Here is one list of common melodic series’ used by me when improvising on a wooden xylophone. The list is presented as numbers in a digital pattern to represent the different notes. 1 could be C, 2 could be D, 3 could be E etc... Naturally, these number sequences can also be applied to a composed melody instead of to an improvised one.
121314
434241
135
111122223333
333322221111
111222333
333222111
112233
332211
342312
2321
2123
4534444445245145
1357
1243
4312
543542541
123124125
213243
1232
3212
154254354
123123123
232123212321
212321232123
121232343
531
3421
2134
145245345
521421321
321321321
343232121
21321421521
7531
1234321234321
4321234321234321234
123412341234
432143214321
123123123
321321321
23212
21232
212323434
512412312
413121
142434
2135
1246
4531
6531
21357
12468
434323212
1234
4321
54535453525352515
5125352535453545
11121113114111
444344424441
411131112111
144424443444
11121113111211131114111311141115
51114111311141113111211131112111
55545553555455535552555355525551
15552555355525553555455535554555
12345654321234567898765456789 ten eleven ten 9876
23214565478987
123423456756789 ten 89
6789 ten eleven twelve eleven ten 987654567898766543212345654321
989874565412321
98 ten 987657654324321
8987565442321
123245657898
12342333453456
654354324321
124235346
875764653
12121212
21212121
etc...
We all realize that this is only one small answer to the problem of where to find melodic material. There are several other ways to deal with it which I’ll get to in a bit.
Concerning the minimum database that you would be required for you to know in order to be considered a professional performing musician, professional performers minimally are able to play for one hour without repeating themselves. Those number patterns just scratch the surface in that case. Of course there are several ways of getting to the point where you can play for one hour, and hopefully more, without repeating yourself. Listen to a lot of CD's, attend a lot of concerts, acquire a lot of songbooks, find good teachers etc... and we should pursue all of them.
I’d like to point out, that the database method acknowledges scales alone aren't music. You can’t just run up and down scales in either your melodies or your improvisations. There has to be some pattern or structure and usually implies some kind of repetition which is a basic musical concept. And just as fundamental is the idea that playing the RIGHT scales will not create any sense of style such as rock/pop, hip-hop or jazz. Each style and sub-style has a melodic vocabulary. Take jazz for example. The minimum melodic vocabulary of jazz includes chromatic approach tones that lead into arpeggios, pentatonic scales, tetrachords etc... And it has passing tones located in strategic places such as between the b7 and 1 of those tetrachords, pentatonic scales and arpeggios.
Is access to these particular databases effective solutions for finding a place to acquire the melodic series you're going to use for your next tune?
These databases are insufficient by themselves for consistently coming up with new melodic series’ but they are places to turn for a couple of tunes and therefore have some value.
One of the problems with using a database is that when moving between one lick and another, a choice has to be made about where to start the next lick. You have to determine if the position to start the next lick from the last note of the previous lick will rise, stay the same or fall. If it rises, another choice needs to be made to allow for it to rise either a 2nd, 3rd or more. There are a lot of short licks so the process is slow if you’re going to make these decisions on paper and becomes boring very quickly which is what we’re trying to avoid. Such an endeavor is a huge bottle-neck. Unconsciously filtering out all of the bad possibilities when you’re performing, with your brain’s own musical cortex, can be much faster if you put in the appropriate amounts of both studying the right music and practicing correctly. But if you’re composing, you don’t even need to know how to play an instrument although that naturally helps.
The difference between a computer coming to the task of music composition and a person is that a person has had a lifetime of musical experience even if only second hand as a listener that they bring to the table. It would be difficult to write all of the musical experiences you’ve ever had and then program them into a computer. But a computer is as dumb as a tree stump and would need you to do that if you expected it to compose music in the styles you would like to hear. It’s really a lost cause. Many people know the computer accompaniment software Band-In-A-Box. It can come up with a lot of simple yet stylistically appropriate accompaniments but what it cannot do is come up with stylistically appropriate melodies.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น