How to Write Music - The Truth

[Carl Irwin]

Some of my thoughts on composing music from the very beginning stages. This is not exhaustive, obviously, and I try to talk through the potential "forks" that one might take in their process without fleshing out all possibilities. Another 'grab a cup of coffee' discussion with a little bit of music thrown in:
https://youtu.be/ArxhxkLQwFA

Enjoy!

-Carl

[erlkönig]

@Carl Irwin
Thank you for this contribution. We should try to leave the paths we were tought - but we should know about these.

"The final product matters" - that's one of the most robust and true statements i've ever heard concerning music, especially on composition.

"don't please yourself 100%", "good enough right now" - an audio engineer tought me decades ago: "finished is better than perfect", i'm surprised to hear an analogy to composition.

Well, and one feature of "good music" is Bob's big nose.

Thank you for your thoughts on howto write music. It could be summarized in the best sense with: "be encouraged".

[Carl Irwin]

if you would remove "The Truth", I may would look into your video.
But no, I am not seeking "The Truth" - I can sell you "The Truth".
It is 1000€ for one unit of "The Truth".
Please remember, I am no professional seller, so I can not give you any kind of receipt paper.
But "The Truth" I have here, its maybe the best truth you have ever witnessed.
It is no normal truth, its really the best.
Many customers told me that they think my truth is even more real then the other truths.
Well, I do not want to express it that way, but yes, my truth is extremly real.
For good people like you, I can make a special price if you order more then 10 units of "the Truth".
Take good care - even fake truth can really hurt sometime.
Specially the fake truth can cut real deep into the flesh.

I said "The Truth" because I meant it. There are a lot of folks that are trying to define the act of creating as having limitations (software, hardware, process, source) and they assert 'rightness' in these definitions. My discussion breaks up those stumbling blocks.

I took the video down, as some that believe in the stumbling blocks were accusing me of generating click bait. I don't click bait. I said truth because I meant it. Some are apparently uncomfortable with the truth. But the truth is a real word, with a real meaning and I intend to use it.

[Carl Irwin]

I am not unconformable with the truth, I just dont want your or any one's else truth because I have it on stock here.
And that was my point, if the title would have been different, I would have watched it, but I dont have time for any one else's truth, right now - nothing personal.

Oh my.
I actually dealt with this same thing over at the VI forum with a reader. The social situation must be worse than I thought for the word "truth" to now be repulsive.

When one cuts through the noise and arrives at the foundation and fundamentals of an issue, is truth not an appropriate word? What use of that word would be appropriate? I despise the removal of words from language. I advocate their use... in fact, I advocate the expansion of language, as needed.

I won't change the title, on principle. I meant to use the word truth, as it targets folks that want to dig to the center of the topic (especially those that might be wandering or uncertain of themselves). I am a serious person, and I thoughtfully mean what I say. You can't "truthfully" categorize my use of the word truth without watching. You can only assign presumption.

I refuse to conform to a world that renders all objective things as subjective. 2+2=4 and on a clear day, the sky is blue.

[Largos]

I didn't get round to watching your video (you need to allocate a time slot to watch videos that length ). Putting "the truth" in your video does put yourself alongside a bucket load of terrible dross on youtube, just put "the truth about" in the search bar. I don't know whether you were being ironic and clickbaity but you can't be surprised if someone gets a negative impression on the title.

[Linuxmusician01]

I am not unconformable with the truth, I just dont want your or any one's else truth because I have it on stock here.
And that was my point, if the title would have been different, I would have watched it, but I dont have time for any one else's truth, right now - nothing personal.

Oh my.
I actually dealt with this same thing over at the VI forum with a reader. The social situation must be worse than I thought for the word "truth" to now be repulsive.

When one cuts through the noise and arrives at the foundation and fundamentals of an issue, is truth not an appropriate word? What use of that word would be appropriate? I despise the removal of words from language. I advocate their use... in fact, I advocate the expansion of language, as needed.

I won't change the title, on principle. I meant to use the word truth, as it targets folks that want to dig to the center of the topic (especially those that might be wandering or uncertain of themselves). I am a serious person, and I thoughtfully mean what I say. You can't "truthfully" categorize my use of the word truth without watching. You can only assign presumption.

I refuse to conform to a world that renders all objective things as subjective. 2+2=4 and on a clear day, the sky is blue.

Some people in forums are a bit harsh. You happened to stumble upon two of 'm here. I watched parts of your video and I think it's fine. A bit too advanced for somebody like me who does not know a lot (read: neigh nothing) about music notation. That's not critique: I'm just not educated enough for making real music. But I'll watch it again some day. And I didn't take offense at the term "truth about". Like Arnold Schwarzenegger always says: "Don't listen to the nay sayers.".

Keep up the good work.

[j_e_f_f_g]

I watched Carl's video in its entirety. (My attention span accomodates more than just perusing the titles of videos.) There's a lot of good advice there. So first of all, I don't think Carl should acquiese to pedantic nit-picking over the most innocuous detail, and should not have removed the video.

Secondly, if it was his intent to make content that deliberately leveraged controversy and emotional manipulation to draw in viewers (ie, clickbait), then he did a really crappy job. You'd think that the last thing he'd do is fill the entire video with a low-key, studious discertation on nerdy music composition approaches. How could anyone watch this video and deem it to be "clickbait"? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is he didn't watch it, and instead dismissed it with the most superficial judgment. And look, largos comes right out and admits he didn't watch it.

Finally, the only absolute statement ("truth") Carl espouses in the video is "There's no one right way to make music". Therefore any criticism over the "truth" of that statement boils down to:

Carl: There's no one right way to make music.
Critic: That's not true.
Carl: Why?
Critic: Because it's an absolute statement about a subjective concept.
Carl: But the statement is saying that an absolute approach to a subjective concept is wrong.
Critic: That's wrong.
Carl: Why?
Critic: Because it's an absolute statement saying that an absolute approach to a subjective concept is wrong.

That's called "circular logic".

[Carl Irwin]

I watched Carl's video in its entirety. (My attention span accomodates more than just perusing the titles of videos.) There's a lot of good advice there. So first of all, I don't think Carl should acquiese to pedantic nit-picking over the most innocuous detail, and should not have removed the video.

Secondly, if it was his intent to make content that deliberately leveraged controversy and emotional manipulation to draw in viewers (ie, clickbait), then he did a really crappy job. You'd think that the last thing he'd do is fill the entire video with a low-key, studious discertation on nerdy music composition approaches. How could anyone watch this video and deem it to be "clickbait"? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is he didn't watch it, and instead dismissed it with the most superficial judgment. And look, largos comes right out and admits he didn't watch it.

Finally, the only absolute statement ("truth") Carl espouses in the video is "There's no one right way to make music". Therefore any criticism over the "truth" of that statement boils down to:

Carl: There's no one right way to make music.
Critic: That's not true.
Carl: Why?
Critic: Because it's an absolute statement about a subjective concept.
Carl: But the statement is saying that an absolute approach to a subjective concept is wrong.
Critic: That's wrong.
Carl: Why?
Critic: Because it's an absolute statement saying that an absolute approach to a subjective concept is wrong.

That's called "circular logic".

Spot on.
I brought the original video back online for those that expressed interest.

[erlkönig]

I brought the original video back online for those that expressed interest.

Right!

[j_e_f_f_g]

People using the word truth like you did are in my eyes not smart at all

artix, I don't want you to get mad. I like you, and read all your posts, When we're discussing a serious topic, I tend to agree with you. (I realize you don't like my humor at all. And that's cool. I strongly suspect that's a cultural difference).

But you've made an unfair accusation toward Carl. First of all, you didn't watch his video, so you don't how he "used the word truth". Because you're basing your evaluation entirely upon his video title, all you know is that Carl is (probably) going to assert some "truth". You don't know what that truth is. You don't know if it's "not smart at all". You don't know if it's more important than the theory of relativity. I watched the video so I can tell you precisely what the underlying truth was. (ie I can tell you exactly how Carl used the word truth). It is:

There's no one right (ie true) way to make music.

If you think that's "dumb" and not a valid use of truth, then you should argue why you've come to that conclusion.

There are people who don't read your messages, because your use of english is unfamiliar to them. Specifically, they find your grammar difficult to decipher. They could probably understand your content if they just took the time to figure out exactly what you mean. (I do. But then, I like to study the way people use language). But they aren't willing to take the time. So they don't judge you on content, and instead dismiss you as "not smart at all" based upon much more trivial criteria: your grammar. Even worse, I suspect that there are plenty of readers who judge you based upon the unconventional way you format your posts. (Short and long lines intermixed, unusual punctuation such as long streams of "................" where an english native would put a paragraph break, etc).

Do you think it's fair for someone to judge the merits of what you're saying based upon trivial things like grammar, punctuation, a statement taken out of context, false association (like largos drawing comparison of Carl's video to other "clickbait" on youtube based solely upon text search of the titles of videos, etc), rather than your content?

Well then, don't do that to Carl.

P.S. I think a title for Carl's video that piques interest while garnering less knee-jerk reactions would be "Trivial tips don't make you a better composer". But honestly, I'd recommend re-editing the video to vastly trim down the opening critique of "tips videos". It's not as interesting as the actual demonstration of possible, varying approaches toward composition. You want to get to that latter info as quickly as possible. So I'd trim down the intro to:

You'll often see videos with titles touting some tip to help you improve your skills as a composer. Unfortunatety, the tip is too often presented as an isolated approach, separated from other approaches that greatly increase or decrease the value of that tip. Because of this, such tips don't help you improve your skills as a composer. In this video, I want to present the entire process, from start to finish, of how I approach writing an orchestral score. At various stages of this process, I'll discuss and demonstrate different approaches you can take to achieve some goal. This is important because one particular approach doesn't produce the same results for every person. I'll therefore be presenting an approach that you can customize to work for you.

[j_e_f_f_g]

Sorry you're unwilling to even read my response. That is your choice, but I think it reflects badly on your capacity to judge someone based upon content, rather than mere presentation. (My post "looks too long").

Incidentally, what is the point of refusing to use the Foes List to automatically remove a certain member's posts, if you believe his posts have nothing of value to read (and in fact, you aren't reading)? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Carl Irwin]

This place is looking more and more like an Internet forum with each post. So now I know that Linuxmusicians is not an exceptional place, but rather fairly garden variety for Internet forums.

As for length of videos... I do fairly long form commentary. I actually have a separate channel devoted to close up magic that has a robust following (including many industry-defining folks) where I post in like manner.
Over time, I have been very successful with this format, earning a worthy and edifying audience base.

Anyone looking for a quick tip or truncated point will rarely (if ever) get that from me. That's the price for admission.

As for insulting my intelligence... I'm a veteran public school teacher. There's is nothing that I haven't been called
It is ironic that one would find stupidity in the proper and accurate use of any word, but it's exponentially hilarious that the proper use of the word "truth" would evoke a "lack of intelligence". You just can't make that kind of stuff up.

Don't watch it. But the "intelligent" follow-up would be to withhold judgment on any conclusions of the thing that hasn't been analyzed. There is zero basis for judgment without watching the video... that's another objective truth.

[j_e_f_f_g]

This place is... like an Internet forum.
Linuxmusicians is not an exceptional place.

Well, it is an internet forum. And yes, there's nothing about it that's significantly better than, nor even all that different from, any other forum. Sometimes it's entertaining. Sometimes it's informative. And sometimes it's worse than Joe Biden walking up a flight of stairs containing sandbags.

[GMaq]

@Carl Irwin

It hasn't always been like this...

All things are ebb and flow, we're just at a particularly low ebb right now..

[j_e_f_f_g]

Jeff, I love you, too.

Thanks. But I'm still charging you by the hour.

I want to hug you

The last time I let you do that, you stole my wallet.

I want to read more hate

I don't hate you. Why would I?

And Glen doesn't hate anyone. He's canadian.

I don't know anything about Carl other than he's a teacher.. So the only thing I'm sure he hates is the public education system.