PG Music Home Forums General Discussion User Showcase The Time It Takes (Synthesizer V)

Hi, Loren.

That's high praise! I'm nowhere near that level, but I appreciate the sentiment.

I'd actually studied "Bach style" counterpoint way back when, and even made some attempts at writing programs that could generate music in that style. I never really got past simple two-part inventions, though.

One thing I learned is that there are a lot of books that claim to teach in the "Bach style" that require learning all sorts of "rules" that Bach never followed.

I think the biggest thing I learned was this: Writing in the true style of "Bach" means not letting "rules" get in the way of a good melody.

But there's something truly magical and mystical about good harmony that transports listeners elsewhere, and if I can get even a bit of that, I'm happy.


Honestly, perhaps a bit too dense. What you're describing as positive attributes are ironically what I think of as the failings of the song - the density and lack of breathing space.

When writing, I'll often find I've worked myself into some sort of corner based on some bad decision. Given the option of starting over from scratch, or just hacking away until it's fixed, I'll usually choose the latter and hope I can salvage what I've done.


I was a little worried that responding these posts might incur the wrath of Eddie and have him accuse me of constantly putting my song back on the first page - but I couldn't resist answering this question.

Besides, he doesn't visit this part of the forum any more, does he?

Chord progressions are pretty straight forward: circle of fifths movement, common tones, inversions so roots move stepwise, and so on. I've got my favorite cliches, and with each song, I try to do something a little differently. I'm not sure this is always a good idea, since with most music, simple really is the best approach. But it makes me stretch a bit, which is good for me.

Melody writing is also "easy", in the sense that it can be thought of as chordal guide tones embellished rhythmically. The results may not always be "good", but they'll be functional. Once the melodic skeleton is in place, it's filled in and tweaked until it feels like a melody. That's about half technique and half inspiration.

Then comes the hard part: applying lyrics to the notes. With the melody in place, it's sort of obvious where the phrases are, and where the core ideas are going to go.

It's really a backwards way to do it, but last year I tried it the other way around and wrote no lyrics. So this is more painful, but get the job done.

And there are all sorts of "rules" about what a lyric should do - how to set up a scene, introduce a situation, give a POV, and so on.

The problem is that - at this point anyway - there's no inspiration, it's just all perspiration. My storytelling imagination is rusty and dull, and I'm boring. My general approach to life is "unnecessary risks are bad". That's certainly a safe way to live, but it doesn't provide much material for writing. I don't spend much time imagining the world through other people's eyes.

As I go through the process of trying to come up with lyrics, or even an idea that matches the mood of teh song - especially as several days pass without any real progress - there's more and more panic and perspiration. I know that it'll work out, but I also know that I've spent weeks just figuring out what a song "wants to say", and that's not a pleasant place to be.

Ironically, it's not like there's anything earth-shattering in lyrics. And once I get to the point of figuring out what the song is actually about, it's pretty straight-forward... but still a slog.

As for harmonies, they're a bit like writing the melodies. I've got a good idea of what I think the general shape of a phrase is going to be. If it doesn't work, I won't hesitate to change notes and durations. That's actually the fun part.

Did that answer the question?

Thanks!