Project: SoMC ~ Paint a Song with Numbers
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:28 am
I have been working on a book about digital music production for the past year or so, and at present it's around 450 pages . . .
THOUGHTS
For the most part there are two chapters that need to be written, and one of them is focused on ReWire (Propellerhead Software), which took a while since (a) I needed to decide on the best strategy for doing ReWire and (b) this wandered into making sense of ReWire MIDI with NOTION and Studio One Professional . . .
After doing a bit of experimenting, I have decided that the "ReWire MIDI" strategy is the most practical, and after doing several songs this way over the past few months, I have all the informaton needed to write the chapter . . .
The other chapter is the one where everything in the preceding chapters is brought together to explain the practical aspects of digital music production, which specifically is creating songs . . .
The difficult aspect of the chapter on creating songs in the digital music production universe is devising a way to explain how to compose a song primarily from the perspective of music rather than lyrics, although lyrics certainly are important . . .
A key part of this perspective is marketing, since (a) I plan to sell the book for $50 (US) and (b) this tends to focus the market on people who have $50 and are fine with spending it on a book that provides at least one useful bit of information . . .
This might appear to be an absurd marketing and writing strategy, but from my experience as a software engineer it's not the least bit absurd to spend $50 on a technical book that provides enough information to solve a gnarly problem . . .
When I first decided to develop Rack Extensions for Reason, I was dumbfounded by what colloquially is called "Lollipop Land", where for reference (a) one digital sample looks like a Tootsie Pop when diagrammed and (b) at standard CD audio quality there are exactly 44,100 lollipops per second--something I have explained from a high-level in a few of my other posts . . .
This made absolutely no sense to me--and it continues to be a bit of a mystery--but it's starting to make sense, which is fantastic . . .
It's like understanding chemistry, atoms, and molecules but then discovering quantum physics where everything is (a) patently strange, (b) extraordinarily minuscule, and (c) there's a lot more of it . . .
The first major bit of progress occurred when someone asked a question in the Rack Extension Developer Forum about a book that explains at least some of the digital stuff; and the responses to the question included some technical book suggestions, a few of which I purchased . . .
In particular, the $50 (US) technical book that mapped to a big leap in my understanding had a small chapter which explained how to create a simple digital delay, as well as a few other surprising techniques; and from my perspective (a) it mapped to making progress and (b) it was well worth $50 for what actually were about 10 pages of diagrams and wisdom embedded in the chapter along with a lot of complex mathematics and circuit diagrams . . .
The book is "Designing Audio Effect Plug-ins in C++" (Will Pirkle), and "Chapter 7: Delay Effects and Circular Buffers" is the chapter that provided the necessary clues, where to be specific there were a few diagrams and pages in the chapter that explained a lot of things . . .
Basically, it works like a 1960's EchoPlex magnetic tape echo unit, but instead of recording audio on a loop of magnetic tape, you make a copy of the lollipops as they arrive and then after whatever delay makes sense for what you want to occur, you mix (a) the already-arrived and copied lollipops with (b) the newly arriving lollipops; and this is how you create a simple delay unit in "Lollipop Land" . .
IK Multimedia has a digital emulation of an EchoPlex in T-RackS 5, and it's an add-on product . . .
The easiest way to make sense of digital delay is to go to YouTube and find a song you like . . .
Then open a second tab and load it with the same song . . .
[NOTE: It's easier to open each instance of YouTube in a separate window, so you can see the times for each one; but you also can do it "by ear" . . . ]
Then start playing the song in the first tab; and a second or so later start playing the song in the second tab. . .
What happens is that this creates simple echoes . . .
For a complete song with a lot of instruments and singing, it works best if the delay is small; but for a single instrument or singer, longer delays work nicely . . .
Great!
About a week or two ago, I had the idea of explaining how to compose a song based on the combination of (a) Joseph Schillinger's System of Musical Composition (SoMC), where everything is explained using numbers and algorithms in a rather complex "music algebra" and (b) the concept of painting a picture by numbers, which is something that was popular a long time ago and might still be popular, although perhaps not . . .
The paint by numbers product was a kit that had a canvas with a sketch where the different parts of the painting were assigned numbers that matched the numbers on small samples of paint; and the general idea was that you painted each section or part of the painting using the correct number of paint; and when you painted all the sections, the result was a complete painting . . .
After pondering this idea for a while, I realized it is very consistent with a major part of the strategy I use when composing and recording a song . . .
Since I do everything myself, I do one thing (instrument or voice) at a time; and I have a general set of steps, which begins with what I call the "basic rhythm section" . . .
I have other strategies, so it depends on the way a song develops, which might start with a pattern of rhythm guitar chords or a melody or a drumkit part or a set of lyrics or anything else; but overall there is a specific set of steps no matter how it's done . . .
Joseph Schillinger's SoMC is explained in great detail in two volumes that total approximately 1,500 pages and can take years or decades to master, which can be daunting; but the fascinating aspect of SoMC is that there are different ways to use it; and one way is to study the diagrams and to play the music notation examples with NOTION . . .
[NOTE: There is plenty of descriptive and perhaps philosophical text, and a good bit of it makes sense without needing to wander into the vastly complex "music algebra" . . . ]
You don't need to understand all of it for it to be useful . . .
Joseph Schillinger was a mathematician, physicist, and musician; and for the most part his theory is that everything is based on numbers, geometry, algebra, and lots of other stuff, including psychology, metaphysics, neurology, and acoustic physics . . .
From a practical perspective, I understand nearly nothing about the music algebra used in SoMC, but it doesn't matter . . .
The key bit of information is that you can start with a simple set of numbers, for example {1,3,5,6}, and then use this set of numbers in various ways to compose a song . . .
The numbers can be beats played on a drumkit, and they can be used to create a pitch-scale . . .
For example, if the numbers are notes in a diatonic scale, there will be seven of them; but (a) it's flexible and (b) you can change the rules as you desire, either using geometry or "by ear" . . .
This is one way to use the set of numbers to create a scale:
If you need more notes in the scale, you can use geometry to extend the set; and this is explained in SoMC by diagramming the basic set and then performing various geometric transforms, which I call "flipping", where you create more notes by "flipping" horizontally or vertically, where for example a simple horizontal "flip" produces the new set {1,3,5,6,6,5,3,1}, but you also can flip vertically and lots of other ways . . .
[NOTE: Horizontal flipping creates sequences of already-defined notes, but vertical flipping creates new notes that are added to the evolving scale of pitches, which makes sense when you study the geometric diagrams a while and recognize the various flips . . . ]
This is the way the first part of the melody for "Over the Rainbow" (Harold Arlen with lyrics by Yip Harburg) looks when diagrammed in the SoMC geometric style . . .
[NOTE: The y-axis is pitch, and the x-axis is duration. It might be in a different key, but from the perspective of geometry it doesn't matter so much. I added pitch names for the notes, but numbers work just as well. If this were a house, then Judy Garland is singing the first floor. The bass is the foundation or perhaps basement; and the strings and woodwinds are the second floor, attic, and roof. SoMC has rules and suggestions for all the parts, as well as the way everything fits to create a Gestalt. It's stylized, since I did it from memory, but it's close enough to get the concept. It's easy to see how some of the subpatterns are repeated but at different vertical heights and so forth. The duration of notes is flexible, and it's obvious that Judy Garland did her own musical styling of the melody, which (a) is something skilled singers do and (b) tends to keep arrangers gainfully employed . . . ]
George Gershwin, Glenn Miller, and Benny Goodman were SoMC students, and what now is the Berklee College of Music originally was focused on SoMC when it started as the Schillinger House . . .
Lawrence Berk's notes on SoMC are available at the Berklee College of Music website, and you can view them in book format . . .
BCA-007: Lawrence Berk papers on the Schillinger System (Berklee College of Music)
In the geometric diagramming style, rather than focusing on diatonic scales, each half-step is represented; hence it's a matter of twelves (chromatic) rather than sevens (diatonic); but it's flexible and can be whatever you want it to be . . .
The classic example of {1,4,5} here in the sound isolation studio is "Louie Louie" (The Kingsmen), where these are numbers used in a variant of Nashville Number System; and if the song is played in the key of "A", then the chords are {A, D, E} . . .
[NOTE: In the same way that SoMC can be simple, the Nashville Number System can be simple; and since I learned it when I was playing electric bass, I focused on the numbers without all the extra stuff, much of which I continue not to understand in an immediately conscious way. If a rhythm guitar chord sounds better when it's minor, sixth, seventh, ninth, or whatever, then I play it that way without giving much conscious attention to all the "music theory" stuff. Here in the sound isolation studio everything mostly is "by ear", although in one way or another I understand the complex stuff but without being overwhelmed by it. If a note sounds better with a flat or sharp, then I specify a flat or sharp, although mostly I prefer sharps to flats, which is fine except when there is a horn section, since they prefer flats . . . ]
Nashville Number System (Wikipedia)
These are major chords, and on electric guitar they are Barre chords, but the electric piano chords are upside-down, inverted, or whatever it's called . . .
PAINTING A SONG BY NUMBERS
When I started composing this song, I had nearly no idea about it other than {1,3,5,6} and the general view that it should be in the key of "A"--except that I do everything on soprano treble staves, since (a) it's what I learned when I was in a liturgical boys choir and (b) it's the only thing that makes intuitive sense to me . . .
I also do not specify a key; so everything is in whatever "no key specified" happens to be . . .
[NOTE: Until a few months ago I avoided the black keys on grand piano whenever possible; but after the bit of information that Irving Berlin composed and played everything in F# (all the black keys and two white keys) made it into my immediate consciousness, I now am experimenting with F# on grand piano, which is remarkably easy for composing, since everything sounds good in one way or another. In fact, it's so easy that this should be the way people begin learning how to play grand piano. For reference, Irving Berlin had a transposing piano where the keyboard could be moved to the left or right to change the audible key. If the key for a potential singer was better in G, then he would shift the keyboard with a mechanical lever a half-step to the right, at which time he would still be playing in F# but the notes would be in G . . . ]
Here in the sound isolation studio there are 12 notes and 10 octaves, two of which mostly exist to annoy cats and dogs . . .
In NOTION, you can do everything with treble staves using the transpose functionality in Score Setup, where you can specify that Middle C is played one or two octaves lower or higher than notated, which for electric bass is two octaves lower but for electric guitar is one octave lower . . .
{A, D, E} on electric bass is lowest (two octaves lower than notated); but on rhythm guitar its low (one octave lower than notated) . . .
This keeps everything simple, and from my perspective they are the same notes, except that on electric bass they a lower than on electric guitar . . .
[NOTE: I like Scientific Pitch Notation, but why do I need to append numbers after the names of notes? It's helpful when I am explaining something and need to be as precise as possible, but for what I need to do most of the time it's unnecessary. I know the notes that are correct for electric bass, and I know the notes that are correct for lead guitar, which in the "by ear" strategy is all I need to know. My perspective is that a lot of music theory and everything associated with it intentionally was made as abstruse as possible to discourage people from becoming composers, musicians, and singers. Most of it is just a bunch of gobbledygook. Yet, it's useful at times to know a bit of music theory, so it's all good. More occasionally than not, I use a bit of music theory to make decisions and to determine easily what needs to happen; but it's more of a "can't avoid using it" type of thing. If it's useful, then use it . . . ]
Scientific Pitch Notation (Wikipedia)
I started with a pair of kick drums and used "1" for the beats, where it alternates back-and-forth from the Left Kick Drum to the Right Kick Drum, which adds a bit of motion . . .
Then I created three snare drums (Far-Left, Center, Far-Right), followed by creating three hi-hats (Far-Left, Center, Right); and I added a Höfner Beatle Bass from SampleTank 2 (a personal legacy favorite) . . .
Lastly, I added two electric rhythm guitars (Far-Left, Far-Right) playing chords and phrases based on {1,3,5,6}, except that the far-right rhythm guitar has a flat on its high note, which is fine with me because I like the way it sounds, even though I have no immediately conscious idea why it's flatted or how it became flatted . . .
The center snare drum is doing a three-pattern, and the other two snare drums play before and after it by an eighth . . .
The Höfner Beatle Bass is playing notes from the {1,3,5,6} set over two or so octaves . . .
[NOTE: As best as I can determine, the {5,6} aspect of the rhythm pattern derives from everything except the Center Snare Drum being "regular" or "4/4". This makes sense when you listen to the song and focus on the three-beat of the Center Snare Drum. What happens is that it is what one might call "on the beat" for a while but then becomes "off the beat". The electric guitars repeat on a two-measure pattern . . . ]
There are lots of ways to do this, so this is one of a virtual festival of ways to have FUN with {1,3,5,6} . . .
[NOTE: The one-measure Intro mostly was done "by ear", and described in words it's a "bwang" type of thing, which I think is funny. The NOTION score is all ReWire MIDI staves, but I gave them meaningful names. The actual VSTi virtual instruments are hosted in the Studio One Professional ".song" for this project. There is a Timeless 2 (FabFilter Software Instruments) echo unit on the far-right rhythm guitar, and there is a good bit of producing done with effects plug-ins, which I will show in a follow-up YouTube video . . . ]
Since I have never heard this song until a few hours ago, what I usually do at this point in the development is listen to this "basic rhythm section" for a while until I am familiar with it sufficiently to start hearing more instruments in my mind . . .
This is the "by ear" aspect, and after listening to it over and over--which is the way I learn the song--more instrumentation begins appearing, at which time I do the music notation for whatever it might be, which includes selecting different instruments and sounds . . .
At present, it's very repetitive, which is fine with me . . .
In terms of "ABBA", it's all "A", but one of the great aspects of NOTION is that it's easy to copy and paste, followed by selecting a set of measures and transposing them to do a "B" part . . .
Then it's "AB", and at some point a chorus, bridge, and interlude appear . . .
When you compose a song this way, there is a bit of serendipity once there are enough instruments; and what happens is that the various instruments interact in ways that create sounds that are not mapped to any of the individual instruments . . .
This is the reason it's important to listen to a song over and over as it develops, because after a while you begin hearing extra bits and pieces that were not so obvious initially . . .
For example, there are times when it sounds like a person or perhaps several of the musicians are saying or hollering something between the notated bits; and this provides clues to what you can add later . . .
In SoMC, this is an aspect that Joseph Schillinger calls "spiralicity" or something involving a spiral, where the general concept is that like a seashell, a song has a logical kernal or core from which everything else evolves according to the rules of geometry, design, and so forth . . .
Lots of FUN!
THOUGHTS
For the most part there are two chapters that need to be written, and one of them is focused on ReWire (Propellerhead Software), which took a while since (a) I needed to decide on the best strategy for doing ReWire and (b) this wandered into making sense of ReWire MIDI with NOTION and Studio One Professional . . .
After doing a bit of experimenting, I have decided that the "ReWire MIDI" strategy is the most practical, and after doing several songs this way over the past few months, I have all the informaton needed to write the chapter . . .
The other chapter is the one where everything in the preceding chapters is brought together to explain the practical aspects of digital music production, which specifically is creating songs . . .
The difficult aspect of the chapter on creating songs in the digital music production universe is devising a way to explain how to compose a song primarily from the perspective of music rather than lyrics, although lyrics certainly are important . . .
A key part of this perspective is marketing, since (a) I plan to sell the book for $50 (US) and (b) this tends to focus the market on people who have $50 and are fine with spending it on a book that provides at least one useful bit of information . . .
This might appear to be an absurd marketing and writing strategy, but from my experience as a software engineer it's not the least bit absurd to spend $50 on a technical book that provides enough information to solve a gnarly problem . . .
When I first decided to develop Rack Extensions for Reason, I was dumbfounded by what colloquially is called "Lollipop Land", where for reference (a) one digital sample looks like a Tootsie Pop when diagrammed and (b) at standard CD audio quality there are exactly 44,100 lollipops per second--something I have explained from a high-level in a few of my other posts . . .
This made absolutely no sense to me--and it continues to be a bit of a mystery--but it's starting to make sense, which is fantastic . . .
It's like understanding chemistry, atoms, and molecules but then discovering quantum physics where everything is (a) patently strange, (b) extraordinarily minuscule, and (c) there's a lot more of it . . .
The first major bit of progress occurred when someone asked a question in the Rack Extension Developer Forum about a book that explains at least some of the digital stuff; and the responses to the question included some technical book suggestions, a few of which I purchased . . .
In particular, the $50 (US) technical book that mapped to a big leap in my understanding had a small chapter which explained how to create a simple digital delay, as well as a few other surprising techniques; and from my perspective (a) it mapped to making progress and (b) it was well worth $50 for what actually were about 10 pages of diagrams and wisdom embedded in the chapter along with a lot of complex mathematics and circuit diagrams . . .
The book is "Designing Audio Effect Plug-ins in C++" (Will Pirkle), and "Chapter 7: Delay Effects and Circular Buffers" is the chapter that provided the necessary clues, where to be specific there were a few diagrams and pages in the chapter that explained a lot of things . . .
Basically, it works like a 1960's EchoPlex magnetic tape echo unit, but instead of recording audio on a loop of magnetic tape, you make a copy of the lollipops as they arrive and then after whatever delay makes sense for what you want to occur, you mix (a) the already-arrived and copied lollipops with (b) the newly arriving lollipops; and this is how you create a simple delay unit in "Lollipop Land" . .
IK Multimedia has a digital emulation of an EchoPlex in T-RackS 5, and it's an add-on product . . .
The easiest way to make sense of digital delay is to go to YouTube and find a song you like . . .
Then open a second tab and load it with the same song . . .
[NOTE: It's easier to open each instance of YouTube in a separate window, so you can see the times for each one; but you also can do it "by ear" . . . ]
Then start playing the song in the first tab; and a second or so later start playing the song in the second tab. . .
What happens is that this creates simple echoes . . .
For a complete song with a lot of instruments and singing, it works best if the delay is small; but for a single instrument or singer, longer delays work nicely . . .
Great!
About a week or two ago, I had the idea of explaining how to compose a song based on the combination of (a) Joseph Schillinger's System of Musical Composition (SoMC), where everything is explained using numbers and algorithms in a rather complex "music algebra" and (b) the concept of painting a picture by numbers, which is something that was popular a long time ago and might still be popular, although perhaps not . . .
The paint by numbers product was a kit that had a canvas with a sketch where the different parts of the painting were assigned numbers that matched the numbers on small samples of paint; and the general idea was that you painted each section or part of the painting using the correct number of paint; and when you painted all the sections, the result was a complete painting . . .
After pondering this idea for a while, I realized it is very consistent with a major part of the strategy I use when composing and recording a song . . .
Since I do everything myself, I do one thing (instrument or voice) at a time; and I have a general set of steps, which begins with what I call the "basic rhythm section" . . .
I have other strategies, so it depends on the way a song develops, which might start with a pattern of rhythm guitar chords or a melody or a drumkit part or a set of lyrics or anything else; but overall there is a specific set of steps no matter how it's done . . .
Joseph Schillinger's SoMC is explained in great detail in two volumes that total approximately 1,500 pages and can take years or decades to master, which can be daunting; but the fascinating aspect of SoMC is that there are different ways to use it; and one way is to study the diagrams and to play the music notation examples with NOTION . . .
[NOTE: There is plenty of descriptive and perhaps philosophical text, and a good bit of it makes sense without needing to wander into the vastly complex "music algebra" . . . ]
You don't need to understand all of it for it to be useful . . .
Joseph Schillinger was a mathematician, physicist, and musician; and for the most part his theory is that everything is based on numbers, geometry, algebra, and lots of other stuff, including psychology, metaphysics, neurology, and acoustic physics . . .
From a practical perspective, I understand nearly nothing about the music algebra used in SoMC, but it doesn't matter . . .
The key bit of information is that you can start with a simple set of numbers, for example {1,3,5,6}, and then use this set of numbers in various ways to compose a song . . .
The numbers can be beats played on a drumkit, and they can be used to create a pitch-scale . . .
For example, if the numbers are notes in a diatonic scale, there will be seven of them; but (a) it's flexible and (b) you can change the rules as you desire, either using geometry or "by ear" . . .
This is one way to use the set of numbers to create a scale:
- Code: Select all
{1,3,5,6} = {A, C, E, F#}
If you need more notes in the scale, you can use geometry to extend the set; and this is explained in SoMC by diagramming the basic set and then performing various geometric transforms, which I call "flipping", where you create more notes by "flipping" horizontally or vertically, where for example a simple horizontal "flip" produces the new set {1,3,5,6,6,5,3,1}, but you also can flip vertically and lots of other ways . . .
[NOTE: Horizontal flipping creates sequences of already-defined notes, but vertical flipping creates new notes that are added to the evolving scale of pitches, which makes sense when you study the geometric diagrams a while and recognize the various flips . . . ]
This is the way the first part of the melody for "Over the Rainbow" (Harold Arlen with lyrics by Yip Harburg) looks when diagrammed in the SoMC geometric style . . .
[NOTE: The y-axis is pitch, and the x-axis is duration. It might be in a different key, but from the perspective of geometry it doesn't matter so much. I added pitch names for the notes, but numbers work just as well. If this were a house, then Judy Garland is singing the first floor. The bass is the foundation or perhaps basement; and the strings and woodwinds are the second floor, attic, and roof. SoMC has rules and suggestions for all the parts, as well as the way everything fits to create a Gestalt. It's stylized, since I did it from memory, but it's close enough to get the concept. It's easy to see how some of the subpatterns are repeated but at different vertical heights and so forth. The duration of notes is flexible, and it's obvious that Judy Garland did her own musical styling of the melody, which (a) is something skilled singers do and (b) tends to keep arrangers gainfully employed . . . ]
George Gershwin, Glenn Miller, and Benny Goodman were SoMC students, and what now is the Berklee College of Music originally was focused on SoMC when it started as the Schillinger House . . .
Lawrence Berk's notes on SoMC are available at the Berklee College of Music website, and you can view them in book format . . .
BCA-007: Lawrence Berk papers on the Schillinger System (Berklee College of Music)
In the geometric diagramming style, rather than focusing on diatonic scales, each half-step is represented; hence it's a matter of twelves (chromatic) rather than sevens (diatonic); but it's flexible and can be whatever you want it to be . . .
The classic example of {1,4,5} here in the sound isolation studio is "Louie Louie" (The Kingsmen), where these are numbers used in a variant of Nashville Number System; and if the song is played in the key of "A", then the chords are {A, D, E} . . .
[NOTE: In the same way that SoMC can be simple, the Nashville Number System can be simple; and since I learned it when I was playing electric bass, I focused on the numbers without all the extra stuff, much of which I continue not to understand in an immediately conscious way. If a rhythm guitar chord sounds better when it's minor, sixth, seventh, ninth, or whatever, then I play it that way without giving much conscious attention to all the "music theory" stuff. Here in the sound isolation studio everything mostly is "by ear", although in one way or another I understand the complex stuff but without being overwhelmed by it. If a note sounds better with a flat or sharp, then I specify a flat or sharp, although mostly I prefer sharps to flats, which is fine except when there is a horn section, since they prefer flats . . . ]
Nashville Number System (Wikipedia)
These are major chords, and on electric guitar they are Barre chords, but the electric piano chords are upside-down, inverted, or whatever it's called . . .
PAINTING A SONG BY NUMBERS
When I started composing this song, I had nearly no idea about it other than {1,3,5,6} and the general view that it should be in the key of "A"--except that I do everything on soprano treble staves, since (a) it's what I learned when I was in a liturgical boys choir and (b) it's the only thing that makes intuitive sense to me . . .
I also do not specify a key; so everything is in whatever "no key specified" happens to be . . .
[NOTE: Until a few months ago I avoided the black keys on grand piano whenever possible; but after the bit of information that Irving Berlin composed and played everything in F# (all the black keys and two white keys) made it into my immediate consciousness, I now am experimenting with F# on grand piano, which is remarkably easy for composing, since everything sounds good in one way or another. In fact, it's so easy that this should be the way people begin learning how to play grand piano. For reference, Irving Berlin had a transposing piano where the keyboard could be moved to the left or right to change the audible key. If the key for a potential singer was better in G, then he would shift the keyboard with a mechanical lever a half-step to the right, at which time he would still be playing in F# but the notes would be in G . . . ]
Here in the sound isolation studio there are 12 notes and 10 octaves, two of which mostly exist to annoy cats and dogs . . .
In NOTION, you can do everything with treble staves using the transpose functionality in Score Setup, where you can specify that Middle C is played one or two octaves lower or higher than notated, which for electric bass is two octaves lower but for electric guitar is one octave lower . . .
{A, D, E} on electric bass is lowest (two octaves lower than notated); but on rhythm guitar its low (one octave lower than notated) . . .
This keeps everything simple, and from my perspective they are the same notes, except that on electric bass they a lower than on electric guitar . . .
[NOTE: I like Scientific Pitch Notation, but why do I need to append numbers after the names of notes? It's helpful when I am explaining something and need to be as precise as possible, but for what I need to do most of the time it's unnecessary. I know the notes that are correct for electric bass, and I know the notes that are correct for lead guitar, which in the "by ear" strategy is all I need to know. My perspective is that a lot of music theory and everything associated with it intentionally was made as abstruse as possible to discourage people from becoming composers, musicians, and singers. Most of it is just a bunch of gobbledygook. Yet, it's useful at times to know a bit of music theory, so it's all good. More occasionally than not, I use a bit of music theory to make decisions and to determine easily what needs to happen; but it's more of a "can't avoid using it" type of thing. If it's useful, then use it . . . ]
Scientific Pitch Notation (Wikipedia)
I started with a pair of kick drums and used "1" for the beats, where it alternates back-and-forth from the Left Kick Drum to the Right Kick Drum, which adds a bit of motion . . .
Then I created three snare drums (Far-Left, Center, Far-Right), followed by creating three hi-hats (Far-Left, Center, Right); and I added a Höfner Beatle Bass from SampleTank 2 (a personal legacy favorite) . . .
Lastly, I added two electric rhythm guitars (Far-Left, Far-Right) playing chords and phrases based on {1,3,5,6}, except that the far-right rhythm guitar has a flat on its high note, which is fine with me because I like the way it sounds, even though I have no immediately conscious idea why it's flatted or how it became flatted . . .
The center snare drum is doing a three-pattern, and the other two snare drums play before and after it by an eighth . . .
The Höfner Beatle Bass is playing notes from the {1,3,5,6} set over two or so octaves . . .
[NOTE: As best as I can determine, the {5,6} aspect of the rhythm pattern derives from everything except the Center Snare Drum being "regular" or "4/4". This makes sense when you listen to the song and focus on the three-beat of the Center Snare Drum. What happens is that it is what one might call "on the beat" for a while but then becomes "off the beat". The electric guitars repeat on a two-measure pattern . . . ]
There are lots of ways to do this, so this is one of a virtual festival of ways to have FUN with {1,3,5,6} . . .
[NOTE: The one-measure Intro mostly was done "by ear", and described in words it's a "bwang" type of thing, which I think is funny. The NOTION score is all ReWire MIDI staves, but I gave them meaningful names. The actual VSTi virtual instruments are hosted in the Studio One Professional ".song" for this project. There is a Timeless 2 (FabFilter Software Instruments) echo unit on the far-right rhythm guitar, and there is a good bit of producing done with effects plug-ins, which I will show in a follow-up YouTube video . . . ]
Since I have never heard this song until a few hours ago, what I usually do at this point in the development is listen to this "basic rhythm section" for a while until I am familiar with it sufficiently to start hearing more instruments in my mind . . .
This is the "by ear" aspect, and after listening to it over and over--which is the way I learn the song--more instrumentation begins appearing, at which time I do the music notation for whatever it might be, which includes selecting different instruments and sounds . . .
At present, it's very repetitive, which is fine with me . . .
In terms of "ABBA", it's all "A", but one of the great aspects of NOTION is that it's easy to copy and paste, followed by selecting a set of measures and transposing them to do a "B" part . . .
Then it's "AB", and at some point a chorus, bridge, and interlude appear . . .
When you compose a song this way, there is a bit of serendipity once there are enough instruments; and what happens is that the various instruments interact in ways that create sounds that are not mapped to any of the individual instruments . . .
This is the reason it's important to listen to a song over and over as it develops, because after a while you begin hearing extra bits and pieces that were not so obvious initially . . .
For example, there are times when it sounds like a person or perhaps several of the musicians are saying or hollering something between the notated bits; and this provides clues to what you can add later . . .
In SoMC, this is an aspect that Joseph Schillinger calls "spiralicity" or something involving a spiral, where the general concept is that like a seashell, a song has a logical kernal or core from which everything else evolves according to the rules of geometry, design, and so forth . . .
Lots of FUN!