard work. I agree that one can learn a lot by transcribing, but you don't have to copy out all of Beethoven's symphonies, as I read that Wagner did when he was a teenager. I mean, if you are diligent enough, great, but even four bars here and there will help immensely.


I apologize, I phrased this poorly and may be misrepresenting my intent -- what I was getting at was more "don't expect that _simply _having the rules explained to you will make you a better composer", i.e. without also learning these things practically as well. I don't mean one should ignore conventions, just that there are more and less effective approaches to learning them. It's not "don't learn theory", it's "don't idolize theory".
This thread got somewhat convoluted, and I and others misunderstood what the OP was after originally. My point was that I tried this, _in the absence of compositional experience and musical competence_, and the results were disappointing. These are incredibly useful _alongside_ exercises like transcription and obviously trying them out. Transcription provides practical examples of these ideas/"rules" in context, and even a minimal amount of transcribing has made these conventions considerably more practically useful.

I agree, one doesn't have to take up transcription full time; just sitting down at a piano and figuring out what that "sound" is from a film cue will do wonders to help internalize it, even a few bars as you mention, largely because it turns it, neurologically, from an abstract concept and assimilates it into one's musical language. I really do find learning these concepts from a theoretical point of view fascinating, so much so that it can become a crutch and I have to switch off and get cracking on a fairly regular basis.

Better musical competence, and simply piano skill, has also transformed basic concepts into much more diverse tools -- i.e. modulating to the augmented 4th can now not only sound bleak, or sinister, but also adventurous.


----------



## Dr Belasco

Modes!

It's fun to go swimmin' with Phrygian women.


----------



## Piano Pete

I am of the mentality that there is a lot of power in being able to understand and name something. The ability to utilize different compositional devices by intuition is extremely powerful--do not get me wrong; however, if you pair that creative mojo with a technical understanding, you then have an additional perspective on a subject. That extra reference point never hurts, and I have never felt hindered by my additional knowledge or training.

That said, while there are plenty of resources out there on the subjects of harmony, modes, and mode mixtures, I do not feel there are any that are going to perfectly label their emotional content or uses: this is something you have to figure out. Best way to do this: analyze stuff that you like, apply what you know about music and figure out how and why it is working. *You do not have to be able to defend a doctoral thesis; you need to be able to extrapolate this for yourself in whatever way you understand it.* If you are composing or improvising and come across something new and neat, try to analytically describe how/why it works, remember whatever impact it had on you, and catalog it for use later on. 

--Score analysis is also a great way to aid you in this quest.


----------



## Divico

Pretty basic tutorial, but this list is quite nice.


----------



## jamwerks

And don't forget the modes of harmonic major (C D E F G A flat B) & melodic minor. These are very widely used in film music


----------



## patrick76

Ok I got one for your list. If you are ever going after the expression of sadness, and I mean real human tragedy, here is some "go to" info (it's a secret about the key of d minor). You are welcome.


----------



## Piano Pete

A problem when you start getting into synthetic chords/modes is that they are all just alterations of standard things, and they are often named various different ways. Two books that you may wish to read to clarify and organize these:

1) The aptly named _Encyclopedia of Scales, Modes, and Melodic Patterns
_
2) Anything by Mark Levine, but in this case: _The Jazz Theory Book
_
If you want anything on 20th century techniques such as set theory, or negative harmony (really just inversion) than I can supply those as well. There are plenty of these topics.


----------



## Kyle Preston

NoamL said:


> It's all about *modes*! Know the modes! *Stop thinking of chord progressions forever* and start thinking in terms of pitch collections which can be arranged as either scales OR collections of chords.



Thought-provoking post @NoamL, I really enjoyed reading it. I have only a basic understanding of modes, but this is the first time I've heard someone offer this advice. And I'm kind of wondering why you feel this way. For example, I don't need modes to explain the theme you posted.



NoamL said:


>




In Gmaj, the progression is IV to a viiº (or maybe it's technically ii with a 6th and not a diminished, not entirely sure but I definitely _hear_ it as diminished). I've never thought of chord progressions as ONLY major/minor because diminished chords and modulations can always add new and interesting elements.

So I guess my question is, what am I missing out on that I can't already understand via modulations and diminished chords on top of maj/min?


----------



## Piano Pete

Kyle Preston said:


> In Gmaj, the progression is IV to a viiº (or maybe it's technically ii with a 6th and not a diminished, not entirely sure but I definitely _hear_ it as diminished).



In G it would be IV to V7 (technically V4/2), but with the tonicization of IV as it is phrased and with pedal tone, that still ends up being lydian to many people until some form of definition towards G-major occurs.

Potentially by thinking modally, especially with synthetic chords/scales, you have more possibilities than just standard major/minor tonalities; however, if you already have a well defined vocabulary, especially chromatically and you are comfortable with substitutions and mixtures, then a lot of these possibilities are already open to you--just thought of differently.

In my experience, I cannot answer for NoamL, this sort of response is very helpful for people who may think a little too rigidly about their harmony and counterpoint. (This may read negatively, but I do not mean it as an insult: everyone is different.) This is evident when people are learning about borrowed chords/substitutions; they do not always realize how much they can get away with by using things outside of their key-center or mode. Even when writing with a standard harmonic vocabulary, how many people actively use the Neapolitan chord or any augmented sixth chords--especially when composing in major? There is nothing wrong with this, but the point: everyone thinks differently. 

Everyone comes with a different musical vocabulary. Some people I know think very jazzy, some people think very classically, atonally, and all encompass the endless swath of the entire musical spectrum. Again, all are perfectly fine. (I feel it is important to learn these different philosophies and their vocabularies as it makes communication much easier.) In this example, while I hear it as lydian, my brain is also immediately thinking G-major--especially with the V7 chord at the end of the demonstrated phrase. I also hear it as parallel motion from C-major to D-major. Some people I know will only hear this in G, desperately waiting for G, and some will only hear this in lydian. Another example is Scriabin's mystic chord. I personally hear this a few different ways right off the bat: an alteration on the whole tone scale, a form of hexatonic pattern with quartal influence, but in its simplest form, I hear it as a stacked minor and augmented chord separated by a half step. You could also probably find a several synthetic modes that feature this very same grouping of intervals, but my main point: the ultimate goal is to realize that we all have the freedom to think outside of any given compositional palette, technique, or form. From my brief time on this earth, I feel people have an easier time breaking any conformity to a musical form than they are to a harmonic palette.

To answer your question: what are you missing? Honestly, you very well may end up getting to the exact same place as you would have if you thought about it modally, but what I feel that you are potentially missing are the numerous groupings and patterns of notes that may otherwise take you a bit of time to get to. You may approach the same grouping of notes differently by changing how you are actively considering their function. I feel where this practice can pay dividends is in non-western scale patterns. Again, I could provide examples of how you can think of, for example, Japanese scales from a jazz and classical perspective, but it doesnt hurt to be able to look at the same exact notes from multiple angles. For the standard pentatonic scale, there are technically different "scales" on the exact same five notes depending on which one you tonicize, no different than how C lydian is C to C in G major. 

Personally, I may create a section of music based on what I am hearing in my head; however, where the analytical knowledge can come into play is when I take a step back and evaluate what I just did. Sometimes by changing my perspective of what I did, or am doing, this vantage point will influence future music or encourage me to tweak something I have completed.


----------



## tav.one

douggibson said:


> http://www.brianmorrell.co.uk/filmbooks.html



Thank you so much for these books


----------



## Replicant

JohnG said:


> There are plenty of tricks of the trade that are effective and that can speed the process of getting something down on paper on into your sequencer. If you are new at this and also under a deadline, it's really helpful to know them. They could be called "rules" or something else, but to suggest that a new composer should ignore them and substitute nothing blood, toil, sweat and tears is, in my view, a bit bleak.



Yeah, exactly.

Especially since this is generally coming from aspiring film and game composers.

I just don't see how you're going to effectively compose 40+ minutes of music that's both appropriate and any good within often just a few weeks if you don't have some sort of reliable musical devices to at least get the ball rolling.


----------



## Piano Pete

Replicant said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> 
> Especially since this is generally coming from aspiring film and game composers.
> 
> I just don't see how you're going to effectively compose 40+ minutes of music that's both appropriate and any good within often just a few weeks if you don't have some sort of reliable musical devices to at least get the ball rolling.


I tried explaining this to a friend of mine who purely composes for concert works. We usually cannot brood over four measures of music for 3 months to make the "perfect" decision.


----------



## Replicant

Divico said:


> Pretty basic tutorial, but this list is quite nice.




Late to the party, my friend.

This is what I responded with as the first reply and triggered the forum.


----------



## ghandizilla

Piano Pete said:


> 1) The aptly named _Encyclopedia of Scales, Modes, and Melodic Patterns_



Pulled the trigger on your suggestion. Already enjoying how practice-oriented it is


----------



## jononotbono

There's a really good book by Lalo Schifrin called Music Composition for Film and Television that I am in the middle of reading. Chapter 3 is called "The Interval Relationship of Different Moods". He then goes onto different styles of music, cinematic devices and much more. Could be something very useful for the OP and it didn't cost a lot via Kindle.


----------



## NoamL

Whoops just saw your post @Kyle Preston . The answer is that the pitch center is not G, but C. G major and C Lydian are the same collection of notes but different scales.


----------



## Kyle Preston

I see, it took me minute to _really_ get this. Thanks man! As soon as it clicked, the first thing I thought of was Norwegian Wood by The Beatles. Which, if I'm now understanding this right, is in Mixolydian mode.


----------



## hueynym

Rohann said:


> My guess is because you're asking for a by-the-books, formula-based approach to music, which is an approach no noteworthy composer has ever written anything memorable by.
> I completely understand the idea, and I've gone hunting myself, but what you're better off doing is learning this over time through transcription, or learning existing pieces. Getting piano lessons can be immensely helpful.



Let's not tell Mozart about that until he's 10. Otherwise we'll have lost nearly 25% of his work.


----------



## essay

Piano Pete said:


> A problem when you start getting into synthetic chords/modes is that they are all just alterations of standard things, and they are often named various different ways. Two books that you may wish to read to clarify and organize these:
> 
> 1) The aptly named _Encyclopedia of Scales, Modes, and Melodic Patterns_



Is there an ebook or pdf file for this... onlymsaw hard copy at Amazon.


----------



## Rohann

hueynym said:


> Let's not tell Mozart about that until he's 10. Otherwise we'll have lost nearly 25% of his work.


Or how about you read the entirety of the thread, don't cherry pick snippets of posts to use out of context, and consider not making your first posts here sarcastic?


----------



## benishoga

ka00 said:


> I found this useful: https://www.macprovideo.com/tutorial/music-scoring-101-creating-moods-and-styles


I was going to post this one too, although it’s more to do with arranging your original material, melody to fit into different moods for scoring to picture, it’s a very clever way to think in terms of economy that also helps into overall cohesion. He didn’t go too much about theory as such, but that’s not what this course was set out to do. I still play this every now and then just to get an idea when on how I can transition from one stated mood to the next and I feel I’m starting to veer away from my initial idea, it really helps.


----------



## LondonMike

Piano Pete said:


> I tried explaining this to a friend of mine who purely composes for concert works. We usually cannot brood over four measures of music for 3 months to make the "perfect" decision.


Which is why film music is more often than not formulaic and highly derivative of concert music written a long time in the past. There simply isn't time to be original. One must steal.

I think the best thing a composer can do is to listen analytically. When a piece of music makes an impact, emotionally or otherwise, we need to dissect it either aurally or with the aid of a score (if available). Find out what is going on, not just harmonically, although harmony is the fundamental driver of emotional nuance in most if not all cases. Then add the approach/technique/device to our arsenal. IMO it's all about having a wide harmonic palette to draw upon and to not get stuck in one way of thinking.

Since film music is all about serving the picture, great originality is not often called for. So there are of course well worn and proven formulae which while being cliché, will usually get the job done. They can all be found in your favourite film scores and need just be noted.
As with pop song writing, it's all about dressing up the harmonic formulae in 'new clothes' to make them stand out and seem fresh.


----------



## Replicant

The thing that people don't realize about "creativity" is that it has little to do with "creation" and most to do with design.

You cannot just sit there and come up with something that is completely uninspired by anything that came before it. Music itself is ultimately a manipulation of physics as it applies to sound and the very practice of composition and theory that drives it is derived from centuries of study that revealed patterns.

Chord progressions? Counterpoint? The melodies that have a good contour and resolve non-chord tones in particular ways sound better than just random notes? Yeah, all of that stuff is ultimately a formula that can be explained scientifically.

_Every_ sort of art form can be broken down into some sort of "formula". Dance, painting, drawing, and yes, even composing music. AI is steadily learning this and it won't be long before it is better at this than humans.

It's a tough pill to swallow and I get why musicians hate it: It kills the "romance" and mystery that comes from experiencing any work created by a master. It's like learning how a magic trick was done; it suddenly isn't as wondrous.

Doesn't make it any less true.

The good news is, these formulas allow for a wide range of personal style and infinite pieces of music, are a lot of fun, sound great, and every once in a while, give way to new subgenres and trends.


----------



## Rohann

LondonMike said:


> Which is why film music is more often than not formulaic and highly derivative of concert music written a long time in the past. *There simply isn't time to be original. One must steal.*


This is something I'll never understand. Not the fault of composers, but simply a byproduct of the industry -- why create something of lasting value and quality, when a production studio can churn out another forgettable, derivative CGI fest with no story, characters or any semblance of relatable emotion and make a quick buck?
While everyone is influenced, and borrows/steals, great scores by great composers _do _sound original in context. While great originality is rather rare, and many great scores don't fall into the "truly original" category, your pop-industry songwriting analogy is apt, unfortunately (not unfortunate because old ideas are being dressed up differently, but rather the spirit of the product-line-driven pop machine).


----------



## NoamL

There are degrees of originality though. The originality of concert-art music often involves creating entirely new musical languages, which is the greatest degree of creativity & originality for sure. It makes music interesting on an intellectual level to constantly hear things that haven't been done, and that are entirely thrown open to our interpretation. But we can't risk such a great ambiguity of effect & interpretation in film music; we have to achieve an associative emotional impact. And it has to be reliable, we have to write having some in-advance-feeling, if not certain knowledge, of the way audiences will receive the scene differently with this or that score.


----------



## mikeh-375

True NoamL... for media, writing with the most common denominators of technique in music - more often, the ones with immediate appeal - can be instantly effective. Thankfully, even within the constraints often found in media, there is room for originality as we have all heard and some wonderful music is produced and all hail the composers who push up against or break through the boundaries because let's face it, there's generic and then there's DC and Marvel.

There is lots of great advice to the op here, but I, as an older fecker who learnt music the hard, (and best imo) old school way, am a little saddened because the question of emotion posed in this thread needs to be defined subjectively by the op through handling the raw material of music with practice and learning - not with a formula ( although I agree that formulae are useful and made a few bob out of them in my time, especially when the pressure was on!)


----------



## LondonMike

Replicant said:


> The thing that people don't realize about "creativity" is that it has little to do with "creation" and most to do with design.
> 
> You cannot just sit there and come up with something that is completely uninspired by anything that came before it. Music itself is ultimately a manipulation of physics as it applies to sound and the very practice of composition and theory that drives it is derived from centuries of study that revealed patterns.
> 
> Chord progressions? Counterpoint? The melodies that have a good contour and resolve non-chord tones in particular ways sound better than just random notes? Yeah, all of that stuff is ultimately a formula that can be explained scientifically.
> 
> _Every_ sort of art form can be broken down into some sort of "formula". Dance, painting, drawing, and yes, even composing music. AI is steadily learning this and it won't be long before it is better at this than humans.
> 
> It's a tough pill to swallow and I get why musicians hate it: It kills the "romance" and mystery that comes from experiencing any work created by a master. It's like learning how a magic trick was done; it suddenly isn't as wondrous.
> 
> Doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> The good news is, these formulas allow for a wide range of personal style and infinite pieces of music, are a lot of fun, sound great, and every once in a while, give way to new subgenres and trends.


Actually I disagree that these formulae can be explained scientifically. There is still a debate. You can look at the harmonic series and say the minor 3rd sounds ‘sad’ compared to the major because it is more dissonant but that is to do with context, psychology and culture too.
Beethoven proved you can write profoundly sad music with major triads. And dissonance itself is entirely about context.

When it comes to harmony alone, I can’t think of any film score that isn’t derivative of music written a hundred years ago for the concert hall. But it isn’t film music’s job to be original. It just has to be fit for purpose.

The fact that A.I. will undoubtably make beautiful music will still not change the seemingly magical way it can affect our emotions. It will remain magical until it can really be explained.


----------



## Piano Pete

While I am not for stealing others works, I am an advocate for learning the brushes and techniques used to create their paintings. 

Think of it like food: in the concert world, you have the time to develop a wonderful multi-course meal and can pace the evening as you see fit--introducing specific dishes at specific times. Often in modern, classical music, the dishes may be pretty bitter or sour, and these will not suit everyone's taste buds. In film, we must distill the essence of what makes each of these courses, and entire evening, great and be able to convey it in a single spoonful. (This is not just commenting on harmony.)

To piggy-back on a comment by mikeh, I think the big takeaway here is that it is ok to use a recipe book. The true magic comes in how those ingredients are used, and the ingenuity to make changes to it as the chef sees fit. I can give you a book with some of the best recipes in the world, and if you follow them to the letter, you can eat well. What that book cannot teach you is how to make them perfectly and, hopefully, someday create your own, perfected dishes.


----------



## Rohann

NoamL said:


> There are degrees of originality though. The originality of concert-art music often involves creating entirely new musical languages, which is the greatest degree of creativity & originality for sure. It makes music interesting on an intellectual level to constantly hear things that haven't been done, and that are entirely thrown open to our interpretation. But we can't risk such a great ambiguity of effect & interpretation in film music; we have to achieve an associative emotional impact. And it has to be reliable, we have to write having some in-advance-feeling, if not certain knowledge, of the way audiences will receive the scene differently with this or that score.


Good point. I completely agree -- film scores are infrequently an appropriate place to experiment and try to overtly (especially intellectually) push musical boundaries. They certainly can be, but it must always be done tastefully. I'm also all for learning and understanding those basic emotional conventions, both through study and experience, and learning how to appropriately apply them -- in my early days of music I had the typical attitude of "I want to experiment", and threw structure, melody, etc into the wind. Predictably, it was boring, and I realized over time even the "experimental" musicians I liked still had a rich musical vocabulary, and their work still tended to contain basic musical elements of melody, harmonic progression, structure, repetition, even if more on the abstract side. Bernstein did an interesting analysis of Debussy's "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun" (while not abstract, it was certainly different for the time), and there's still a magnificent understanding of structure underlying the piece.
Originality certainly has degrees, and "most original" often doesn't coincide with "most meaningful", "most impactful", "best serves the picture", etc. My current point of view is that originality and effect tend to coincide where convention and "outside influence" combine -- doing something new within the familiar. This can get abstract and deeply philosophical quite quickly, but it seems like this is common in a wide variety of human efforts, particularly the world of art. My distaste comes more for when there is _no _regard for originality whatsoever, and all that is focused on is cashing in on predictable cliches in order to make the financial risk palatable (I don't think I have to point fingers at the major studios who have become the poster children for this, as they likely automatically come to mind at this point). That attitude inevitably shows itself in the quality of the work at a certain point.



LondonMike said:


> Actually I disagree that these formulae can be explained scientifically. There is still a debate. You can look at the harmonic series and say the minor 3rd sounds ‘sad’ compared to the major because it is more dissonant but that is to do with context, psychology and culture too.
> Beethoven proved you can write profoundly sad music with major triads. And dissonance itself is entirely about context.
> 
> When it comes to harmony alone, I can’t think of any film score that isn’t derivative of music written a hundred years ago for the concert hall. But it isn’t film music’s job to be original. It just has to be fit for purpose.
> 
> The fact that A.I. will undoubtably make beautiful music will still not change the seemingly magical way it can affect our emotions. It will remain magical until it can really be explained.


I'm inclined to agree with you. As with many areas of life and art, one can reduce it in a hyper-simplistic (and, at times, naively pseudo-scientific) way to "science", because _of course_ it's based in physics and abides by those laws. That's in no way an accurate representation of the final "whole" though, and there's an absolutely ridiculous amount of nuance involved that can be impossible to calculate in a simplistic manner (I like Mike Verta's example about trying to learn to throw a ball by calculating the absurdly complex physics involved), not to mention the complexity of the listener's background and interpretation comes into play. You're dead on about context too (in North America we tend to find Scandinavian lullabies and folk songs "depressing", due to their tonality, and certain eastern scales "creepy", or "exotic", etc -- I had never heard a pop song in 9.5/8 before Turkish music), and I think this is largely where degrees of originality are affected as well.

I'm skeptical about AI writing amazing music. Not because I have any particular argument against its possibility, but it's interesting to see the massive resurgence of "DIY" in many regions of the western world. I have a suspicion that if it comes down to it, AI might take over certain duties like music for commercials, probably music for trailers, etc., but that there will always be people (however small the number) that find no significance in it and will crave human expression, regardless of whether or not they're successfully fooled. It's why the imperfections and concept of "hand made" has so much significance to so many people worldwide.


----------



## Rohann

Piano Pete said:


> While I am not for stealing others works, I am an advocate for learning the brushes and techniques used to create their paintings.
> 
> Think of it like food: in the concert world, you have the time to develop a wonderful multi-course meal and can pace the evening as you see fit--introducing specific dishes at specific times. Often in modern, classical music, the dishes may be pretty bitter or sour, and these will not suit everyone's taste buds. In film, we must distill the essence of what makes each of these courses, and entire evening, great and be able to convey it in a single spoonful. (This is not just commenting on harmony.)
> 
> To piggy-back on a comment by mikeh, I think the big takeaway here is that it is ok to use a recipe book. The true magic comes in how those ingredients are used, and the ingenuity to make changes to it as the chef sees fit. I can give you a book with some of the best recipes in the world, and if you follow them to the letter, you can eat well. What that book cannot teach you is how to make them perfectly and, hopefully, someday create your own, perfected dishes.


Lovely illustration!


----------



## mikeh-375

_I have a suspicion that if it comes down to it, AI might take over certain duties like music for commercials, probably music for trailers, etc., but that there will always be people (however small the number) that find no significance in it and will crave human expression, regardless of whether or not they're successfully fooled. It's why the imperfections and concept of "hand made" has so much significance to so many people worldwide._


Too right Rohann. Speaking of 'art music'.....
AI art will doubtless have its own devotees. Me, I prefer the human struggle to impose order on 12 tones in an attempt to thwart the aural equivalent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Originality in a work becomes evident and moving in this struggle and final triumph.....( you know, that reads like a load of inflated arty bollocks, but there is a truth in there methinks).
Spot on Piano Pete.


----------



## LondonMike

mikeh-375 said:


> _I have a suspicion that if it comes down to it, AI might take over certain duties like music for commercials, probably music for trailers, etc., but that there will always be people (however small the number) that find no significance in it and will crave human expression, regardless of whether or not they're successfully fooled. It's why the imperfections and concept of "hand made" has so much significance to so many people worldwide._
> 
> 
> Too right Rohann. Speaking of 'art music'.....
> AI art will doubtless have its own devotees. Me, I prefer the human struggle to impose order on 12 tones in an attempt to thwart the aural equivalent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Originality in a work becomes evident and moving in this struggle and final triumph.....( you know, that reads like a load of inflated arty bollocks, but there is a truth in there methinks).
> Spot on Piano Pete.


I’m not sure we all realise what A.I. is and can/will become. 

A.I. is not bound to follow ‘rules’ programmed into it by humans like a computer. It will be a thinking, inventing and maybe even feeling entity made up of neural networks like our brains.
Music or art of any kind created by A.I.will be completely indistinguishable from that made by ‘flesh and blood.’ 
Perhaps an A.I composer will invent an entirely new approach to creativity that we can’t even envisage yet.


----------



## Replicant

LondonMike said:


> Music or art of any kind created by A.I.will be completely indistinguishable from that made by ‘flesh and blood.’



Maybe at some point, but there is already AI that can compose basic music by analyzing human pieces and make recreations of renaissance-style paintings.

Personally, I hope I'm dead long before AI gets too advanced; the world is going to be shit in the not-too-distant future.

Automation and AI are basically going to replace human civilization.


----------



## KEM

Man... coming into these threads just makes me realize how much I don't know haha, but I'm always excited to learn about new ways to write better and more complex/intricate music, at least I know where to start!!


----------



## Piano Pete

I can actually think of a few non-western lullabies that are in minor. To the people of their countries of origin, they are happy, nostalgia filled tunes. This actually made me break out some handwritten transcriptions I made


----------



## NoamL

Piano Pete said:


> I can actually think of a few non-western lullabies that are in minor. To the people of their countries of origin, they are happy, nostalgia filled tunes.



LOL this is so true. We just celebrated Passover, and half of the dinner is singing thanksgiving songs, and yet they are in both major and minor!


----------



## LondonMike

douggibson said:


> First regarding film music and derivative of music 100 years ago. Remember that at the start a lot of concert composers were brought in to compose music for films. Camille Saint-Saëns is generally considered to have provided the first score. Copland, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Korngold and even Stravinsky wrote music for film.
> 
> John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith studied with Mario Castelnuovo Tedesco so of course they will pick up an influence.
> Hermann studied with Percy Grangier etc.
> 
> Then, let's not forget all the Jazz / pop scores too. Or the recent synth scores. Gravity does not sound Wagner.
> Excluding a 5th of Beethoven, Saturday Night Fever does not sound like concert hall music from 100 years ago.



I was restricting my comments to orchestral film scores and of course they don't apply to pop/electronic/ sound design which is another discussion altogether.
I still maintain that _orchestral film scores_ of today rarely contain any musical language that can't be found in concert music from a hundred years ago. This is not a criticism as such but an acknowledgement that the tonality, extended tonality and in certain limited applications, atonality found in today's scores is the same as found in 'art-music' a hundred years ago or more. 
Art music in the 20th century moved on, for better or worse and of course it would be difficult to score a love scene in the style of Brian Ferneyhough LOL! 
All I'm really saying is that film-music is film-music and art-music is art-music. They have different functions and cannot be judged by the same criteria.



douggibson said:


> Absolute music is a recent idea, and also full of the same kind of arguments and flaws.



Mmmm. Not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean music as 'art for art's sake' is a recent idea? If you call Beethoven recent! As for 'absolute' music, The Art Of Fugue is even older and I think it is a fine example!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Major = happy, minor = sad.

That's all you need to know.


----------



## KEM

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Major = happy, minor = sad.
> 
> That's all you need to know.



See I've never necessarily agreed with that, I've never really got a "sad" vibe from minor, it was always more evil to me.

Well, most of the time at least, I've heard major sound sad, I've heard minor sound happy, you can make any kind of emotion out of them, and of course what you "feel" is going to be subjective, some people get completely different emotions out of the same piece.


----------



## Steve_Karl

douggibson said:


> Words provide another layer of meaning. When you read the text what emerges is the fear of the mother. This fear is getting projected onto the baby.


Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious but I've never seen.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

KEM said:


> See I've never necessarily agreed with that, I've never really got a "sad" vibe from minor, it was always more evil to me.
> 
> Well, most of the time at least, I've heard major sound sad, I've heard minor sound happy, you can make any kind of emotion out of them, and of course what you "feel" is going to be subjective, some people get completely different emotions out of the same piece.



There’s a good chance you’re right.


----------



## Rohann

LondonMike said:


> I’m not sure we all realise what A.I. is and can/_will_ become.
> 
> A.I. is not bound to follow ‘rules’ programmed into it by humans like a computer. It will be a thinking, inventing and maybe even feeling entity made up of neural networks like our brains.
> Music or art of any kind created by A.I.will be completely indistinguishable from that made by ‘flesh and blood.’
> Perhaps an A.I composer will invent an entirely new approach to creativity that we can’t even envisage yet.


I'm not going to enter this debate here; it's better suited to academic discussion. My thoughts are in line with Nagel and Feser, personally. There's a whole lot unknown about what AI has the potential to be -- much of it theoretical, and much of the theoretical debated on philosophical grounds.

The takeaway, though, is that a whole lot of assumptions are made currently about how it will be regulated, how it will be applied, and how it will be valued; and none of those things are _guaranteed, _nevermind the assumptions about what it _will _be. It doesn't address my point that humans care an _awful _lot about what's made by humans; this is objectively demonstrable. In terms of deceiving people with AI music, I don't doubt that will be possible at some point, but this also doesn't take into account the historical outrage we tend to feel at being deceived, and how this affects relational dynamics (i.e. business).

Either way, I don't get the obsession with trying to make AI replace us -- regardless of how far this is possible, how does it not end in the crumbling, or outright destruction, of civilization? Automation is already massively affecting the job market, and as it continues to climb, it gradually weeds out levels of unskilled work. If unchecked, this has potentially fairly devastating implications for an ever-widening demographic, as well as economies at large.



Piano Pete said:


> I can actually think of a few non-western lullabies that are in minor. To the people of their countries of origin, they are happy, nostalgia filled tunes. This actually made me break out some handwritten transcriptions I made


Interesting, isn't it? A lot of Scandinavian, Jewish, altogether more "eastern", etc. folk/children's/celebratory songs are in minor keys.


----------



## Rohann

douggibson said:


> Words provide another layer of meaning. When you read the text what emerges is the fear of the mother. This fear is getting projected onto the baby. Babies don't worry about diamond rings, or singing mockingbirds. Those are the mothers fear. You'll find a lot of similar examples in a number of lullaby's of adult anxiety.


This is always something that struck me as fascinating, and borderline unsettling. Heck, "London Bridge is Falling Down" (not a lullaby, but kind of creepy), "Rock-a-by Baby", etc etc. It does indeed appear to be comfort for baby, catharsis for mother, especially given the mournful sounding quality of some old lullabies.

Oh and I remember why I don't come on here that often anymore -- because I tend not to get sucked into lengthy theoretical conversations on Redbanned. As simplistic and obvious as your "every time you want to write a post like this, go practice" statement was, it tends to resound with me a little too often here, haha.


----------



## Danny Truong

Nice video! Well thread is well underway, but I do have an "easy list" from Evenant site. I'm a student there and I also screencapped one of their blog articles, but I can't recall which? But here it is


----------



## Danny Truong

LondonMike said:


> Beethoven proved you can write profoundly sad music with major triads. And dissonance itself is entirely about context.


You're absolutely right! I was wondering why there's so many sad, tragic as heck ballads in Korean drama and what makes them tick. I find many of them are actually written in MAJOR scales. The kicker is that they are so slow that it sounds depressing. 
Example : Taeyeon's "IF" is from Hong Gil Dong and used in a sad scene. Here is a performance 

And here is a music sheet. It resolves to A Major 
https://musescore.com/user/203872/scores/2690876#_=_

Something else makes Korean Drama music really sad, and have all a similar sub genre of tone that is a bit different than American ballads, but I don't know what else besides what I said. Maybe you know.


----------



## Danny Truong

^ Yea man. That's why I made a follow up post to contrast that. I put a post that showed a youtube link with an A major key ballad that sounds really sad. Did u miss that post? I'm new, so maybe there's a block on viewing on that I don't know? 

Anyways, can't argue either way since I'm not as experienced as this. Major and Minor rules are simply general guidelines, that is all I know


----------



## Danny Truong

douggibson said:


> No .... I did not miss that.
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep on learning everyday. That's all anyone can do.


I appreciate the extra material u posted to learn from


----------



## Farkle

I think it might be worth your time to watch this video and internalize the concepts that Adam is putting across...



Mike


----------



## jamwerks

It seems that some of the first sounds babies say are descending minor thirds. "ma-ma", & "pa-pa".


----------



## dannymc

KEM said:


> See I've never necessarily agreed with that, I've never really got a "sad" vibe from minor, it was always more evil to me.
> 
> Well, most of the time at least, I've heard major sound sad, I've heard minor sound happy, you can make any kind of emotion out of them, and of course what you "feel" is going to be subjective, some people get completely different emotions out of the same piece.



what really? go listen to Beethoven's moonlight sonata and tell me you dont feel sadness from that peice. 

Danny


----------



## KEM

dannymc said:


> what really? go listen to Beethoven's moonlight sonata and tell me you done feel sadness from that peice.
> 
> Danny



True, I was just trying to say that I don't get "sad" from everything that's in minor, I definitely can, but I don't think it's a universal rule that major will always be happy and minor will always be sad.


----------



## Rohann

Thanks Doug, as usual!



douggibson said:


> 3. *Vertical and horizontal: *here the example only considers the vertical aspects of the music. Horizontal movement is totally ignored. You will notice a lot of tones outside E minor, are included. To circle back to the very opening of the thread, you can take major triad and create a progression on 5ths. (I-IV-V) or you can create a progression based on 3rds. (2nds too) Each one will have a different character to it. They can all be closed position major triads. So the "affect" is totally different but the verticial sonority is identical.


If you're new to this, read this a few times over. This is a brilliant way to summarize the problem with slapping predetermined "emotions" to intervals or chords _absent of context_.


----------



## DCPImages

Musical tastes evolve. The ideas of ‘happy’ and ‘sad’ musical elements only makes sense if this is taken into account. You only have to look at musical practice at different points in history or in different cultures to realise that many of the things we take as fixed and intrinsic to the sound or hard wired to our brains are much more fluid than we assume (and much more of a cultural and historical product than something intrinsic). We ‘feel‘ these emotions in part because of their traditional narrative associations, constantly repeated to us. That is not to say that those emotions are confected - quite the opposite. Emotional musical associations help to make the musical experience deeply meaningful and authentic by making tears flow, heart race, blood pressure rise, goose bumps appear, and so on. In the current western filmic sense, certain musical patterns have come to represent certain emotions and are used repeatedly as a result. But these too are evolving. Some have become cliched and no longer effective. Others have been redeployed (for example, plainsong was once heavenly and now commonly used to represent evil). 

Just my two penny’s worth.


----------



## GtrString

A good starting point for this is modal harmony and scales. Thats the theory behind modes, to support various emotions.

However, it is just theory, and it is especially western theory. So to go beyond, you can consider the cultural aspects as well. Experiment with other scales, and learn the principles of how to harmonize scales.

Besides the theory approach, it is equally important how the music is played and arranged, as that also supports the way the music can be interpreted, emotionally. A well rehearsed touch and feel for the instrument can achieve more emotion by that device than any theoretical notes ever can hope to. That’s why it is important to learn an instrument and commit a lifetime to develop your skills.

Finally, in modern times, we also consider timbres (of instruments) and textures (of sounds) as mechanisms to support various desired interpretations, like specific emotions (or to create context/ storyworlds).

In the end, we can design and code our music as hard as we like, but the listener will still play a large part in determining what emotion is the result of all of our efforts. The cultural context plays a big factor in how the music will be recieved, percieved and interpreted. The work is never closed (coded 100% to “ensure” the desired interpretation), and is always open ended to a bigger or lesser degree. Often we even want to create works that are not as hard coded, but more open ended with the potential to be interpreted in multiple ways, to reach more listeners and be relevant and meaningful to a bigger demographics of people.

It may not even be articulate with the listener, but it’s a great achievement when your work really resonate and communicate.

Good luck in your musicking efforts.


----------



## TWY

All the theory stuff aside, don't forget juxtapositions. Minor played in a bouncy way can be comedic. Major played in a sweet way can be very sad. In a heroic rescue, play something the opposite in order to show tribulation, etc etc.


----------



## iMovieShout

Replicant said:


> What you're looking for is "chromatic mediants".
> 
> Chords that move by distance of thirds/sixths and also tritones are popular.
> 
> A concept that became popular in the Romantic era and became like, the go-to in film and games.
> 
> Want to sound "spacey"? Go from say, A Major to F#/Gb Major.
> 
> "Adventurous?" There's a movement for that.
> 
> "Scary?" Yep.
> 
> "Romantic?" Got it.
> 
> and they almost all involve movement by a third.
> 
> This technique is everywhere, to the point it's become a trope ; you've likely never heard a film score that didn't do it.



Thanks for the video - a good place to go for a bit of inspiration, when the occassion requires it.


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

Yes.Principally in the theorists of the Barroque / Renaissence, like Thomas Bernhard and Mattheson. Modern music theorists who focus on phenomenological/hermeneutical approach wrote things relevant to this. But the easiest is to just study the works you like and learn how to study them.


----------

