Hi Jer! (Haha…these two posts will be hysterical to read after the previous 6 posts…)
[quote]lattetown (30/04/2011)[hr][quote]JamieinNC (30/04/2011)[hr]Just want to say that I’m not trying to be aggressive, I just like stimulating debate. I’m very friendly and don’t like or dislike Latte any less that if he agreed with everything I said!
Just want to throw that out there as a disclaimer![/quote]
Ditto! 
my name is Jer, btw[/quote]
[quote]JamieinNC (30/04/2011)[hr]Hi Jer! (Haha…these two posts will be hysterical to read after the previous 6 posts…)[/quote]
Oh I don’t know, I’m surrounded by smart friends here in Seattle that like to debate as well.
In fact, I could switch sides in this debate and argue the other side–I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie Hillary and Jackie but I think those two sisters represent to me two aspects of music. One is pursuing a formal, somewhat traditional approach to music, and one is very avant garde.
I guess my point about the Symphony Chorale is that there comes a point when the performance comes from a different place than the rehearsals and planning that is steeped in theory. When you perform the music breathes, and you respond to the energy of the hall and audience–there is an instinct that can take a dry and dull performance of all the same notes and bring it to life in a way that brings the audience to their feet at the end.
The subtext I guess I was going for is that the Electronica community has created something special that is not like what traditional music genres created–it’s not like Jazz, or Classical, or R&B. Having the technology of treating music like ceramic, breaking into pieces and then jigsawing them back into a mosaic is very inventive. I guess I’d say for this community, play to your strengths–which is trying out new ideas and use theory as a seasoning or a new toy to play with–instead of the other way around.
[quote]jjdejong0 (12/04/2011)[hr]I really hope SA give us some really in depth music theory tutorial vids soon, its so frickin confusing :([/quote]
+1
[quote]alinenunez (30/04/2011)[hr]
what i was saying is that if i build a song based in harmonic chords. why it sounds so dissonant to layer down a lead line in Melodic scale .
[/quote]
You know I never actually responded to your question…sorry 
Ok, when you build your song on harmonic chord I assume you mean a chord progression like C min, A-flat maj, B-flat maj, C min. So if the notes in your melody hit octaves, 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, and 6ths of the current chord progression they will meld better with the harmony.
Let’s say your melody goes C, D, E-flat, A-flat–then you could change the C min chord into A-flat maj chord when the melody lands on A-flat (octave) so that the 5th of the C min chord (G) doesn’t become a semi-tone with the melody.
You could also do this with a 5th in the melody…which means you change to the A-flat maj chord while the melody is on the E-flat (it changes from a 3rd in the C-min chord to a 5th in the A-flat major chord).
You can develop an “instinctive” feel while you’re jamming–e.g. I don’t think “well, now I’m going to change my melody to fit the chord progression”–I usually fit the chord progression to my melody.
[quote]lattetown (30/04/2011)[hr][quote]alinenunez (30/04/2011)[hr]
what i was saying is that if i build a song based in harmonic chords. why it sounds so dissonant to layer down a lead line in Melodic scale .
[/quote]
You know I never actually responded to your question…sorry
Ok, when you build your song on harmonic chord I assume you mean a chord progression like C min, A-flat maj, B-flat maj, C min. So if the notes in your melody hit octaves, 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, and 6ths of the current chord progression they will meld better with the harmony.
Let’s say your melody goes C, D, E-flat, A-flat–then you could change the C min chord into A-flat maj chord when the melody lands on A-flat (octave) so that the 5th of the C min chord (G) doesn’t become a semi-tone with the melody.
You could also do this with a 5th in the melody…which means you change to the A-flat maj chord while the melody is on the E-flat (it changes from a 3rd in the C-min chord to a 5th in the A-flat major chord).
You can develop an “instinctive” feel while you’re jamming–e.g. I don’t think “well, now I’m going to change my melody to fit the chord progression”–I usually fit the chord progression to my melody.[/quote]
thanks for the tip . so far interesting point how u fit the chord progression rather than the main melody.
u gave me some good ideas to work .
thanks
[quote]willidaniel (30/04/2011)[hr][quote]jjdejong0 (12/04/2011)[hr]I really hope SA give us some really in depth music theory tutorial vids soon, its so frickin confusing :([/quote]
+1[/quote]
Just an FYI, Rick Snoman is coming out with a Dance Music Theory book in September. It’s a companion to his popular Dance Music Manual (which I’m reading and am learning a lot about the technical side of dance music production).
[url]http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780240521961/Dance-Music-Manual-v.-2[/url]
Maybe we can get him to do a promo tutorial
[quote]alinenunez (01/05/2011)[hr]thanks for the tip . so far interesting point how u fit the chord progression rather than the main melody.
u gave me some good ideas to work .
thanks[/quote]
Well, I should say that’s not a hard and fast rule–you may want a section of your track to be very rhythm heavy–like after a climax. One way to do that would be to repeat the same chord progression over and over to reinforce the beat more than a melody. In that case, I might change the melody around to fit the chord progression…I might simplify it, I might stutter chunks of it, I might play it backwards…but the point is the bits of the melody are still in the soundscape so when the groove session ends I can do another build up by bring the emphasis back on the anthem (for example).
So I’d try playing around with it–maybe you’ll come up with just the opposite approach in a way I haven’t tried yet.