Fascinating stuff. As a self-taught, whatever sounds good, composer, I have not given much thought to music theory, though there are certain things I will do while refining a tune, to keep my ears from getting bored, yet maintaining a thread for them to follow.
I build my songs on a spreadsheet-like interface, with each row being a track to set samples on, that will then play linearly, left to right. I average 12 tracks per tune, though each track can have multiple instruments on it. I control overall beat, timing, and key, for each composition, in addition to having similar controls, and more, over each sample - I do a fair amount of stretching, to sustain a note, allowing me to extend the number of beats for a given sample. I sometimes also edit length, and/or reverse the sample. Then burn multiple single song CD's, played *outside* my headphones, through decent speakers, to get the mix right, then finally, render an mp3, and load it into iTunes, to add publishing data. Best toy, ever! --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: > > Musical theory was my forte in college probably because I had studied > since I was a kid and writing compositions. I would even tutor some of > the scholarship performance students who could really play but were > flummoxed by music theory. But like the story beats, elements of music > theory are fallbacks to help make a composition better. You don't want > to write a piece of music entirely by them or it would sound dreadful. > Stuck on the next phrase of your tune? Try a retrograde inversion of > your current phrase. > > On 07/22/2013 02:37 PM, Share Long wrote: > > Well noozguru, I mainly wrote screenplays as a student and as a hobby. And > > yes, I realize those phrases are unparallel structures. Anyway, none > > produced though somewhere I have a lovely rejection letter from Bob Redford > > (-: > > > > > > I think there are formulas and I think they can work wonderfully because > > they are all based on the human brain and physiology. I know that doesn't > > sound very creative but actually I think it is. To fire up enough neurons > > in the brains of the audience so that they recognize the story as familiar. > > And yet to have enough new elements in the script to fire up some new > > neuronal pathways. Seen from one perspective, isn't this what all great art > > does? > > > > Of course artists don't think in these terms. I think the great ones are > > more plugged into totality than the rest of us. And they're not afraid to > > express from that place. I'm thinking of Woody Allen now. Whatever I think > > of him as I person, I admire him as an artist. I love that he was willing > > to keep expressing, which means sometimes he made mediocre films and > > sometimes he totally bombed. But IMHO he created a few masterpieces which > > advanced the art form and fired up some new neuronal pathways for his > > viewers. It's artists like this that we can easily watch and enjoy many, > > many times. In my experience, there are some deeper elements at work that > > go beyond the story. > > > > And all great art must have a rhythm that is compatible with our human > > rhythm. More later. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bhairitu <noozguru@...> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:57 PM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Great review of a controversial (because > > it's right) book on screenwriting > > > > > > > > > > Chime in because you say you've studied screen writing and have written > > scripts. Any produced? What do you think of these formulas? Then > > there are 8 and 9 act formulas too. > > > > I just came back from having lunch with a friend with connections at > > Lionsgate who we can pitch TV series to if we come up with one. Let's > > see, "Adventures in a Funny Farm Lounge." :-D > > > > On 07/22/2013 12:33 PM, Share Long wrote: > >> Really fun to read turqbarry noozbarry and merubarry talking about all > >> this (-: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: merudanda <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:32 PM > >> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Great review of a controversial (because it's > >> right) book on screenwriting > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Splendid idea-- > >> For those who are not so familiar with the "beating" check out > >> Blake Snyder's homepage > >> http://www.blakesnyder.com/ > >> including "The Despicable Me 2 Beat Sheet" This Gru-some beat sheet breaks > >> down the three-act structure into bite-size, manageable sections, each > >> with a specific goal-pattern can be used for your overall FFL story posting > >> > >> > >> millions of minions > >> http://www.blakesnyder.com/category/beat-sheet/ > >> And , of course, for our software lovers, and blank-filler and- or > >> shooter: > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES-2pyCTzB0 > >> > >> Story Structure Software 3.0 ,Save the Cat! Version 3 for only $99.95 > >> (Structure a story that resonates with the hear beats of all your FFL > >> posters by filling in this form with Blake's 15 beats.-In the mood for > >> horror posting at FFL but can't nail the story? Unleash your inner Stephen > >> King!-You have two days to visit Paris and, aspiring screenwriter /FFL > >> poster that you are, you know those 48 hours have to count :15 beats for a > >> rant!) > >> Or accomplish this splendid idea and contest with some chart from "Plot > >> whisperer"(no kidding)including Energetic Marker and Awakenings) > >> Here: > >> http://ingridsnotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/final-revision_traditional-mountain-structure-handout_8-5x14.jpg > >> > >> > >> [email protected], Bhairitu wrote: > >>> I'm waiting for Turq's daily rant written using the 15 beats. Or maybe > >>> we ought to have a posting contest for posts using the 15 beats. I was > >>> looking through those and imagining posts written that way. :-D > >>> > >>> On 07/21/2013 01:34 PM, merudanda wrote: > >>>> Thanks ,great post about cartoonish society of Hollywood and .... fill > >>>> in the blank [:D] > >>>> In Solving Equation of a Hit Film Script, With Data-Forget zombies. The > >>>> data crunchers are invading Hollywood. > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/kq3rfqr > >>>> wrote Ol Parker( "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.") "It's > >>>> the enemy of creativity, nothing more than an attempt to mimic that > >>>> which has worked before. It can only result in an increasingly bland > >>>> homogenization, a pell-mell rush for the middle of the road." > >>>> and a comment by Pure Snake Oil from Kansas City wrote: > >>>> "When you hire execs who can't read a script, have no movie, literature, > >>>> or artistic insight or training, you create a mentality that everything > >>>> can be measured by meta-data and statistics. The best film experience is > >>>> an emotional experience, connecting to the heart and soul of an > >>>> audience. These are not the elements that an algorithm can measure, it's > >>>> a measure of humanity itself." > >>>> and Birgitte Rasine from Silicon Valley: > >>>> "Some tend to think that the American moviegoer is too uneducated and > >>>> uncultured to choose the "art" film and that's why the mindless action > >>>> thrillers rake in so much cash. Wrong. It's years of US distributors > >>>> selecting mindless action flick after mindless action flick that has > >>>> shaped our tastes (speaking very generally), while distributors in > >>>> Europe chose films they felt had value as art and as great stories. In a > >>>> word, it's habit." > >>>> Yes When was it when the word "formulaic" was the ultimate insult for a > >>>> script. Now it's seen as something positive? > >>>> Yes its very late good night or better good morning.. [:x] > >>>> Will see if there is time for "The Power of Few" > >>>> > >>>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu wrote: > >>>>> Hollywood started out as a "factory" operation. It started because > >>>> the > >>>>> east coast entrepreneurs of nickelodeons wanted to make more money by > >>>>> making their own films and Edison wanted his royalties for the > >>>>> technology. So they took off to the orchards of southern California > >>>>> where they were out of reach of Edison's patent agents. IOW, > >>>> Hollywood > >>>>> was founded by pirates so them going after people who download a few > >>>>> movies (and sometimes may not even watch them) is a bit hypocritical. > >>>>> > >>>>> Frankly I don't have time to read all these articles right now but I > >>>>> know what has been going on in the industry. Doing movies or anything > >>>>> by focus groups is fraught with error. I've been on the other side of > >>>>> the two-way mirror for focus groups and watched people struggle with > >>>>> giving any kind of useful feedback. We developers figured this was > >>>>> happening only because marketing wanted it and not very useful. This > >>>> is > >>>>> also why you have food that is too salty, too sweet and has MSG in it > >>>>> because some focus groups told them "people like it." You know what > >>>>> people in focus groups like? The check they get afterwards. > >>>>> > >>>>> That and formula film making don't work. I happened to watch the > >>>> "Evil > >>>>> Dead" redo the other night and thought it was horrible. I recall the > >>>>> original was a bit of a dark comedy of errors. This one was just a > >>>>> "gore fest". Much better though a little weak in the opening acts is > >>>>> "The Power of Few" which has a bit of spiritual context and an > >>>>> independent film where no formulaic bean counters were telling the > >>>>> writer/director what to do. It features Christopher Walken and > >>>>> Christian Slater and a few other known actors. I rented the DVD at > >>>>> Redbox but I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up on Netflix WI in a > >>>> few > >>>>> weeks. It's not horror and though R I still think Buck might even > >>>> enjoy it. > >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuovcCmL9k > >>>>> (Let's see the trailer is an ad for the movie so why put an ad before > >>>> it?) > >>>>> The ideal is sorta like the way art galleries work. The filmmaker > >>>> makes > >>>>> a movie and a distributor picks it up. The distributor plays the role > >>>>> the art gallery and art gallery don't generally go around telling > >>>>> artists what to paint. They pick stuff that they feel people will > >>>> want > >>>>> to buy. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course making a movie can be very expensive or used to be. You can > >>>>> make really good looking movies with cameras that cost under $5000 and > >>>>> own them instead of renting. No need for bad actors either as > >>>> colleges > >>>>> generate plenty of aspiring drama grads who can actually act.d It's > >>>> all > >>>>> about how creative you can be and economy of means. If you have a > >>>>> compelling story people will want to see it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Art doesn't belong in an "factory" operation. That may have worked > >>>> back > >>>>> when film didn't amount to much. Now audiences want more. TV > >>>> networks > >>>>> have been blindsided by Netflix, Amazon and VUDU. People would rather > >>>>> invest 90 minutes in one complete story than be strung out on a so-so > >>>> TV > >>>>> series that has turned in its later season to just be a paycheck for > >>>> the > >>>>> production company. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding formulaic script writing, I determined some time ago there > >>>> is > >>>>> no one way to write a script. It's story telling. In some cases you > >>>>> one might do better either telling a story like you would to friends > >>>> to > >>>>> a voice recorder app rather than writing it down. Or maybe writing an > >>>>> outline and filling in the rest. The academic structure is just a > >>>> tool > >>>>> to help you fix where your story has gone weak. We have the same > >>>> thing > >>>>> in music where tools can help you fix a composition where it has > >>>> fallen > >>>>> down. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also I think a lot of aspiring screenplay writers just seem to write > >>>> and > >>>>> re-write one script over and over. They should try writing a bunch of > >>>>> them instead and will find like any other art form they learn each > >>>> time > >>>>> and get better at it. And aspiring Joss Whedons need to remember it > >>>> was > >>>>> his family dharma as his grandfather even wrote for TV. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 07/21/2013 11:07 AM, merudanda wrote: > >>>>>> NICE!! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Bhairitu -guru please,please tell us "it was like a bomb ripped > >>>>>> through Hollywood" and movies are "America's greatest art form" > >>>>>> are only self-serving and over-dramatic assertions of a nothing-new > >>>> "a > >>>>>> tunnel-visioned , flippant and misinformed article"about Film 101 > >>>> and a > >>>>>> merchandizing picking pocketing raucous hustling, an unbridled > >>>> global > >>>>>> carnival entertainmententertainmententertainment industry. > >>>>>> BTW > >>>>>> Correlation-digging are fun but does not imply causation. > >>>>>> HMMMh what was first > >>>>>> formulaic-franchised thinking or formulaic -franchised writing- > >>>>>> Wouldn't you agree with :Theory is for analyzing works that have > >>>> already > >>>>>> been created, it's not a manual to follow in creating them. > >>>>>> And. > >>>>>> Having rules and certain guidelines to follow seems to be > >>>> essential. > >>>>>> for writing instruction manual or a pharmaceutical regulatory > >>>> document > >>>>>> [:D] or- well [;)] -writing a scientific paper to be published > >>>>>> Stay tuned for the next thrilling installment, for the shocking > >>>>>> revelation by Suderman that there are only six plots in all of > >>>>>> fiction!-and spoiled people stop going to Snyderized movie > >>>>>> Wasn't Snyder making very clear in his book that his formula > >>>>>> sheet-whatever is/ought to be applied almost exclusively to comedies > >>>> -- > >>>>>> something Suderman seems to miss--? > >>>>>> Something to ponder...: > >>>>>> Big Data analytic s now being used by Hollywood. > >>>>>> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/business/media/solving-equation-of-a-h\ > >>>> \ > >>>>>> it-film-script-with-data.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& > >>>>>>>> hit-film-script-with-data.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&> > >>>>>> --- In [email protected], turquoiseb wrote: > >>>>>>> Very well -- and wittily -- written up in this review by > >>>>>>> Peter Suderman. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blak\ > >>>> \ > >>>>>> e_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.2.html > >>>>>>> The wit comes from a link to a second version of the > >>>>>>> article that many people will miss and not click on, > >>>>>>> to their detriment. It's the same article they've just > >>>>>>> been reading, but now with its beat-by-beat formula > >>>>>>> -- the same one discussed in the article and in the > >>>>>>> book -- inserted, to show you that he followed the > >>>>>>> formula when writing the article. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/now_playing_at_your_\ > >>>> \ > >>>>>> local_multiplex_save_the_movie.html > >>>>>> > > > > >
