I can't understand musical intelligence

NomenNescio

NomenNescio

Dual Sense Edger and Blower
I love music. From childhood to early teens I played the keyboard (went to a conservatory). It wasn't anything fancy, you learned to play several popular songs throughout the years and had fun with them.

When I think about a particular piece that's absolutely beautiful, like sublime, let's say Chopin's Nocturne, or Debussy's Clair de Lune, I just can't understand how you get to compose something like that. How do you know which combination of notes, which timing, which cords, are going to sound that great together? There is no logic to that, there's nothing to understand. I know there are rules in music, and you can be the biggest expert in music theory, but if you just don't have it your songs aren't even going to make it into a TV commercial. It's one thing to play it, and to analyze it, I could do that. But to make it? That's something else.

Even something as simple as, let's say The Strokes "The Adults Are Talking". That riff, as simple as it is, is fucking genious. It's catchy, the instrumentals are awesome, it's a great song. It sounds like it was always in the back of your mind, yet someone else discovered it and put it out there. How do you come up with THAT?

With other types of intelligence, there's always an element of strong logic and rationale. But composing music? Fuck that. How TF you do that? Musical intelligence is a complete mystery.
 
Last edited:
A lot of rewriting and focus testing. I'm sure if you had their resources and put in 15 years towards 1 song (Clare de Lune), you could put out something decent.
 
angrod14 said:
I love music. From childhood to early teens I played the keyboard (went to a conservatory). It wasn't anything fancy, you learned to play several popular songs throughout the years and had fun with them.

When I think about a particular piece that's absolutely beautiful, like sublime, let's say Chopin's Nocturne, or Debussy's Clair de Lune, I just can't understand how you get to compose something like that. How do you know which combination of notes, which timing, which cords, are going to sound that great together? There is no logic to that, there's nothing to understand. I know there are rules in music, and you can be the biggest expert in music theory, but if you just don't have it your songs aren't even going to make it into a TV commercial. It's one thing to play it, and to analyze it, I could do that. But to make it? That's something else.

Even something as simple as, let's say The Strokes "The Adults Are Talking". That riff, as simple as it is, is fucking genious. It's catchy, the instrumentals are awesome, it's a great song. It sounds like it was always in the back of your mind, yet someone else discovered it and put it out there. How do you come up with THAT?

With other types of intelligence, there's always an element of strong logic and rationale. But composing music? Fuck that. How TF you do that? Musical intelligence is a complete mystery.
Click to expand...
To make something truly avant garde requires Loads of Experimentation.

It might in some cases be even easier the less you know.
 
angrod14 said:
When I think about a particular piece that's absolutely beautiful, like sublime, let's say Chopin's Nocturne, or Debussy's Clair de Lune, I just can't understand how you get to compose something like that. How do you know which combination of notes, which timing, which cords, are going to sound that great together? There is no logic to that, there's nothing to understand.
Click to expand...
Do you play an instrument? Because I can guarantee there is a logic to it, and the chords are made the way they are precisely because they go well together. Play a chord, then play the same cord changing one note - doesn't sound right, correct?

When you analyze certain pieces you start to immediately see similarities, people that wrote them were geniuses, but let's not go crazy - you see in early Beethoven work him almost copy/pasting from Mozart. In many e.g. piano pieces one hand will often play an accompaniment i.e. a series of notes on repeat to create a background sound for the other hand. Think of it like making a music track and putting one track on repeat while you add something on top.

Also - they were geniuses. You are thinking of a piano piece, but think about Beethoven symphonies - writing music for the whole orchestra, making sure there are all in sync. This version was not in the movie but should give you a good idea:

 
Last edited:
Music = maths

You can also do trial and error but the notes values are absolute so if you know them you know what you're working with.

The strokes riff you choose is a great exemple because it is really a typical strokes riff, the chords and melodic progression are Strokes 101. They know it's good because first they liked it, second others told them it was good and third when they released albums people bought them.
 
angrod14 said:
I love music. From childhood to early teens I played the keyboard (went to a conservatory). It wasn't anything fancy, you learned to play several popular songs throughout the years and had fun with them.

When I think about a particular piece that's absolutely beautiful, like sublime, let's say Chopin's Nocturne, or Debussy's Clair de Lune, I just can't understand how you get to compose something like that. How do you know which combination of notes, which timing, which cords, are going to sound that great together? There is no logic to that, there's nothing to understand. I know there are rules in music, and you can be the biggest expert in music theory, but if you just don't have it your songs aren't even going to make it into a TV commercial. It's one thing to play it, and to analyze it, I could do that. But to make it? That's something else.

Even something as simple as, let's say The Strokes "The Adults Are Talking". That riff, as simple as it is, is fucking genious. It's catchy, the instrumentals are awesome, it's a great song. It sounds like it was always in the back of your mind, yet someone else discovered it and put it out there. How do you come up with THAT?

With other types of intelligence, there's always an element of strong logic and rationale. But composing music? Fuck that. How TF you do that? Musical intelligence is a complete mystery.
Click to expand...
[lolpolice was here]
 
Last edited:
Toots said:
Music = maths

You can also do trial and error but the notes values are absolute so if you know them you know what you're working with.
Click to expand...
I worked in the music industry for a long time.

This is true, but only to a degree. It's a combination of math (basic music theory) and emotional intelligence. I have met amazing guitarists who couldn't write there own song to save their life, but they can play anything they hear almost immediately.

There is a big difference between playing a song and writing a song.

On top of that some of the best song ever written are extremely simple to play, the talent is unlocking the frequency or combination along with lyrics, bass, drums, etc that resonates with the rest of the production.

That's the talent and some people are way better at that than others.
 
Last edited:
Classical composers dedicated their whole lives to music in a time where they didn't have internet, cellphones and other distractions.

They were paid by kings to live for music, so it was music 24/7.

It's about feeling and trial-and-error. Over and over again.

Toots said:
Music = maths

You can also do trial and error but the notes values are absolute so if you know them you know what you're working with.

The strokes riff you choose is a great exemple because it is really a typical strokes riff, the chords and melodic progression are Strokes 101. They know it's good because first they liked it, second others told them it was good and third when they released albums people bought them.
Click to expand...

That's ... almost completely wrong

Sure, it's math in theory. But creating music that sounds good has nothing to do with math logic. I could compose a song using the right beat that sounds like ass. If it were that easy, everyone would be successful musicians.


I've studied music for 9 years (cello), and trust me, I wish it were this simple
 
Hugare said:
Sure, it's math in theory. But creating music that sounds good has nothing to do with math logic. I could compose a song using the right beat that sounds like ass. If it were that easy, everyone would be successful musicians.



I've studied music for 9 years (cello), and trust me, I wish it were this simple
Click to expand...
Meme Reaction GIF by Robert E Blackmon
 
Hugare said:
Classical composers dedicated their whole lives to music in a time where they didn't have internet, cellphones and other distractions.

They were paid by kings to live for music, so it was music 24/7.

It's about feeling and trial-and-error. Over and over again.



That's ... almost completely wrong

Sure, it's math in theory. But creating music that sounds good has nothing to do with math logic. I could compose a song using the right beat that sounds like ass. If it were that easy, everyone would be successful musicians.


I've studied music for 9 years (cello), and trust me, I wish it were this simple
Click to expand...
Im simplifying things because OP's question is litteraly "i cannot understand the logic in music creation". The parallel between music and math is the easiest way to understand what logic is behind music.

You add frequencies you get other frequencies. Certain frequencies goes well with other, or not depending on the effect you want to provoque in the listener.

You realize the first thing you learned while studying the cello was music theory which is exactly math, not sentimental expressionism. Your very experience with music proves my point.

edit : another thing you said that proves my point. You say "if it were that easy, everyone would be successful musicians" How many successful mathematicians do you know ? How many do you know that can understand and resolve complex equations ? To keep the metaphor going, nowdays in music there are tools that can do the work for you more or less, just like calculators did the work for you in maths classes. If things were as simple as you describe them, everyone owning a calculator could compete for the Fields medal, why is it not the case. Because, as in all things, there are degrees of complexity.
 
Last edited:
i composed the music to a few student films in high school, i just felt it flow in my head but i totally lost interest in music composition and forgot about it
 
Practice and inspiration. When I was 14 I wrote my seminal punk classic I wanna unicorn. The chords were D,G. The lyrics - "I wanna get a unicorn. I would fuck her all day long." It changed the history of punk forever.
 
it's a process of internal reaction feedback built on a vocabulary of possibilities collected through endless failure and iteration
 
As long as you're in key you can play whatever the fuck you want, adding some spicy notes to that requires some taste, but it's not that far off.
 
kanjobazooie said:
A bit of inspiration and some trial-and-error, I guess.
Click to expand...

And there he was, and they called him.. Kanjo


Yeah I've been listing to composers reacting to radiohead and the smile and it made me appreciate their music so much more.

The work put into it ofc
When to do what, wondering which instrument I'm hearin Etc Etc

Great tread OP.

Love this one



Classical composer.

Edit: Sorry to bring RH and TS into TT.
 
Last edited:
I love making music, but I think I know where my output stands against the ocean of music that's out there (i.e., doesn't hold a candle to the professional stuff and the artists I aspire to). Just wanted to qualify so I hopefully don't come off like an a-hole with this: So having said that, my favorite tracks of mine are almost always the ones that didn't feel like work to create. It's like you put in the work on failed projects and its a slog and you fail and fail so that one out of twenty times, it's automatic and you're happy with the result. Until a few days pass and then you're disappointed with it again lol
 
Last edited:
Music theory and circle of fifths.

Understanding harmonics and what that means within the frequency spectrum to achieve certain moods

Music signatures, and composition play a huge part in how a track builds etc

Trial and error etc etc
 
Last edited:
Two observations:

First, if you listen to a lot of artists talk about their biggest hits, they are often songs they wrote very quickly. Trent Reznor recently did an interview (it's on YouTube) where he was talking about "Head Like a Hole". He spent a lot of time working on other songs for the Pretty Hate Machine album, but HLAH came together in just a few hours at the end of the time he had to work on that album. He sort of dismissed that song because he didn't feel like it had "earned" a spot as the single for that album. There were other songs he had spent a lot more hours working on and he felt a greater connection to those songs than HLAH.

He had a few days to work with the producer Flood at the end of the process. Flood immediately said HLAH should be the lead single from the album. Trent pushed back, but Flood told him it doesn't matter how much time you spent working on a song - the hit is the hit. I've heard similar versions of that same story from a bunch of rock and pop artists over the years. Often times the most successful songs just sort of fall out of the writer's mind in a matter of an hour or so.


Second, I have a personal theory: I think music is a lot like a skill tree in an RPG style video game. I think there are three different areas of expertise in music - Technique, Composition, and Presentation. If you want to become really good at any of these different skills, you have to put a lot of time into them. But the time and energy you put into one of them is a sacrifice for the other two.

Technique would be how technically skilled you are at your instrument, such as a guitar player who can do all the crazy shredding or a drummer who's able to play really complex rhythms in odd time signatures (Thomas Haake of Meshuggah, or Mike Portnoy of Dream Theater). Each person probably starts with some level of potential, but even if you're a prodigy, you still have to put in the thousands of hours to become a master at the technique of your instrument.

Composition would be the ability to write songs that connect with people. One of my favorite examples is Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. Go listen to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - it's the most ridiculously simple guitar based song ever. The verse is literally him strumming two open strings. But even though that song is so stupidly simple, it became an anthem for a whole generation of people. If you play the first 3 seconds of that song on a guitar, hundreds of millions of people around the world could recognize it. The point here is you can have amazing technique, but have no talent for writing music that connects with people. Think about all the amazing orchestra players who are masters at learning difficult pieces. How many of them have gone on to write music that connect with as many people as "Smells Like Teen Spirit"?

Presentation is it's own skill. I always think of Kiss as a great example. None of the members of Kiss were great players (technique), and while they were decent composers, the thing that really made Kiss the big act that they became was their costumes, their live shows, all the antics and related media around their band. If Kiss had just been four average dudes in regular clothes playing that music, they wouldn't have become the global mega-stars they eventually became. The presentation of Kiss is as much or more a part of the band than the music.

So you might have the natural talent to be a great Technique player at a given instrument, but have no talent for Composition. Or maybe you've got a great vision for the Presentation of a type of music, but you're not good at the Technique or the Composition. Each individual or group of people working together has to find what their strengths are.

If someone is sufficiently skilled at one of these things, it's possible to find outside people to help them fill in the other two. I think the people we tend to resent in modern music are people who use their good looks for the Presentation portion, but they hire song writers and players with good technique to back them up. We can point to plenty of pop stars who's entire career are based on them looking pretty in front of a camera and on stage (both genders). They don't write his music or lyrics, the record company hires people to do that for them. They don't do anything impressive with their voice as a singer. Without a whole company of people around them, they wouldn't be a star. Really, they're a performer similar to an actor. They're performing at their role in this larger machine that is their pop star image.

The people who are really shocking are the ones who are amazing at all three of these skills. The best example I can think of here is Michael Jackson. Put all the controversy aside for a second and just think about him as a musician. He wrote almost all of the parts for his big hits by essentially singing the melodies and almost beat-boxing the drum parts. Then he wrote the vocal melodies and lyrics and recorded those over the top to create demo tapes. He would bring these demo tapes to producers who would translate his melodies, bass lines, and drums into instruments like synths, drum machines, etc. It took an incredible amount of Technique and Composition to start with nothing and wind up with the Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad albums. Now think about his Presentation: We can poke fun at the white rhinestone glove and his short pants with white socks, but go back and watch that video of the first time he did the moonwalk dance to Billie Jean in front of a live audience. That was completely shocking. As a kid during the 80's and 90's, I remember his music videos were events. They would do countdowns for days to a world premier on prime time network TV.

/rant
 
Last edited:
Chord progression is important, but I think rhythm is the overlooked secret sauce in a lot of the most loved songs and pieces.
 
angrod14 said:
How do you know which combination of notes, which timing, which cords, are going to sound that great together? There is no logic to that, there's nothing to understand.
Click to expand...
That's actually not true at all. It's actually pretty well understood which notes resolve into each other based on what you're going for in terms of mood. However, some of the best musicians were more intuitive in their approaches. I think if you get too technical in theory, it perhaps sounds manufactured. But yeah, by now we have music pretty well disected and you can find out explanations on everything you asked if you read the right material
 
I played in my high school and middle school band. I could barely get by. I never learned how to properly read music. I would basically create tab music by writing under every note the fingering required. I tried to transfer that little knowledge into bass guitar and had a good run with starting to read music, and then quit. I have always wanted to learn, but I just never devote the time. I do understand that I could make my learning so much easier if I learned how to read sheet music.

Once you properly understand how to read music you can start to understand how to put that together with music theory. Music is a language and once you are fluent you can start to converse with it.

Whether you like Ben Folds or not, he does this thing sometimes where he plays with an orchestra and composes a song with them on the spot.


 
I've always told people that music is the cross section between math and art. Okay I've never actually said that before, but I think it's true.

As far as writing catchy melodies, it's a combination of practice and being "gifted" in my opinion, just like any other art form. Someone who's completely tone deaf and has no sense of rhythm will probably never create something recognized as "amazing".
 
It's like putting lyrics to music, you know the sounds and inflictions you want, but instead of lyrics you're working with notes.

And like other arts, even the creator is astonished at what they were able to make, sometimes the puzzle pieces just fit.
 
Yeah, I have no talent for music. I know what I like, but I would be a boob at trying to compose it. Mozart I ain't. I'm lucky if I can keep a beat and carry a tune.

angrod14 said:
With other types of intelligence, there's always an element of strong logic and rationale.
Click to expand...

Not really. In addition to musical intelligence, there would also be (I'm using Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences):

- bodily/kinesthetic intelligence (ability to control body carefully and handle objects skillfully)
- visual/spatial intelligence (ability to think in images and visualize accurately)
- intrapersonal intelligence (level of self-awareness, ability to be aware of inner feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and thought processes)

So, 4 of the 9 "intelligences" don't have a strong element of logic and reason. They would rely more on right-brain, holistic processes than the logical, analytical left brain ones. I believe Gardner considered that there might be a "spiritual intelligence" as well, and that would be another.

Ian McGilchrist's work on the different cerebral hemispheres is interesting, if you want to dig in further.
 
Last edited:
It's like poetry ... It's logic based but it also comes from a place of emotion.

Think of each instrument (if we're talking about an orchestra) as a stanza in a poem. You imagine what each one sounds like and the song it makes in your mind's ear. Then you take another instrument and layer it on top or behind that one. Once you finish, you may have rearrange each "stanza" in a different order until you come out with the desired result while keeping the emotional resonance.

Take my (copyrighted) poem for example:


I saw a bit of heaven
I saw a bit of hell
I dwelt amongst the masses
The death knoll fell

The cries they come a'callin'
The cries call out my name
The wailing of my only son
The crime I did, the price he paid

And there lay my name
Upon the cold hard truth
And there I lay in shame
Upon the cold hard truth.
Click to expand...

I wrote this in one go in the original version but I added and subtracted words to make it flow better. It's simple (like a one instrument song) but it took both logic and emotion to put it where it is.
 
As you wrote; you just have it or you don't.

I think it's most pronounced in music, but it is also pronounced in art (drawing and painting in particular). You see it with languages too; some people just pick languages like a duck in water. Of course, really anything that you can be skilled at has people who just instinctively know how to be good at it. Natural talent is a fact of life, and at the end of the day you can't choose if you have it or not.

Most of us aren't lucky enough to be naturally talented at anything, especially to the degree of savants. It does also seem that people who are talented at one thing, are also talented at other things as well. It feels unfair and, well is. But that's okay; as that's just how life is.
 
22:22:22 said:
And there he was, and they called him.. Kanjo


Yeah I've been listing to composers reacting to radiohead and the smile and it made me appreciate their music so much more.

The work put into it ofc
When to do what, wondering which instrument I'm hearin Etc Etc

Great tread OP.

Love this one



Classical composer.

Edit: Sorry to bring RH and TS into TT.
Click to expand...


I can't stand Radiohead. It just sounds like a dull din with endless whining to me.
 
Probably because you lack musical intelligence.
You are not alone though, i am completely incapable of understanding music, despite loving it.
 
I share your worry op, but I would say I have a modicum of musical talent from working hard for a long time to write.

Your examples of Debussy and Chopin are misleading to an extent, since they are attempting to appear more unstructured than they really are.

It would be easier to work from Bach and then try to explain what is going on in Debussy. Bach keeps a very steady rhythm in a lot of pieces, which makes the logic of his musical imagination much more obvious.

If you think about Mozart's Turkish Rondo, it seems impossible to compose, but if you pay attention to the chords, he is playing very simple chords in a fairly common rhythm. That is the basis of everything, as everything fits into that.

If you have got that kind of a foundation very strongly, then it might be possible to climb up into the clouds. Work from the simple to the complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I can't seem to create a giveaway
1
220
SJRB replied
What do you do for your elderly parents that can't understand smartphones?
27
1K
deriks replied
I never understood why you can't go faster than light - until now
40
2K
dave_d replied
Random: anyone know why I suddenly can't access my Apple tv subscription on my devices?
7
331
jorgejjvr replied
Colorful Stage! The Movie: A Miku Who Can't Sing
0
305
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Top Bottom