# Stephen Limbaugh Composition Research



## Stephen Limbaugh

Having participated in a handful of debates, an introduction is regrettably overdue. I come as something of a missionary — one without all the answers but with many questions — focused on the cultivation of taste and dismissive of snobbery.

Mr. Greene has tended a community of many delightful composers and music enthusiasts. He deserves that credit and more. Now that I am an ensconced participant in the daily deluge of fascinating VI-Control content, hopefully my admiration for Mr. Greene, along with the other senior community members, is received as sincere.

Speaking to everyone as composers, and tangentially as sisters and brothers of the world, there is much work to do in our field and on ourselves. It is clear that I come as a missionary into a community of missionaries, though regardless of differing traditions, habits, or dogmas, much is to be learned from robust dialogue, insofar as that discourse is met in good faith.

This story is probably not dissimilar to others, but my journey is a circuitous jaunt through the tangles of Los Angeles. Aside from the requisite encounters with dubious characters, villains, and knaves, I arrived unspoiled on the other side, enjoying the blessings of having multiple movies internationally distributed in theaters, scored by me.

Few in the film scoring business can boast that their first film was a theatrical release that won four coveted Golden Raspberries. 

I am entering my fourth year as a film composer, though my musical interests go much beyond this medium, not the least of which are dank memes. In fact, I was discovered by my first paymasters on Youtube (kind of like Justin Bieber, except ripping Rachmaninoff’s _Moment Musicaux No. 4_). Their conflation of ‘concert pianist’ and ‘composer’ worked out for them.

Eventually, I will share my research that has unlocked Max Martin’s “melodic math.” I am 80% through a unified theorem that if applied in earnest, will allow *any* novice to compose melodies like Max Martin, John Williams, or Stephen Sondheim, all without the assistance of artificial intelligence, while allowing for great artistic latitude. The written formula, which will be completed by year’s end, in its current form is hidden in a briefcase underneath my bookshelf.


----------



## jonathanparham

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I am entering my fourth year as a film composer, though my musical interests go much beyond this medium, not the least of which are dank memes. In fact, I was discovered by my first paymasters on Youtube (kind of like Justin Bieber, except ripping Rachmaninoff’s _Moment Musicaux No. 4_). Their conflation of ‘concert pianist’ and ‘composer’ worked out for them.


enjoyed your VSL piano demo



Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Eventually, I will share my research that has unlocked Max Martin’s “melodic math.” I am 80% through a unified theorem that if applied in earnest, will allow *any* novice to compose melodies like Max Martin, John Williams, or Stephen Sondheim, all without the assistance of artificial intelligence, while allowing for great artistic latitude. The written formula, which will be completed by year’s end, in its current form is hidden in a briefcase underneath my bookshelf.


I've heard some youtube music channels mention Max martin's producing. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Dirtgrain

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> The written formula, which will be completed by year’s end, in its current form is hidden in a briefcase underneath my bookshelf.



Is there perhaps a sign on this bookshelf that says, "Beware of the leopard"?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

I like the brashness of Stephen Limbaugh starting a thread titled "Stephen Limbaugh".


----------



## patrick76

jonathanparham said:


> I've heard some youtube music channels mention Max martin's producing. Can you elaborate?


He's joking.


----------



## CT

Welcome, Stephen Limbaugh. On the subject of Stephen Limbaugh, enjoy your time here as Stephen Limbaugh.


----------



## jonathanparham

patrick76 said:


> He's joking.


well the jokes on me. I've heard some producers talk about there's a way Max edits perhaps his melodies or something? 

Anyhoo lol thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

Funny enough, the melodic math is a _very_ real thing, and it is very possible that Max Martin (who has on occasion made comments about the "math" being off when presented with a melody he doesn't believe is a hit) had access to the information I have excavated out of the bowels of academia.

For example, the melodic math of _Bohemian Rhapsody_, _Yesterday_, _So What_, that guitar thing from _Deer Hunter_, and _Hit Me Baby_, when laid on top of each other, are almost identical.

Between projects for the remainder of the year, I am playing the role of musicologist/archivist and searching for melodies in the musical canon that do not conform -- thus far I can find none.


----------



## MGdepp

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I like the brashness of Stephen Limbaugh starting a thread titled "Stephen Limbaugh".


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

MGdepp said:


>



Keepin’ it klassy


----------



## patrick76

jonathanparham said:


> well the jokes on me. I've heard some producers talk about there's a way Max edits perhaps his melodies or something?
> 
> Anyhoo lol thanks for clarifying that.


Well, apparently he's not joking. So, joke is actually on me


----------



## anjwilson

patrick76 said:


> Well, apparently he's not joking. So, joke is actually on me


I vote that Stephen is memeing. If he can't find a canonic melody that violates his theory, he hasn't figured out anything peculiar to Max Martin.


----------



## jonathanparham

man these forums are hard. Between N, and sarcasm, I never know what to believe lol


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

@anjwilson Permit me to push back on your assertion, respectfully.

It is a form of analysis that identifies a hierarchy of memorability. There are a host of melodies in the canon that rank lower on that scale, of course, but the analysis may be applied to a nursery rhyme, a raga, aleatoric, or EDM.

Traditional music theory or Schenkerian analysis are incomplete, and generally unhelpful in helping musicians make value judgements on what is "good" or "bad." Music is littered with exceptions to their supposedly fundamental rules. This new analysis instead incorporates established conclusions about memory and pattern recognition, circumventing subjective judgements about artistic merit. For clarity, it does not demarcate the differences in good and bad, only memorable and less memorable. 

For example, the chiptune piece that gentleman who won the Westworld competition wrote has nearly the exact same math as John William's Imperial March.

Math is really not the best word for what I have reverse engineered, but it is the term Martin has used in interviews.


----------



## marius_dm

Mkay, except a memorable melody is not necessarily a good one. I sometimes wish I could forget some melodies


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

marius_dm said:


> Mkay, except a memorable melody is not necessarily a good one. I sometimes wish I could forget some melodies


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

marius_dm said:


> Mkay, except a memorable melody is not necessarily a good one. I sometimes wish I could forget some melodies



Fully agreed here. Note, that it is not possible to do the opposite of the melodic math and still craft a melody like the favorites by Sondheim, Max Martin, Cole Porter, Verdi, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Williams, or Chumbawamba. In other words, the analysis reveals an innate characteristic of memorability/pattern recognition in these examples, and we can be as certain of this as we are that methylamphetamine releases dopamine. 

Obviously, being aware of the melodic math is not prerequisite to write a great melody though.


----------



## chillbot

I would be interested to hear more about melodic math, would you care to make a post about it in the "composition" forum or wherever it fits best?


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

chillbot said:


> I would be interested to hear more about melodic math, would you care to make a post about it in the "composition" forum or wherever it fits best?


Absolutely -- but before I do I want to exhaust to the best of my ability all contingencies where this theorem might not work. It should either be universally applicable, or no better than current music theory/analysis thus an exercise in futility.


----------



## anjwilson

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> @anjwilson Permit me to push back on your assertion, respectfully.
> 
> It is a form of analysis that identifies a hierarchy of memorability. There are a host of melodies in the canon that rank lower on that scale, of course, but the analysis may be applied to a nursery rhyme, a raga, aleatoric, or EDM.
> 
> Traditional music theory or Schenkerian analysis are incomplete, and generally unhelpful in helping musicians make value judgements on what is "good" or "bad." Music is littered with exceptions to their supposedly fundamental rules. This new analysis instead incorporates established conclusions about memory and pattern recognition, circumventing subjective judgements about artistic merit. For clarity, it does not demarcate the differences in good and bad, only memorable and less memorable.
> 
> For example, the chiptune piece that gentleman who won the Westworld competition wrote has nearly the exact same math as John William's Imperial March.
> 
> Math is really not the best word for what I have reverse engineered, but it is the term Martin has used in interviews.


Sounds like I was too hasty in my judgment. Your clarification was very helpful, Stephen. I see why you chose the term math now, although I'd encourage you to find another. A memorability theory could of course be very useful in evaluating hooks, themes, and motives. I still retain some skepticism, though, especially when a theorist mentions universality (even Justin London, one of the most universality-inclined theorists active today, hedges on his universal theory of meter with his "Many Meters Hypothesis"). But I would be delighted to have my mind changed. 

I apologize that my first message in your introductory thread was not one of welcoming. So, welcome, and I expect many of us (myself definitely included) would be very interested to read your theory if and when you are willing to share it.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

No need for an apology at all! I'm not familiar with Justin London -- eager to look him up!


----------



## jonathanparham

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Funny enough, the melodic math is a _very_ real thing, and it is very possible that Max Martin (who has on occasion made comments about the "math" being off when presented with a melody he doesn't believe is a hit) had access to the information I have excavated out of the bowels of academia.


ok this is where I heard the criticism. Quincy Jones was questioning the 'math.' I have to find the interview for the comment but Quincy Jones was talking about meters and 'time' to articulate the melodic line. Jones was like it's foolish to quantify it. I took notice because Jones's work whose musical knowledge spans arrangements for Frank Sinatra to Michael Jackson as well as tv and film scores. Quincy Jones has hits across decades, so I was like, 'What is the formula?'

I'll await your results


----------



## jbuhler

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> No need for an apology at all! I'm not familiar with Justin London -- eager to look him up!


He's an old grad student buddy of mine!


----------



## Paul Cardon

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Absolutely -- but before I do I want to exhaust to the best of my ability all contingencies where this theorem might not work. It should either be universally applicable, or no better than current music theory/analysis thus an exercise in futility.


Not to seem argumentative, but systems of maths and logic constantly go through the battle to find "ultimate meaning" and routinely fail throughout history. These systems often require so much abstraction and convenient blinders to function properly. I, and I'm sure many other musicians, have trouble getting on board with claims that any such system could be universally applicable in any field dealing with creativity, emotions, or morality. Would love to hear your thoughts!


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

Paul Cardon said:


> Not to seem argumentative, but systems of maths and logic constantly go through the battle to find "ultimate meaning" and routinely fail throughout history...



Boy isn't that the truth. Couldn't agree more and am equally skeptical of any STEM-based systems which theorize art, precisely because they are all wrong!

This is the purpose of taking lots of time to sift through examples in the canon, songs on the radio, and old folk music to find instances where the theory does not apply.


----------



## CT

Melodic math is nothing. Phi is where it's at!


----------



## NoamL

If you shared your theory in progress maybe some people here could think of tunes that don't support the theory - which wouldn't be about proving you wrong, but giving you some more data to integrate!


----------



## olvra

NoamL said:


> If you shared your theory in progress maybe some people here could think of tunes that don't support the theory - which wouldn't be about proving you wrong, but giving you some more data to integrate!



yes!

open source it, @Stephen Limbaugh


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

Ok.. so here is the first of two works the theory is based on.









narmour.melodic_complexity.pdf


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com





My proposition is that those interested familiarize themselves with the I-R terms and once they are generally understood, speaking about my conclusions/applications will be a lot easier.

*Be prepared: this is some of the most aggravatingly dense academic-speak imaginable. *


----------



## jonathanparham

This reminds me; How the research coming @Stephen Limbaugh ?


----------



## Jeremy Gillam

jonathanparham said:


> I've heard some youtube music channels mention Max martin's producing. Can you elaborate?



Max Martin is notoriously private and loathe to give interviews -- but they gave him a prize in 2016 and convinced him to talk about his career and some of his theories, which can be found in this video:



I flew from Los Angeles to Stockholm to attend that in person -- it was really cool! The songs they're referencing are muted in the video but the third comment down is a list of what they are so you can look them up.


----------



## jonathanparham

Jeremy Gillam said:


> Max Martin is notoriously private and loathe to give interviews -- but they gave him a prize in 2016 and convinced him to talk about his career and some of his theories, which can be found in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> I flew from Los Angeles to Stockholm to attend that in person -- it was really cool! The songs they're referencing are muted in the video but the third comment down is a list of what they are so you can look them up.



thanks


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

jonathanparham said:


> This reminds me; How the research coming @Stephen Limbaugh ?



Rigorously.


----------



## jonathanparham

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Rigorously.


rock on


----------

