Nabeel Ansari

Explain to me why you should receive full credit if you are incapable of voice leading properly? Yes, there is a time and place for voice leading, obviously you don't do it everywhere; however, you have to start with the basics before you can go off and do your own thing. You take these classes knowing in advance that you are being asked to demonstrate that you understand 17th-18th century concepts. I've never heard of anyone say that their professor told them that they needed to use these concepts in their own personal compositions in order for their music to be any good. In other words, if I asked you to write me a two part counterpoint, and you just did some two-part whatever that sort of not really followed the rules of counterpoint, common sense dictates that I should knock points off your grade. That's not the same thing as saying that I think you should be using two-part counterpoint in your jazz fusion band. It's just saying that in order to evaluate that you understand what counterpoint is, you need to be able to do it. If you are saying that schools shouldn't be starting education by studying Classical music, I disagree. If you know how to orchestrate and do standard functional harmony, learning everything else about music (like jazz theory, arranging for bands, etc.) become much simpler. Of course, I am incredibly biased, since I tend to see big picture things that my lecturers don't really discuss in class, so perhaps what works for me doesn't for everyone.

This is incorrect on certain points. Composers weren't music theorists, music theorists were separate people. Music education evolved and new composers learned theory by being taught by other composers who learned theory from school. But composers didn't really construct the music theory concepts we know today, they only learned them from teachers or made them up, letting someone else formalize them. Composition methods, on the other hand, like Counterpoint, were created by composers, yes. Theory is not how music works, but rather how we observe it to function and the result of attempting to create a reconcilable system that accounts for all the things we perceive to be distinct. Developed theory is only really available for the 12-tone system, and it is only born out of observing what composers have done over the years. For example, impressionist music turned music theory of the time on its head. It abandoned functional harmony, and thus we revised our conclusions and said "oh, you don't *have* to have functional harmony." Music Theory is the observation of all created music and the trends we see, but we should not ever be certain that it describes the deeper functions of how music ACTUALLY works, much like current models of the atom have been reliable so far but are still subject to change. This is why Music Theory shouldn't be treated like a bible and should be more of a reference guide. It says "here, this is everything that has been done before, here are the macroscopic trends and relationships." and going on that, you can then go and try to create new music outside of that realm. -Atonal music can be in a distinct section of music, but it can not be any arbitrary collection of beats (like when you pick timestamps) where the notes happen to add up to a lot outside of the normally emphasized scale. Composers don't really blur the line. They're either writing atonal music or they're writing tonal music. Their tonal music can be very dissonant and tense, but if they resolve them to a tonic, it's tonal. If you say "well these three beats are atonal, then it's tonal for two beats, then it's atonal again for 5 beats", then you're not seeing the forest for the trees. The big picture is destroyed and now your analysis of what's going on is individually limited to each of those little collections, then the music makes no sense. *WHY* is it atonal for 3, tonal for 2, atonal for 5? You'll spend years trying to figure out what the composer intended with these strange transitions between alternate musical structures. Instead you can just say "oh, he's using the diminished scale on top of those dominant chords during some lengthy tension". -Conventional is depending on who you talk to. Jazz music is super tonal, and super dissonant. But Jazz has pretty standard conventions if you learned the theory behind its harmonization techniques and such. -Yes. -It's not how to write music, it's how to *be a musician*. It makes your brain think in terms of music. I can tell you "minor 9th chord" and you will instinctively hear it, much like I tell you "fried chicken" and you instinctively taste it. Likewise, you hear a minor 9th chord and immediately attach that harmonic color to "minor 9th chord". Humming a bassline is not really ear training, but humming a bassline and being able to write down the notes without DAW assisted playback is certainly ear training, and is playing that "sound to theory" half (the other half being sight singing, which is "theory to sound", or reading written music and knowing/singing what it sounds like). I listen to songs and say "oh, they used a secondary dominant to the vi chord" or "oh, this uses a picardi third (using a major tonic chord in a minor key song)" or "this song is in Phrygian" etc. I'm not breaking it down on paper, I just remember what these theoretical things sound like. Whenever I *don't* recognize something in a song? That's when I sit down and figure it out. Then when I strip its context away and just have the numbers, that's when I can use it in my music from then on. THAT'S music theory. That's why I learned it, to do exactly that. Theory is certainly a waste of time without ear training, because you'll have to keep using assisted playback and paper to constantly remind either what written things sound like or what sounds are written like.

Disagree entirely. Ear training attaches sound to theory. It will assist you in hearing various types of harmonies and motion in your head and writing it down with minimal hassle or error. The most important application of ear training is gaining the ability to seamlessly translate in your head from conceptualized (written or spoken) theory, to what it actually sounds like, and vice versa. This is why they teach your Ear Training in music school; it's not just for purposes of transcription, it's to get you to eliminate the barrier between written music and actual sound. They become one in the same, because if they are not to you, learning new things becomes much more difficult. You may remember theoretically what they are, but forget what they sound like. You may remember what they sound like, but forget how to construct them on paper, or in DAW or on the instrument. The latter is basically writing by intuition. You don't really know how things work or how to derive them, but you know they sound cool, so you fiddle around until you get them the way you want.

Already looking much better! Biggest issue right now is your rewards. They have nothing to do with your project. Why is someone wanting to fund your FFIX project any interested in your Zelda Suite and your Medley? Why A Night on Bald Mountain & Stella Splendensm, and why An Irish Patriot? These things have nothing to do with the FFIX project, and as such, people will have no reason to pay so much for something irrelevant. This isn't like an eBay store, where you're selling random things to get money for your project. This is a crowdfunding donation campaign, where people donating to this glorious FFIX project of yours will receive some sort of reward that enhances their enjoyment of it. For example, Kickstarter rewards for Zircon's album were: " A digital, lossless + MP3 copy of a previously released zircon album (your choice!) Advance digital copy of Identity Sequence with PDF cover + liner notes, plus one digital copy of any other album of your choice. A physical copy of Identity Sequence, plus digital downloads of any TWO albums of your choice. SIGNED physical copy of Identity Sequence, plus digital downloads of any FOUR albums of your choice! Gorgeous signed 11x18 Identity Sequence poster PLUS a signed copy of the album and digital copies of any FIVE albums of your choice! " Zircon can pull off the other albums bit because this Kickstarter is about HIM and HIS MUSIC. People who like zircon's music donated, and as such they received more of this music. However, you're not like Zircon, and you don't have much of a following or a discography. This Kickstarter is *not* about Catherine Stay, but rather, it is about this FFIX Classical concept project you have. So your rewards shouldn't pertain to stuff you make and stuff you're interested in, but stuff that has to do with your FFIX project. It could go like $10 - Download Code $15 - Download Code, Special Thanks $25 - Physical Copy, Special Thanks $35 - Signed Physical Copy, Special Thanks $50 - 2 Signed Physical Copies $75 - 2 Signed Physical Copies, Gorgeous Art Poster $100 - 2 Signed Physical Copies, Gorgeous Art Poster, and Copy of the Orchestral Manuscript $200 - 2 Signed Physical Copies, 2 Gorgeous Art Posters, and 2 Signed Copies of the Orchestral Manuscript I'm no expert on money value and such, so these are only suggestions. But these rewards are relevant, they have something to do with your project, and thus, they are immediate reward to doners that the project they supported came to fruition, and give people exciting reasons to pump money in. I want to be like "OH SHIT! Final Fantasy 9 orchestrated *AND* I can read the manuscript? Score! Here's $100."

I keep saying this and then people keep trying to say "but WRITING BY INTUITION WORKS TOO" because it goes over their heads.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/37294293/rebirth-of-the-crystal-a-final-fantasy-ix-oratorio?ref=discovery Rexy hit the rewards point, so I won't go into that. It's very clear why it didn't succeed. You displayed no amount of professional effort or planning into this, and as such, even though I doubt anyone even saw this (since you didn't market it), anyone who did see it and ALSO happened to be interested was probably thinking that you were unreliable. Your video font is in Comic Sans without any regard for proper spelling and grammar. 99% of your words are in lower case. No one knows what it is. The first thing in the "About This Project" section is... a Bach performance?! How about you explain what you're doing? All you did was throw miscellaneous music release related expenses at people. What does Bach have to do with anything? The mechanical organization and aesthetic of the kickstarter page is pretty messy. You've got some bolded stuff, some bullet points, lots of numbers, none of it is organized in the slightest. There's no description, just random facts and figures. Where are the pictures? The paragraphs? I need WOW and SUCH PRETTY and I CARE TOO NOW, not i wanna do this thing gimme money. You need to give people a reason to give you money. I wouldn't donate money to something that is so poorly organized and marketed, because what is my guarantee that you'd actually have the ability to pull through on something like this if you give no clear indication that you know what you're doing? You should really look at successful Kickstarters and compare them to yours, and you'll plainly see what the difference is between a good kickstarter page and a poor one. The actual page aside, did you market this at all? Spread it on social media? Get friends to spread the word? I understand that perhaps you aren't familiar with the professional world, but here's the truth of it: if you want people to get on board with what you're doing, your campaign has to be flawless. Answer every possible question before people can ask them. There can be no errors, no room for confusion, nothing. Not a single misspelled word, not a single unclear sentence. Explain everything, show why it matters not just to you but for people in general. Give it aesthetic. Make it pretty, elegant, professional. What makes you different, and what makes me think that you have the ability not only to deliver but to do it well? Also, show some passion. Explain why you care, maybe give some background. As it stands, this Kickstarter page doesn't look like it made by someone who cared at all, and the reaction was likewise. I mean no offense by any of this, but you asked why it failed, and even labeled it as a "conundrum" of sorts, so I plainly laid this out for you instead of beating around the bush or giving generalized answers like other people did. If you feel discouraged, swallow that feeling and instead, go down this post I made and fix *every flaw* I pointed out. I guarantee your page would improve its effectiveness tenfold, and be something worth promoting. When you do that and succeed, come back, and we can help you learn how marketing and promotion works. Even with a niche audience, you can still manage a successful crowdfund. You have to do it right. If you don't care enough to fix all of these things, then it's a good thing no one gave you any money; you need a lot of willpower to bring something like this to life, and if you don't have enough to fix a campaign, you don't have enough for the project itself.

Actually, the word I was looking for was in fact "ironic", and I did indeed find it

I can't tell if you're saying this ironically or not

Color. Sound is about color. The only way to choose your instruments in a way that pleases you more is to listen to music and see what instruments sound like in various circumstances. With orchestration, listen to your favorite orchestral pieces, and see what instruments are played in what octaves, what's being double for the melody, etc. The art of orchestration is choosing the colors you see fit and then fleshing them out. Want high and soaring? Double violins with flutes/piccolo. Want really punchy and bright? Trumpets and horns, maybe accented with a percussive hit. Want mellow and solemn? Horns work, along oboes and bassoons which are *wonderful* for that. Obviously synths are a different ball game, sure. Your understanding of color/texture still helps you, as you have a general idea of what kind of sound fits your track. Glassy? Bright? Edgy? Mellow? Thick and rough? Thick and smooth? Etc. etc. You need to know what you want before you pick your instruments. If you don't know, cycle through the colors at random and seeing what fits. Eventually you'll develop the ability to know what you want without trial and error.

And I'm telling you that this is not actually a thing. There is no such thing as what you're trying to distinguish. You can't be "atonal in an isolated section" without ABANDONING the key. When you abandon a key, it's *very obvious*.

This doesn't *mean anything*. Because that's not what atonality is. Atonality refers to the lack of key. It doesn't refer to notes that contrast with the main scale. Lack of key =/= Contrasting with the main scale

I made no statements of the frequency at which music is tonal or atonal. I simply told you what atonal music is, because you incorrectly identified i -> II as "atonal". These things aren't opinionated. If you want to understand the difference between tonal and atonal music, you need to study tonal music, then study stuff like Schoenberg, and actually technically identify what it is that sets them apart. You can't do it by saying "it sounds really dissonant/chromatic so it's atonal" Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor is tonal, yet some sections consist of nothing but tritones and it sounds super evil and dissonant. Why is it tonal? View the notes in context of D minor, it's all just chord tones of C# fully diminished 7, the second cookie cutter tonality defining chord of D minor (the first being A major). This is not off-topic, it's speaking to the value of learning music theory.

Secondary dominants disagree. They are a feature of tonal music, yet rely on accidentals (they are a defined way to use accidentals to lead chords to each other). It's not up for discussion. Ask anyone who studies music and they will tell you that this is not what atonality is. I appreciate that you have your own systematic way of thinking about it (really, I do, this is what I was saying before, that you do have your own "personal theory"), but when you use terms like "atonal" to me, you're miscommunicating. Learning legit music theory is also productive when talking to other musicians for this reason, so it eliminates people going "wait, what are you talking about? That's not the same thing as what I'm talking about."

That's why I'm confused as to why you think one accidental constitutes atonality. Anyways, as to the topic, my point is that learning theory accelerates the development of your musical vocabulary. Yes, you can do things without acceleration, however I find this to be a waste of time having done it for 6 years and gotten pretty much nowhere with it. Just half a year of studying music had people I look up (like the big Z) to tell me my newer music had been unlike anything I made before and that the harmonic language was much more interesting. Descends chromatically every beat, then modulates up a whole tone and does it again. It's too short a passage to determine anything further from it. Jazz has a lot of chromaticism like this, does not render it atonal however dissonant it may be.

A general rule to follow is to listen for the note that the song sort of has a "conclusion" of. The note that you can hum at the end that will make it sound like it's over. In La Danse Macabre (the Shovel Knight song I linked) it uses i -> II in Db minor (it actually bounces between Db dorian and Db aeolian), so it's got accidentals, yes, but if you listen to the song, it's not hard to figure out that Db is the "main" focus. The OP had specified that tips were allowed.

It's not very difficult to discern a key of a song with accidentals provided you have ample ear training. Understanding the function of accidentals as well makes it easier. This reminds me of the time someone thought a VG song was in no discernable key because it had a leading tone in minor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music) This is what a key is. I can link you examples of what atonal music actually sounds like, I assure you it's far more left-field than you'd imagine.

This is *not* what atonal means. Atonal is defined as a lack of a tonal center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality I can write a tonal song in C where I use every mode of C but retain the tonic of C. It will still be tonal. Using notes outside of the key is not atonal, it's just called using accidentals. If accidentals yielded atonality, then you just called more than half of all classical music atonal.

Do you even know what atonal means? Anyways, it wasn't "technically correct", I just happen to like the sound of consonance (I am socially conditioned to like it, because I grew up in a world where most music is consonant). I could've easily not have consonantly harmonized it and left it dissonant. But I don't like doing that, because I don't like it, and neither does my audience. I didn't do it because it was technically correct, I did it because I liked it; there were many other chord choices I could've implemented there and maintained consonace. I could have done so many things, but I didn't. I liked what Virt did, because II in a minor key is a bold move. But some people are into that, cue post-modern classical music. No "technically incorrect" stuff there, just a different approach to designing harmony (as grating on the ears as possible).

That being said, trying to work out without understanding freebody forces and anatomy will get you hurt. Cue most deadlifters breaking their back. I didn't know there were technically correct ways to do things. Please explain, because I've never encountered anything like that while studying music.

No one said you had to. Studying music is not something you do in a day, it takes years. Whether you do it on your own or by going to school for it, the point is that you develop a more advanced vocabulary over time if you can absorb things. You have been making music for a long time, and so you have absorbed these things over time. Whether you did by reading textbook or by sitting in the studio is *irrelevant*. However, doing it "academically" makes the process much faster, and the years you would spend doing it by intuition are reduced to weeks by comparison. I wasted years making remixes not knowing theory, and I've learned more about basic musical function in the past year than I did in the past 6 years of the intuition "it sounds good" approach. Intuition even disables you from knowing how to make something sound the strongest it possibly can. Let's say you want to switch to a certain chord. You end up doing it by plopping the notes into a pad, and it sounds good, but what if you swapped the order of the notes in a certain way? It would carry the effect much stronger, but you wouldn't really know that by intuition. You would've stopped at "it sounds great" and that's it. If you don't care, and your audience doesn't care, that's fine. But some people do care.

You don't have to know how to say it in words. Music theory isn't about writing papers, it's about surveying musical techniques. It's pretty clear that you understand that the things you did are in fact things you can do (otherwise, why would you have done them), and that's you knowing theory. You can discover it for the first time while writing, that doesn't magically make it *not* theory. I've discovered plenty of things in the moment, and then now they're part of my vocabulary. You can discover them on your own or from other music, but the ability to take them in and use them is you "doing" music theory. I mean, keep arguing, but basically this is an argument between you saying you're musically unintelligent and me saying you're musically intelligent, so I would re-evaluate your interest in this discussion.

The common misconception is that theory is "how to write music", when in fact, it's a tool for analysis. Theory won't help you write anymore than your frequency analyzer will help you EQ (you have to know how to respond to what you're analyzing, it's not enough to be able to just see it and magically your music is better.) What it does help you do is listen to existing music and break it down, so you can see how it works. Then it's up to you to imitate what you like or whatever after seeing its building blocks. Often what many people do is treat music theory concepts like rules, try to write to those rules, create shitty music, and then complain that music theory ruined their creativity. It would be tragic if it wasn't stupid. Also, contesting that theory isn't important for arranging; this is the worst error in thinking. Arranging is the most important application of theory. How can you possibly bring out the best of something if you don't understand what makes it tick? How can you arrange a song with notes outside the key? How can you arrange a VG tune that uses extended chords? How can you write solos that aren't just diatonic? Case in point, for the Shovel Knight remix competition, I went up against DusK with this song: The melody contains a #4 in a i -> II progression. DusK didn't know music theory, though. Every time he hit the #4 melody note, he had no idea what chord to put with it, and as a result, every time he hit that note, it sounded like a wrong note because it didn't harmonize with the chord at all. On the other hand, in my remix, all I did was use the same chord progression that Virt had for it, and my remix sounded harmonious even with the #4 note as a result. Why? I studied music theory and learned how to recognize these things and use them to my advantage. It also taught me a lesson; want to make a creepy graveyard theme? Use #4! Thanks Virt!

Because stairsteps are definitely how physics works amirite

There are no modulations. The presence of notes outside the key does not indicate a modulation. Come on, guys. Patrick and Sil hit it. It's just minor key chords, nothing special. VI -> VII -> i then VI -> VII -> V V is a borrowed chord from the parallel major. It's there because the Aeolian mode (minor scale) has no leading tone (Gb to Ab is a whole step, but it needs to be a G to Ab, a half step, to be a leading tone). Thus, the v chord in minor (Eb minor) raises the minor third (Gb) to a major third (G) so it is now an Eb major chord with the leading tone G that will lead to the Ab chord (it doesn't sound like they do Ab minor after the Eb major chord, but that is the purpose of this chord, whether they resolve it or not).