the Levitin effect is when you know how a G sounds for your entire life because you listened to Welcome to the Black Parade a few too many times as a teenager.
I thought I had perfect pitch for the longest time, until I went to music conservatory and met people who *really* had perfect pitch. It seems that when you have perfect pitch, you hear tones like you see colors- you don't have to think to know you're looking at red. For me, though, I developed a process from when I was about 7 years old (about a year after I started playing). It started similarly to how it was described in the video- I was able to auralize my four open violin strings absolutely. Since I had these, I used them as a base to play a full imaginary violin in my head, mnemonically linked to the physical experience of playing each note. I would hear a pitch, which would trigger a memory of a physical sensation of playing and hearing the note, which I then translated into a note name based on finger position (or even "in-between" note names, as I knew how those felt too). I practiced this in my head so often that I became increasingly good at it, to the point where I didn't need to explicitly process it through that system- hearing a note to naming became more and more seamless. And, since this practice was through auralization, my pitch sense was not dependent on timbre. For a while, I did have difficulty identifying notes lower than G below middle C, since that was my lowest note on the violin, but I figured out how to aurally "transform" what I was hearing up octaves to match my imaginary aural violin. But again, I don't have perfect pitch. People who have perfect pitch can't "turn it off", much in the same way you can't choose to not see colors. For me, even though it's relatively effortless, it is still a proactive exercise that requires a certain level of deliberateness. I like to call what I have as "perfected pitch"!
Oh, hey, you're the first person I've seen who's also done that! That's similar to what I do with piano. I can do the process quickly enough in my head that people can't tell the difference, so it's been essentially indistinguishable from perfect pitch ever since I was eight, but it's a trained skill instead of a natural ability. And, like you, until a few years ago I assumed that was just what everyone else called perfect pitch. Anything outside of the middle three octaves on a piano takes me a moment longer to process, though, which is probably the main difference I've noticed between myself and people who have actual perfect pitch. The funny thing is that I didn't intentionally train it. When I was seven, my piano teacher started teaching me to recognize intervals, and I just found it quicker to identify the individual notes in my head and count the interval manually, so I figured out a method to recognize individual notes. When she realized a few minutes later what I was doing, she tested me on separate notes and came to the conclusion that I had perfect pitch, and I believed it until I was in my 20s. Oops.
Haha, yeah I do this too. Just a couple differences though. Firstly both of you say that you developed it at 7, but I actually developed this at 13! I wasn't sure how, because everyone says that it's impossible to develop it later than 6, but then I started to realise that it wasn't really perfect pitch (one of my friends actually does have perfect pitch and we could see the differences). Secondly, I played multiple instruments by this time, so I'm not actually sure which I used as my tonal reference. I think it's a combination of piano and vocals (even though I'm terrible at singing), but I certainly won't be forgetting the tone of a low C on a baritone saxophone any time soon.
That’s really interesting. And further confirms that I almost certainly do have it - I certainly can’t turn it off, and it’s not instrument-specific. (Though with certain timbres my brain locks-on to certain overtones more strongly than the root and confuses things! In that case the “effort” part comes on filtering them out and trying to focus on the actual root frequency, rather than focusing on trying to identify!)
Hey Adam, in a world of tenors and countertenors taking over popular and even underground music (like metal genres), how can baritone voices pop out without "faking" being low tenors? Keep going, my man
What's the functional difference between your baritone voice and a tenor 2? At a certain point I think vocal classes vary up and down by such a fraction of their range that it puts you in a box more than it helps you communicate and learn about your voice like broader categories do. So, are you concerned about your timbre? What pitches you can hit? I'm sorry for rambling but I've recently had a few conversations with friends about this and that's where we landed.
Glandist yeah I've been low key following his leftist radicalization, parallel to my own, and I'm never sure if it's a gradual ideological development or a gradual "mask off mahfahs" thing but either way, you love to see it
the proper legal analysis regarding copyright attaching to a creative work "created by AI" is as follows: Whoever wrote the code that the AI uses to "create" the music is the copyright holder. If the programmer is working for a large company, most likely all copyrights are transferred to the company immediately upon creation as per the employee agreement (similar to how comic book writers' copyrights are transferred immediately upon creation). AI isn't really "intelligence" - it's just subroutines pre-programmed by a software engineer; i.e., just another mechanical step in the chain going backwards until you get to the "human" in this case, the programmer. In this case, the computer performing the AI creative work is analogous to a guitar or piano, it's just a tool used by the human creator to create the intended work.
That's arguable, at least under American law. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that it "will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” However, there are ongoing academic and legal discussions in a number of countries about how to apply copyright to AI produced works, so it's possible that copyright law will change in the future. One concern I have about assigning copyright to works created by AI is that a computer program can pump out works much faster than any human can. This makes it far more likely that someone's independent creation will be "strikingly similar" to a work previously produced by AI. American courts generally will find infringement occurred without needing to prove the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work if the two are "strikingly similar" (and if access can be proven, the lower standard of "substantially similar" is used). It would be a terrible outcome for AI to crowd out the entire range of creative expressions by producing every possible combination of something so that everyone else had to pay licensing fees to use the fruits of their own creative efforts. This scenario isn't so farfetched: www.techdirt.com/articles/20140929/08500728662/new-company-claims-it-uses-algorithms-to-create-content-faster-than-creators-can-making-all-future-creations-infringing.shtml
@@photios4779 I think you're spot on with that concern. Even if "a computer" can meet all four of the criteria for copyright (Adam missed one), American courts will probably not honor it for practical reasons, like using programs to rapidly copyright as many "random" combinations of design elements to then plug into something like the Content ID system Google uses to find targets for slap suits.
@@photios4779 >randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author The thing is, this boils down to nothing but completely randomly generated meaningless noise. These "AI songs" we're usually talking about most definitely involve creative input and intervention. They require some kind of a context to work with, even if that context is just something as simplistic as examples of harmony or rhythm, and that in an of itself is already a form of creative input that's absolutely vital to getting the script to eventually generate anything that humans would even distantly recognize as music. If I were forced to pick who the copyright to an AI-generated piece of music belongs to, I'd say whoever trained the AI to do so, because that's the person who did the creative input. If it's untrained, whatever the AI generated is random meaningless data anyway, so there's nothing to copyright there.
@@qwerty687687 No, that's really different though. The player piano builder doesn't either, but the guy who wrote the music for the player piano to play, has copyright on the scrolls and the pieces imprinted on them. And if that guy made the machine choose from different motifs while playing the roll, what could then be copyrighted? Every single combination of these simple motifs? Writing a program that can play "original" music is different from building a machine that someon can play "orginal" music ON.
@@Felishamois nah... i like Abigivity. it makes more sense if you pronounce it ae-buh-jiv-itee. and abigivity is a pretty nice skill to have. I.E.: "wow your abigivity is off the charts man!"
If you are a composer, working with AI or neural nets or any other sort of algorithm, there is a huge amount that goes into that. There is any number of knobs to turn so that the algorithm produces the sort of music you want it to make. It's not like you just push a button and "good music" comes out. Granted, it will be music that is optimized or constrained or patterned in a (hopefully) good way, but the composer always defines what "good" means, here. Often the case is a composer will have the algorithm produce a number of options, or try a number of inputs or parameters, and then choose her favorite. It's not really all that different than composing according to some recipe or style. A 12-tone series is a sort of algorithm. Counterpoint is a sort of algorithm. Composing in the style of Mozart or Chopin is a sort of algorithm. With each of these, some things are left constrained and others are left free, but this is also true of composing with AI or computers generally. In the extreme case, perhaps, say we develop an AI system and then let it do "what it wants", compose "freely". And then we dutifully publish whatever it comes up with. Who should have that copyright? Do we get it? Does the system get it? Does no one get it? That's less clear, but that is hardly the case at all. Arguably, the developers of the system indirectly produced the music and so they should get the copyright. It then becomes unclear again if the system is used by a non-developer (do they get the copyright? Do the developers?). personally, I'm not a fan of the copyright system in general, so I see this not as a problem of how to fix it in the context of the existing system, but as an indication that the system should be pretty much scrapped.
If you are an engineer, creating the AI or neural net or any other sort of algorithm which will allow knobs to be turned and music to be produced - there is a huge amount of work and expertise that goes into that.
Tuning a machine learning algorithm can take a lot of creativity. It's not just a black box which works every time (just look at the Google Bach thing). You need to tinker with the parameters to get it just right. I think machine composing is just as much of an art form as traditional composing.
as Leif said, if Humans program it to do something specific or a Human must control it in some way/select parts it creates then it is a machine being USED to create and the Human(s) are responsible. The question really is "will AI ever *truly* exist?" because for a machine to create on its own it must first create a "mind of its own".
Computer music is absolutely creative. All humans do when they're being "creative" is taking things that they already know and mixing them and put them together. "Spitting out music forever" is basically what humans do when they're composing, they're just not recording all the music they're spitting out like an AI would.
The problem is not creativity, is rights... and the question here would be could an AI have rights? Some animals can produce music and other arts forms but still they're not considered subjects of law... although there's a discussion going on about that matter, why an AI (a 'machine' if you want) should be considered, as some animals (sentients beings similar to humans in that way) subjects of law, if an AI is no more than a bunch of algorythms put together?
@Gabriel Vinícius do Nascimento did you happen to listen to the most recent Lex podcast on Joe Rogan, or the other futurist gent? Definitely reminds me. AI will be a person eventually, but I'm not sure where that point starts.
@Gabriel Vinícius do Nascimento Humans are not a bunch of algorithms put together, and even if they were there is nothing to suggest computers could ever be capable of reproducing them. I don't just mean in terms of technological limitations, but more in the limitations of the kind of maths computers deal with.
This has been particularly interesting for me, as I do not have perfect pitch, but the tuner that we used in our high school orchestra class would play through the speakers every so slightly flat, so I have the ability to sing that same slightly flat A without provided previous context. However, I can not reproduce this with any other pitches, but I can use that same A and use relative pitch to simulate a degree of perfect pitch. I never could figure out what this phenomena was called, so I just called it "tone retention". I'd be really curious to see any studies performed about this topic.
Scirs it’s fascinating. I have a friend with synthesia where sounds - not pitches - elicit a taste response. Certain chords have do have a taste, but apparently it’s mainly to do with timbre
@@miguelonfiddle Yes, that tone retention effect is amazing. I watched Adam's A = 432 video way too many fucking times, and there's a point in the video where he plays a choir at 440 and the same choir at 432 seconds later. I'm somehow able to sing the same note that the choir was singing in 432 fairly accurately! Tone retention is my only way of associating pitch to specific notes due to my lack of formal music theory and lack of perfect pitch (or even relative pitch).
I really like your bit about the “Adam bandleader gig vlog thing”, especially because I feel this is something all instrumentalists have to some degree but it’s glossed over because like you said it’s not exactly perfect pitch. It also explains why I’m better able to tell that an A is being played on piano because it’s a tuning note I hear all the time. Very cool!
@@carolushirokisatyanegara7044 You can mix any meters - if you play 3 in 4 they would meet on the One, every three bars - three times four is 12 and four times three is 12 - this is done a lot at the ending of Ragas, they play some phrase that's shorter or longer than the underlying beat and after certain repetitions they end together on the One.
What i've learned today: Play the lick whenever you can, since it can generate all the imaginable emotions possible at the same time and never gets old.
Great video! I'm sure we've both met plenty of people with perfect pitch, and I'm not sure the difference (6:00) is one of type, but rather of degree. My wife, who's from Taiwan, tells stories of ear-training classes simply "teaching" or "coaching" perfect pitch by relying on students to identify the key of, say, a partwriting dictation exercise (whereas in the US, they'd give us the key). Her ability to identify every key, according to her, was "bootstrapped" from that same timbral awareness you're speaking of, that lets us Yanks sing a Meters song in the right key every time :)
Now I haven't watched all your recent Q+A videos, so I don't know if this is a general thing, but I really like how you have aswer fewer questions and instead spend more time on each than you've done earlier.
There is also "relative pitch" (relative perfect pitch), which is being able to find a note or identify a note *in relation* to something you have just heard/played/identified. I haven't heard of the Levitin effect before, but it's fascinating. I think I use this in combination with relative pitch, to the extent that it fooled me into thinking I had perfect pitch for years. The Levitin effect also would explain why I would always get stumped trying to identify the key of guitar music by ear when the guitarist uses a capo -- the chord voicings and open strings become offset, and I can't go on my gut instinct.
Hi Adam! Do you know if birds sing our notes/scales? I've been listening to a foreign bird and tried to recreate its chant in my piano but it seems a bit off.. it's very curious how birds use rithmic figures or even seem to adjust to a tempo. I love your videos! greetings from Spain.
Great question man I've wondered that too. I'd also like to know how music theory applies to other animals, like whale songs or frogs/crickets chirping.
There's a section in this video of a bird (I believe it's a parakeet) singing the Game of Thrones theme. ruclips.net/video/cpuH3DnvQmE/видео.html&lc=UgzcCpLLqDTQz4sQbip4AaABAg
Hey Adam, I really appreciate how whenever you put a question in the title, you also put the answer in the thumbnail. Complete opposite of clickbait and really refreshing!
Hey Adam! So this is something that's been on my mind for a while now. When I listen to music, I can't help but (over)analyze it to an extent where it actually takes away any aesthetic pleasure or emotional connection that's being portrayed. I'm a drummer, so while listening I picture all the rhythms and orchestrations and translate it to notation in my head (almost like imagining how a word is spelled when hearing it aloud). My question is how would one combat this or "rethink" music in a way where you could appreciate the artistry once again. This may be more of a psychological question, but I think you'd be a pretty good person to ask about such a topic. Love your stuff!
Hi Adam! 2 things: 1. I know previously you said a deadline gets the creative juices out, but what about for leisure and for enjoyment? 2.Followup question: Do you think we will ever run out of melodies? I find myself thinking I finally have a good idea, but then remember it’s too similar to “blank”. Thanks in advance, BASS
I'm not familiar with his argument but that sounds completely absurd. It really depends on the kind of music you wish to perform but the vast majority of musicians would benefit from a better feel for tempo and metronome practice undeniably improves that. Is it possible to do it incorrectly or overdo it to the point of becoming dependent? Sure, absolutely. Does that somehow mean there are "no tangible benefits"? No, that's ridiculous. What even is the proposed alternative for a starting musician? Guesstimate*, record the results and guesstimate again in response to the errors, then rinse and repeat for thousands upon thousands of attempts? Surely a simple and objective reference is a much more realistic alternative, right? Like, if you had never heard a metronome in your entire life and I told you to play something at 120 BPM, how would you even begin to approach that? Time yourself counting to 120? This sounds like the kind of claim someone could only make by forgetting that they weren't born with all of the musical knowledge and muscle memory that they currently possess. Even at an advanced level I think there is a mountain of evidence that efficient use of a metronome in practice can greatly improve your sense of time. The key there is generally to not use it to mark every single beat, but rather to use the metronome to mark specific beats and force yourself to keep track of the tempo the rest of the time. For example you would start by moving it to just the downbeats of each bar, then to 2 and 4, then maybe the downbeat of every four bar phrase and so on. For even more advanced time feel you can set it to mark extremely syncopated hits like the 'a' of beat 2 or the second and last notes of a 16th note quintuplet. These training exercises mean that you have to actually internalize the tempo rather than just relying on the click while also providing consistent and objective feedback as to how well you're doing in the moment, there is a ton of value in that and at best you could hope to kinda sorta approximate it by wasting time fiddling with a lot of recordings and such. *Just had to point out that no red line appeared under guesstimate when I typed it, is that finally an officially accepted word in the English language?
@@TheSquareOnes I totally agree. Jeff is a huge advocate of the idea that the best way to learn music is by immersion, citing the way that children learn language. I think he has a sound point in that if a person depends on an external metronome to keep time, their internal metronome could suffer. But I disagree with his notion that everything that isn't explicitly musical should be shoved aside. (That's a gross oversimplification of his whole educational philosophy, but that's the gist.) He's expressed distaste for teaching students "groove" or teaching them to "lock with the drummer," and he's expressed distaste for teachers who make theory and technique a large part of their curriculum. His philosophy is, if it's not musical immersion, it's not going to achieve the same results.
For the pitch in melody singing, I think you overlooked one key element of musical learning in education: solfege. I played lots of guitar before getting into music school, but I wasn't that great at singing those notes at the pitches they were in my instrument. I feel what really changed me were the intonated solfege excercises in music school. Of course, that's only my experience and that could've been different to what happens with most people.
Hey Adam, I was wondering if you could have a look at some of Bill Wurtz's music (you may know him from "the history of the entire world, i guess"). I'm not that experienced in Jazz or even music in general and I'd be interested to see your take on it.
@@TAP7a There's a reddit thread where Adam Neely says he has mutual friends and they were at Berklee together: www.reddit.com/r/billwurtz/comments/6ndb6k/it_made_me_happy_to_see_bill_brag_about_himself/
That is so interesting about feeling the pitch..was practicing a new piece with my section in choir and we had different ideas about one harmony but I remembered our interval by where it had felt in my body rather than being clear in my mind what the actual interval was
Hi Adam - I have some questions that have been bothering me for ages. Where's the line where it comes to taking inspiration from other songs, versus breach of copyright for those songs? Things like chord progressions in particular I wonder about. How much claim can someone have to a chord progression? For example, if Pachelbel were alive today, would he be furious that so many songs use his choice of chord progression from his Canon in D? Does the fact that so many people already use such chord progressions in songs encourage people to feel 'safer' composing with similar chord progressions, feeling they've been somehow legitimized because other people do the same? For years, I feel like I've been held back in my composing, because if I use chord progressions others have used, it feels like I'm stealing someone else's idea, and yet millions of people do this all the time, so where can the line be drawn?
Think about it this way: chord progressions and forms and pretty much all of music theory is like the basics of a language. Chord progressions are like grammatical structure in language. In jazz, pretty much all of the music incorporates ii-V-I chord progressions, and some standards (Giant Steps and otherwise) are completely based around that. Is it wrong to copy other people's grammatical structure? Of course not! So why should that apply to music? And also, about the "safety" thing? I mean, pretty much every chord progression possible has probably been tried in one way or another by someone in history, so everything has already been used. Just reuse it. Also, all of art is based around stealing ideas from various sources and reworking them to create a cohesive whole. Not everything is original, but it's hard to be original - almost everything's been done. Our job now is to take those things and put them together in different ways. Also, about the line being drawn? That's a hard question - if you took someone else's song and pass it off as your own, that's too much. If there are recognizable and significant differences between the original and the new version (like a reharmonization of a song) that alter how you see the work in question, in my opinion, that is morally okay. Copyright law would beg to differ, but screw copyright law. They keep demonetizing everyone, UMG can go jump off of the international space station. Anyways, that's my idea on where the line should be drawn, but it can differ from medium to medium and this is a very individual thing. So think for a while and make your own choice - it's by no means set in stone. All art starts out as an imitation of something else, then ends up incorporating different elements into itself, and coming out as a new being entirely comprised of elements from the past. So steal all the chord progressions you can. I have a staff notebook where I write ones I like that I hear in songs and stuff. So, great question and have a fantastic day!
As far as I know (not a lawyer), US copyright law generally applies to lyrics and melody. In some cases, like with the bass riff in "Money" by Pink Floyd, other defining parts of a musical work may also be protected. I am at any rate confident that chord progressions are not currently protected by copyright. (Still not a lawyer though)
Huh? Isn't writing the code, choosing the way the AI is fed information and selection of the information you give it enough effort to make the result of that AI's work somebody's effort? Since AI doesn't choose to write music, it's just a music writing tool for somebody.
There are a few papers out there denoting the pitch/timbre relationship in the literature, but they're a bit old. Carol Krumhansl* did some studies on timbral effects on pitch perception where they found timbre to be fixed, as in, there wasn't a clear linear relationship between timbral recognition and pitch perception; it was only when the pitch/target pitch relationship remained constant that participants were able to perceive timbral differences. I think this points to the idea that embodiment plays a significant role in unlocking our understanding of pitch, timbre, and the pitch/timbre space. Proprioception (perceptual understanding of the body in physical space and in this case, position of the fingers on the sax or fingerboard) might transmit hidden layers of musical information that are tough to detect - hence the reason why this phenomena doesn't really have a name. To that end, we've actually found a nugget of life in this idea with our most recent paper with guitar players, where the hand shape seems to encode musical information that influences the guitarists' ability to perceive harmonic congruence. All that to say that I personally think the key to understanding this more is to look at the role of the body. * www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol_Krumhansl/publication/21654594_Perceptual_Interactions_Between_Musical_Pitch_and_Timbre/links/0deec5187f79de20ad000000/Perceptual-Interactions-Between-Musical-Pitch-and-Timbre.pdf
Adam, thoughts on The New School? I know a lot of great artists went there, including non-musicians I admire, and lately I’ve been comparing it to Berklee a lot for my “dream school.” I was curious if you, as a Berklee alum in New York, had any perspective to offer.
The "feeling" of a minor sixth as a melodic interval also depends on which scale degrees they go between and whether it's up or down. 3 up to 1 always has a nice tension-and-release feeling for me, where 4 down to 6 just implies intermediate harmonies without much "goal-directed motion" (a favorite phrase of my undergrad theory professor).
Question for your next Q&A: I’ve always felt like I don’t practice enough. No matter what I feel too busy to put in the time to practice everyday. I’m not one to make excuses but I feel all sorts of pressure to practice all the time. I was wondering what you had to say about students in high school who have a lot of commitments other than music, but still want to get better and practice. Thanks!
Hello, recently discovered your channel. Just wanted to say I love your editing/teaching technique. To explain something and then show an exemple right away is really enjoyable and helpful. Many Thanks
Developing the AI, choosing the training data, tuning the ML parameters. Those are the real labor intensive and creative tasks. AI is a lot of time more art than science. Copyright of AI created music should belong to the author of the AI. Picking a result is not, sorry. That's work of critics, not composers. Consider a clothes designer. He "composes" a bunch of clothes. Then a manager comes in and decides which designs should go into production. Does the manager hold the copyright for the design because he has chosen it? Absolutely not, that's nonsense. The designer is the author.
D1ndo It is really a bit more complicated than that, no? I completely agree that Adam severly understates the amount of work & creativity that goes into programming. However, to make a similarily incomplete analogy based on your example: nobody cares who made the sewing machine in fashion. What the AI developer does is create the sewing machine... and part of the designer? So I think this is definitely a bit more complex, but a really interesting topic nonetheless.
Question for next Q and A: Do you have any tips for putting together a musical project with a large amount of instrumentation, both in studio and live contexts, particularly within the financial scheme of things (being able to afford to pay hella musicians etc)? Any other pointers would be super useful as well. Thanks in advance Adam, love your content :)
Just want to say that I appreciate how much thought, care and (I assume) research you put in to these Q&A videos. With a channel as popular as yours, many would probably choose to half-ass these kinds of videos. You don't. So thank you.
I think that you're discounting the effort of the original creator of the AI. There is a significant amount of creative labor that goes into writing an AI that has the capacity to create any music that is worth copywriting.
In french, we call oblique harmonisation "notes pédales", or pedal notes, in reference of it being kept while the melody changes, like a sustenuto pedal on the piano does.
Kinda random but I was reminded of it when you talked about the emotions you get from the minor 6th: I've always loved that Superman's theme is known for it's Perfect 5th (Happy, Empowering), where as Batman's theme always had that minor 6th jump (Tim Burton's Batman theme)
Something that I find to be interesting is that the most comfortable note for me to sing is a Bb. If you ask me to sing a random pitch, it will be Bb. That's probably because I play trombone and euphonium (which are instruments pitched in the key of Bb). Bb major is the first scale you learn on those instruments, and most music for those instruments typically have at least one flat in the key signature. My point is, Bb is the most neutral note in my brain.
re: Remembering precise pitches, I think a metaphor that also makes sense is like... The difference between memorizing that 9 x 9 = 81, and knowing how to multiply any number with any number. On top of all the other musical skills that are contributing, while most people don't have perfect pitch (the ability to do accurate pitch math instantly in their head, in this metaphor), if you hear an 'equation' (a melody) repeatedly enough, your brain will remember the specific results of that song, without necessarily having the raw skillset to do it everywhere. Kind of like memorizing the answers to a test instead of truly understanding the material.
So interesting to hear somebody talk about the "Adam bandleader gig vlog thing" (lol). I definitely don't have perfect pitch, but I can do the whistle from the start of "Cigarettes and Alcohol" by Oasis at the right pitch every time, and I've never really heard anybody talk about that sort of phenomenon. Also more in tune with what you mentioned, whenever I restring my guitar I can usually get the strings within a half-step without a tuner.
A great example of contradictory motion is Dreaming by SOAD. The lead vocals and backup vocals during the verse have different lyrics, rhythm and melody.
Hey Adam, 3 questions for your next Q&A. How do you feel about the Phrygian mode? Are you looking forward to Tool finally dropping their new album this fall? Finally, how does Tool's use of Polyrhythms and multiple different odd-time signatures affect your opinions on the music? I play bass and guitar switching between both frequently and everytime i play one of Tool's songs i can actually feel each note interacting someway with my body. Its one of those feelings that i find absolutely downright difficult to explain and was hoping your insane library of music knowledge and theory might open my eyes to something i never considered. Thanks!
I've been noticing the "Adam Neely bandleader gig vlog thing" more and more recently with the trombone and listening to other trombone recordings could pick out a note as "obviously" an Eb and im really glad you put it into words for me! thanks!
Adding on to what Adam said regarding timbral distinctions within one's own instrument, especially for the sax sometimes I am not only able to associate a certain tone colour with a note but also the embouchure that goes along with it and in turn I can relate that embouchure back to the note's pitch also giving me a very faint sense of relative/perfect pitch.
My choir director called it "relative pitch", which is definitely not as correct as "timbral memory", but was close enough for our purposes. It's really helpful for a cappella group leaders, because it meant we didn't always need a pitch pipe to start things off.
I have got a question for your next q and a: When buying a bass, what do you personally look for? What would you consider important qualities in basses?
I've always called it pitch memory. Just because it's different from perfect pitch (knowing the notes through synesthesia or otherwise), relative pitch (knowing the notes in relation to others) but it relies upon a good aural memory of the music. So I call it pitch memory.
As both a software developer and musician I can comment on how much time and creative effort goes into creating an AI. It is a similar creative mindset and technical knowledge that is required to play an instrument. I think that the music generated would belong to the developers of the AI since the AI is their creative work and the music generated is the extension of the software.
Referring to the question Adam was trying to answer around the 5:38 mark, the way my music teachers always taught us there are two versions of this phenomenon: perfect pitch and relative pitch. Technically Adam is correct in saying that perfect pitch doesn't exist but what most people refer to as "perfect" pitch is really a very intuitive and accurate version of relative pitch. Relative pitch is exactly what Adam explains in that you know what the pitch should sound like based on experience. You develop relative pitch by listening to different pitches on different instruments. The most basic version is matching pitches with another pitch being played but as you gain experience you can begin to remember the pitch even without having to hear it every time you need to match it. Perfect pitch refers to individuals who are born with an uncanny natural ability to remember where the pitch is.
On the timbre memory thing, it's something that I noticed as well. When I hear my neighbor play the bass and he plays the A string, I recognise it instantly ! Also, because I listen to a lot of Metal, I can sometimes tell if a song is in drop D just by ear.
Regarding the tone colour: I’ve been playing guitar for 9 years, and because I’ve always used a tuner, the only thing I can tune by ear is when tuning the low E string to D and back to E. That being said, I’ve surprised myself the last couple of times when chaning the strings. While winding them up, I’ve repeatedly managed to stop winding at the correct pitch for the respective string. Probably it’s also related to the tension I feel in my fingers while winding the string, but damn it feels awesome to get a string perfectly in tune without using a second note to use a reference
the licc in this episode is xenharmonic. bagel 🥯 goes to the first person who can identify the temperament
...I'mma guess something that's in the realm of 22edo or Porcupine.
I know nothing about theory but love your vids still
@@candle_eatist same
Gonna have to guess 13TET because of 12tone’s recent vid.
@@Jason-nq2il nah it don't sound 13 edo-ish
the Levitin effect is when you know how a G sounds for your entire life because you listened to Welcome to the Black Parade a few too many times as a teenager.
MercuryDrive i was so dissapointed he didnt mention the black parade
I-
G note intensifies
This song might sound familiar then.
ruclips.net/video/KjeQEQj4E4Q/видео.html
I know the E chord because of Roundabout by Yes.
I thought I had perfect pitch for the longest time, until I went to music conservatory and met people who *really* had perfect pitch. It seems that when you have perfect pitch, you hear tones like you see colors- you don't have to think to know you're looking at red. For me, though, I developed a process from when I was about 7 years old (about a year after I started playing). It started similarly to how it was described in the video- I was able to auralize my four open violin strings absolutely. Since I had these, I used them as a base to play a full imaginary violin in my head, mnemonically linked to the physical experience of playing each note. I would hear a pitch, which would trigger a memory of a physical sensation of playing and hearing the note, which I then translated into a note name based on finger position (or even "in-between" note names, as I knew how those felt too). I practiced this in my head so often that I became increasingly good at it, to the point where I didn't need to explicitly process it through that system- hearing a note to naming became more and more seamless. And, since this practice was through auralization, my pitch sense was not dependent on timbre. For a while, I did have difficulty identifying notes lower than G below middle C, since that was my lowest note on the violin, but I figured out how to aurally "transform" what I was hearing up octaves to match my imaginary aural violin.
But again, I don't have perfect pitch. People who have perfect pitch can't "turn it off", much in the same way you can't choose to not see colors. For me, even though it's relatively effortless, it is still a proactive exercise that requires a certain level of deliberateness.
I like to call what I have as "perfected pitch"!
Oh, hey, you're the first person I've seen who's also done that! That's similar to what I do with piano. I can do the process quickly enough in my head that people can't tell the difference, so it's been essentially indistinguishable from perfect pitch ever since I was eight, but it's a trained skill instead of a natural ability. And, like you, until a few years ago I assumed that was just what everyone else called perfect pitch.
Anything outside of the middle three octaves on a piano takes me a moment longer to process, though, which is probably the main difference I've noticed between myself and people who have actual perfect pitch.
The funny thing is that I didn't intentionally train it. When I was seven, my piano teacher started teaching me to recognize intervals, and I just found it quicker to identify the individual notes in my head and count the interval manually, so I figured out a method to recognize individual notes. When she realized a few minutes later what I was doing, she tested me on separate notes and came to the conclusion that I had perfect pitch, and I believed it until I was in my 20s. Oops.
Haha, yeah I do this too. Just a couple differences though. Firstly both of you say that you developed it at 7, but I actually developed this at 13! I wasn't sure how, because everyone says that it's impossible to develop it later than 6, but then I started to realise that it wasn't really perfect pitch (one of my friends actually does have perfect pitch and we could see the differences). Secondly, I played multiple instruments by this time, so I'm not actually sure which I used as my tonal reference. I think it's a combination of piano and vocals (even though I'm terrible at singing), but I certainly won't be forgetting the tone of a low C on a baritone saxophone any time soon.
That’s really interesting. And further confirms that I almost certainly do have it - I certainly can’t turn it off, and it’s not instrument-specific. (Though with certain timbres my brain locks-on to certain overtones more strongly than the root and confuses things! In that case the “effort” part comes on filtering them out and trying to focus on the actual root frequency, rather than focusing on trying to identify!)
Ah, the answer is in the thumbnail again. I love it when you do that!
#nomoreclickbait
"Play the right fills but only when are necessary" should be another shirt
would definitely buy
Hey Adam, in a world of tenors and countertenors taking over popular and even underground music (like metal genres), how can baritone voices pop out without "faking" being low tenors? Keep going, my man
As someone with a bass voice I second this question
@@SebiStr99 As another bass I third this question
What's the functional difference between your baritone voice and a tenor 2? At a certain point I think vocal classes vary up and down by such a fraction of their range that it puts you in a box more than it helps you communicate and learn about your voice like broader categories do. So, are you concerned about your timbre? What pitches you can hit? I'm sorry for rambling but I've recently had a few conversations with friends about this and that's where we landed.
As someone learning how to sing Bluegrass, I *need* that answer.
Yet another bass, please answer this
nobody:
the captions at 12:12: *killing is fun and can add a lot of excitement*
Well it's not wrong
And you really do have to be very careful about how you do it😂
1swerdna “I am very guilty for doing that”
Useless nobody
As a drummer, I feel you, only play the fills when absolutely needed.
My dude coming through with the class conscious material analysis today. Hellz yeah
J John i don’t care if you’re a dirty commie, i still love you
Occasionally Adam says something sarcastic about capitalism like that and I cry from joy
Glandist yeah I've been low key following his leftist radicalization, parallel to my own, and I'm never sure if it's a gradual ideological development or a gradual "mask off mahfahs" thing but either way, you love to see it
based marxist adam neely
Yeah level up that class consciousness!
the proper legal analysis regarding copyright attaching to a creative work "created by AI" is as follows: Whoever wrote the code that the AI uses to "create" the music is the copyright holder. If the programmer is working for a large company, most likely all copyrights are transferred to the company immediately upon creation as per the employee agreement (similar to how comic book writers' copyrights are transferred immediately upon creation).
AI isn't really "intelligence" - it's just subroutines pre-programmed by a software engineer; i.e., just another mechanical step in the chain going backwards until you get to the "human" in this case, the programmer. In this case, the computer performing the AI creative work is analogous to a guitar or piano, it's just a tool used by the human creator to create the intended work.
That's arguable, at least under American law. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that it "will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” However, there are ongoing academic and legal discussions in a number of countries about how to apply copyright to AI produced works, so it's possible that copyright law will change in the future.
One concern I have about assigning copyright to works created by AI is that a computer program can pump out works much faster than any human can. This makes it far more likely that someone's independent creation will be "strikingly similar" to a work previously produced by AI. American courts generally will find infringement occurred without needing to prove the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work if the two are "strikingly similar" (and if access can be proven, the lower standard of "substantially similar" is used). It would be a terrible outcome for AI to crowd out the entire range of creative expressions by producing every possible combination of something so that everyone else had to pay licensing fees to use the fruits of their own creative efforts. This scenario isn't so farfetched:
www.techdirt.com/articles/20140929/08500728662/new-company-claims-it-uses-algorithms-to-create-content-faster-than-creators-can-making-all-future-creations-infringing.shtml
@@photios4779 I think you're spot on with that concern. Even if "a computer" can meet all four of the criteria for copyright (Adam missed one), American courts will probably not honor it for practical reasons, like using programs to rapidly copyright as many "random" combinations of design elements to then plug into something like the Content ID system Google uses to find targets for slap suits.
But then, the company that builds your piano doesn't hold the copyright to the music you write on your piano.
@@photios4779 >randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author
The thing is, this boils down to nothing but completely randomly generated meaningless noise. These "AI songs" we're usually talking about most definitely involve creative input and intervention. They require some kind of a context to work with, even if that context is just something as simplistic as examples of harmony or rhythm, and that in an of itself is already a form of creative input that's absolutely vital to getting the script to eventually generate anything that humans would even distantly recognize as music.
If I were forced to pick who the copyright to an AI-generated piece of music belongs to, I'd say whoever trained the AI to do so, because that's the person who did the creative input. If it's untrained, whatever the AI generated is random meaningless data anyway, so there's nothing to copyright there.
@@qwerty687687 No, that's really different though. The player piano builder doesn't either, but the guy who wrote the music for the player piano to play, has copyright on the scrolls and the pieces imprinted on them. And if that guy made the machine choose from different motifs while playing the roll, what could then be copyrighted? Every single combination of these simple motifs? Writing a program that can play "original" music is different from building a machine that someon can play "orginal" music ON.
Adam Bandleader Gig Vlog Thing ... ABGVT ... Abigivity. There we go. I'll be calling it abigivity.
Boom. You literally just gave it it's official name. I will remember you when this becomes popular.
What about anbigivity, being Adam Neely bandleader gig vlog thing anbgvt
Nice! How's about adabigivity? Rolls slightly better off the tongue I find
Hows it pronounced? Ab-ee-jiv-it-ee? Abe-i-give-it-ee?
@@Felishamois nah... i like Abigivity. it makes more sense if you pronounce it ae-buh-jiv-itee. and abigivity is a pretty nice skill to have. I.E.: "wow your abigivity is off the charts man!"
Deep purple probably
Wassup bro 🤘🏻 035
If you are a composer, working with AI or neural nets or any other sort of algorithm, there is a huge amount that goes into that. There is any number of knobs to turn so that the algorithm produces the sort of music you want it to make. It's not like you just push a button and "good music" comes out. Granted, it will be music that is optimized or constrained or patterned in a (hopefully) good way, but the composer always defines what "good" means, here. Often the case is a composer will have the algorithm produce a number of options, or try a number of inputs or parameters, and then choose her favorite.
It's not really all that different than composing according to some recipe or style. A 12-tone series is a sort of algorithm. Counterpoint is a sort of algorithm. Composing in the style of Mozart or Chopin is a sort of algorithm. With each of these, some things are left constrained and others are left free, but this is also true of composing with AI or computers generally.
In the extreme case, perhaps, say we develop an AI system and then let it do "what it wants", compose "freely". And then we dutifully publish whatever it comes up with. Who should have that copyright? Do we get it? Does the system get it? Does no one get it? That's less clear, but that is hardly the case at all. Arguably, the developers of the system indirectly produced the music and so they should get the copyright. It then becomes unclear again if the system is used by a non-developer (do they get the copyright? Do the developers?).
personally, I'm not a fan of the copyright system in general, so I see this not as a problem of how to fix it in the context of the existing system, but as an indication that the system should be pretty much scrapped.
If you are an engineer, creating the AI or neural net or any other sort of algorithm which will allow knobs to be turned and music to be produced - there is a huge amount of work and expertise that goes into that.
It’s kind of like making a mii from scratch, or from a look alike
Oblique motion also happens in the vocals of the Sound of Silence
Tuning a machine learning algorithm can take a lot of creativity. It's not just a black box which works every time (just look at the Google Bach thing). You need to tinker with the parameters to get it just right. I think machine composing is just as much of an art form as traditional composing.
as Leif said, if Humans program it to do something specific or a Human must control it in some way/select parts it creates then it is a machine being USED to create and the Human(s) are responsible. The question really is "will AI ever *truly* exist?" because for a machine to create on its own it must first create a "mind of its own".
Computer music is absolutely creative. All humans do when they're being "creative" is taking things that they already know and mixing them and put them together. "Spitting out music forever" is basically what humans do when they're composing, they're just not recording all the music they're spitting out like an AI would.
The problem is not creativity, is rights... and the question here would be could an AI have rights?
Some animals can produce music and other arts forms but still they're not considered subjects of law... although there's a discussion going on about that matter, why an AI (a 'machine' if you want) should be considered, as some animals (sentients beings similar to humans in that way) subjects of law, if an AI is no more than a bunch of algorythms put together?
@Gabriel Vinícius do Nascimento did you happen to listen to the most recent Lex podcast on Joe Rogan, or the other futurist gent? Definitely reminds me. AI will be a person eventually, but I'm not sure where that point starts.
@Gabriel Vinícius do Nascimento Humans are not a bunch of algorithms put together, and even if they were there is nothing to suggest computers could ever be capable of reproducing them. I don't just mean in terms of technological limitations, but more in the limitations of the kind of maths computers deal with.
To the question posed by James Frank: if I'm understanding the question correctly, I've heard it called "tonal memory."
You could maybe call that ‘not perfect’ perfect pitch “timbral memory”
This has been particularly interesting for me, as I do not have perfect pitch, but the tuner that we used in our high school orchestra class would play through the speakers every so slightly flat, so I have the ability to sing that same slightly flat A without provided previous context. However, I can not reproduce this with any other pitches, but I can use that same A and use relative pitch to simulate a degree of perfect pitch. I never could figure out what this phenomena was called, so I just called it "tone retention". I'd be really curious to see any studies performed about this topic.
Scirs it’s fascinating. I have a friend with synthesia where sounds - not pitches - elicit a taste response. Certain chords have do have a taste, but apparently it’s mainly to do with timbre
@@miguelonfiddle Yes, that tone retention effect is amazing. I watched Adam's A = 432 video way too many fucking times, and there's a point in the video where he plays a choir at 440 and the same choir at 432 seconds later. I'm somehow able to sing the same note that the choir was singing in 432 fairly accurately!
Tone retention is my only way of associating pitch to specific notes due to my lack of formal music theory and lack of perfect pitch (or even relative pitch).
"Exploit" "labor" "theory" oh yea that's the stuff
Adam "bread" neely
Edit:nvm he went full kropotkin
I really like your bit about the “Adam bandleader gig vlog thing”, especially because I feel this is something all instrumentalists have to some degree but it’s glossed over because like you said it’s not exactly perfect pitch. It also explains why I’m better able to tell that an A is being played on piano because it’s a tuning note I hear all the time. Very cool!
Some more fantastic anti clickbait there Adam
I think it's high time that you speak of the 1-4-5 progression. The history of it and why it's so pleasant to our ears.
i'm sorry adam but that one box in the back is really stressing me out
s ame
Hey Adam i have a question for your next q&a. Is it possible to play a 3 4 melody/groove over a 4 4 beat?
@@carolushirokisatyanegara7044 Kashmir by Led Zeppelin is the answer for your question
@@carolushirokisatyanegara7044 You can mix any meters - if you play 3 in 4 they would meet on the One, every three bars - three times four is 12 and four times three is 12 - this is done a lot at the ending of Ragas, they play some phrase that's shorter or longer than the underlying beat and after certain repetitions they end together on the One.
oh no! why have you done this to me??
12:11 Auto generated subtitles: “Killing is fun”
That gave that whole talk a way different feeling
In 10 years - ‘who owns copyright for ai music?’ ‘Disney probably.’
1:45 This editing is so excellent, i am in awe. Thank you!
So much room reverb , it sounded sweet , I'd love to record acoustic in that room , great video.
Never thought I'd see Billie Eilish in an Adam Neely video and I was not disappointed; I love them both
did someone say copyright
What i've learned today: Play the lick whenever you can, since it can generate all the imaginable emotions possible at the same time and never gets old.
I showed my high school music teacher your channel and he said "ew, it's on bass!"
..just thought it was funny
I think he hates bass.
sure, I guess it's funny that your teacher is a *bacist…* 😒
Great video! I'm sure we've both met plenty of people with perfect pitch, and I'm not sure the difference (6:00) is one of type, but rather of degree. My wife, who's from Taiwan, tells stories of ear-training classes simply "teaching" or "coaching" perfect pitch by relying on students to identify the key of, say, a partwriting dictation exercise (whereas in the US, they'd give us the key). Her ability to identify every key, according to her, was "bootstrapped" from that same timbral awareness you're speaking of, that lets us Yanks sing a Meters song in the right key every time :)
Timbre Recall.. (coming soon to a theater near you)
Now I haven't watched all your recent Q+A videos, so I don't know if this is a general thing, but I really like how you have aswer fewer questions and instead spend more time on each than you've done earlier.
I was like whoa check out those cool looking MONO bags for his guitars,
then like bAM! you called yourself out
There is also "relative pitch" (relative perfect pitch), which is being able to find a note or identify a note *in relation* to something you have just heard/played/identified. I haven't heard of the Levitin effect before, but it's fascinating. I think I use this in combination with relative pitch, to the extent that it fooled me into thinking I had perfect pitch for years. The Levitin effect also would explain why I would always get stumped trying to identify the key of guitar music by ear when the guitarist uses a capo -- the chord voicings and open strings become offset, and I can't go on my gut instinct.
Hi Adam! Do you know if birds sing our notes/scales? I've been listening to a foreign bird and tried to recreate its chant in my piano but it seems a bit off.. it's very curious how birds use rithmic figures or even seem to adjust to a tempo. I love your videos! greetings from Spain.
Great question man I've wondered that too. I'd also like to know how music theory applies to other animals, like whale songs or frogs/crickets chirping.
Check out Jeff Beck's Blackbird.
There's a section in this video of a bird (I believe it's a parakeet) singing the Game of Thrones theme.
ruclips.net/video/cpuH3DnvQmE/видео.html&lc=UgzcCpLLqDTQz4sQbip4AaABAg
Olivier messiaen recorded and transcribed bird songs www.oliviermessiaen.org/birdsongs.html
Many sing using the harmonic series and microtones
There's a Reddit thread in r/musictheory I saw about this
Hey Adam, I really appreciate how whenever you put a question in the title, you also put the answer in the thumbnail. Complete opposite of clickbait and really refreshing!
I love your videos Adam! Been a fan for a good few years now. Keep up the good work bro! BASS
Hey Adam!
So this is something that's been on my mind for a while now. When I listen to music, I can't help but (over)analyze it to an extent where it actually takes away any aesthetic pleasure or emotional connection that's being portrayed. I'm a drummer, so while listening I picture all the rhythms and orchestrations and translate it to notation in my head (almost like imagining how a word is spelled when hearing it aloud). My question is how would one combat this or "rethink" music in a way where you could appreciate the artistry once again. This may be more of a psychological question, but I think you'd be a pretty good person to ask about such a topic.
Love your stuff!
You can call it the Feely McSqueely effect 😆😆😆
The Neely Feely McSqueely effect
Adam really hit the BASS in that intro
Adam: "Adam Bandleader Gig Vlog Thing"
Me: *self-diagnosis*
Hi Adam! 2 things:
1. I know previously you said a deadline gets the creative juices out, but what about for leisure and for enjoyment?
2.Followup question: Do you think we will ever run out of melodies? I find myself thinking I finally have a good idea, but then remember it’s too similar to “blank”.
Thanks in advance,
BASS
What do you think of Jeff Berlin's idea that practicing with a metronome is detrimental at worst, and at best has no tangible benefits?
I'm not familiar with his argument but that sounds completely absurd. It really depends on the kind of music you wish to perform but the vast majority of musicians would benefit from a better feel for tempo and metronome practice undeniably improves that. Is it possible to do it incorrectly or overdo it to the point of becoming dependent? Sure, absolutely. Does that somehow mean there are "no tangible benefits"? No, that's ridiculous.
What even is the proposed alternative for a starting musician? Guesstimate*, record the results and guesstimate again in response to the errors, then rinse and repeat for thousands upon thousands of attempts? Surely a simple and objective reference is a much more realistic alternative, right? Like, if you had never heard a metronome in your entire life and I told you to play something at 120 BPM, how would you even begin to approach that? Time yourself counting to 120? This sounds like the kind of claim someone could only make by forgetting that they weren't born with all of the musical knowledge and muscle memory that they currently possess.
Even at an advanced level I think there is a mountain of evidence that efficient use of a metronome in practice can greatly improve your sense of time. The key there is generally to not use it to mark every single beat, but rather to use the metronome to mark specific beats and force yourself to keep track of the tempo the rest of the time. For example you would start by moving it to just the downbeats of each bar, then to 2 and 4, then maybe the downbeat of every four bar phrase and so on. For even more advanced time feel you can set it to mark extremely syncopated hits like the 'a' of beat 2 or the second and last notes of a 16th note quintuplet. These training exercises mean that you have to actually internalize the tempo rather than just relying on the click while also providing consistent and objective feedback as to how well you're doing in the moment, there is a ton of value in that and at best you could hope to kinda sorta approximate it by wasting time fiddling with a lot of recordings and such.
*Just had to point out that no red line appeared under guesstimate when I typed it, is that finally an officially accepted word in the English language?
@@TheSquareOnes I totally agree. Jeff is a huge advocate of the idea that the best way to learn music is by immersion, citing the way that children learn language. I think he has a sound point in that if a person depends on an external metronome to keep time, their internal metronome could suffer. But I disagree with his notion that everything that isn't explicitly musical should be shoved aside. (That's a gross oversimplification of his whole educational philosophy, but that's the gist.) He's expressed distaste for teaching students "groove" or teaching them to "lock with the drummer," and he's expressed distaste for teachers who make theory and technique a large part of their curriculum. His philosophy is, if it's not musical immersion, it's not going to achieve the same results.
He's discussed this before. Would tell you the videos but really can't be arsed to look for it.
For the pitch in melody singing, I think you overlooked one key element of musical learning in education: solfege. I played lots of guitar before getting into music school, but I wasn't that great at singing those notes at the pitches they were in my instrument. I feel what really changed me were the intonated solfege excercises in music school. Of course, that's only my experience and that could've been different to what happens with most people.
Hey Adam,
I was wondering if you could have a look at some of Bill Wurtz's music (you may know him from "the history of the entire world, i guess"). I'm not that experienced in Jazz or even music in general and I'd be interested to see your take on it.
Jamie le Roux There’s actually evidence that Bill and Adam were friends, both at Berklee. Look it up!
Oh really? I'll have a look.
Max Harper I didn’t know I needed this but do you have it to hand? I would love to see that
@@TAP7a There's a reddit thread where Adam Neely says he has mutual friends and they were at Berklee together: www.reddit.com/r/billwurtz/comments/6ndb6k/it_made_me_happy_to_see_bill_brag_about_himself/
That is so interesting about feeling the pitch..was practicing a new piece with my section in choir and we had different ideas about one harmony but I remembered our interval by where it had felt in my body rather than being clear in my mind what the actual interval was
Can you talk about hypermodes on a future video? No one has covered this topic in a comprehensive way yet
Question for next QnA- when writing drum parts, how do you go about notating it? (lead sheets, charts, note for note, etc)
Hi Adam - I have some questions that have been bothering me for ages. Where's the line where it comes to taking inspiration from other songs, versus breach of copyright for those songs? Things like chord progressions in particular I wonder about. How much claim can someone have to a chord progression? For example, if Pachelbel were alive today, would he be furious that so many songs use his choice of chord progression from his Canon in D? Does the fact that so many people already use such chord progressions in songs encourage people to feel 'safer' composing with similar chord progressions, feeling they've been somehow legitimized because other people do the same?
For years, I feel like I've been held back in my composing, because if I use chord progressions others have used, it feels like I'm stealing someone else's idea, and yet millions of people do this all the time, so where can the line be drawn?
Think about it this way: chord progressions and forms and pretty much all of music theory is like the basics of a language. Chord progressions are like grammatical structure in language. In jazz, pretty much all of the music incorporates ii-V-I chord progressions, and some standards (Giant Steps and otherwise) are completely based around that. Is it wrong to copy other people's grammatical structure? Of course not! So why should that apply to music? And also, about the "safety" thing? I mean, pretty much every chord progression possible has probably been tried in one way or another by someone in history, so everything has already been used. Just reuse it.
Also, all of art is based around stealing ideas from various sources and reworking them to create a cohesive whole. Not everything is original, but it's hard to be original - almost everything's been done. Our job now is to take those things and put them together in different ways.
Also, about the line being drawn? That's a hard question - if you took someone else's song and pass it off as your own, that's too much. If there are recognizable and significant differences between the original and the new version (like a reharmonization of a song) that alter how you see the work in question, in my opinion, that is morally okay. Copyright law would beg to differ, but screw copyright law. They keep demonetizing everyone, UMG can go jump off of the international space station. Anyways, that's my idea on where the line should be drawn, but it can differ from medium to medium and this is a very individual thing. So think for a while and make your own choice - it's by no means set in stone.
All art starts out as an imitation of something else, then ends up incorporating different elements into itself, and coming out as a new being entirely comprised of elements from the past. So steal all the chord progressions you can. I have a staff notebook where I write ones I like that I hear in songs and stuff.
So, great question and have a fantastic day!
As far as I know (not a lawyer), US copyright law generally applies to lyrics and melody. In some cases, like with the bass riff in "Money" by Pink Floyd, other defining parts of a musical work may also be protected. I am at any rate confident that chord progressions are not currently protected by copyright. (Still not a lawyer though)
LifeOnTheEdge I think Kubrick said at some point that "everything has been done by someone before; it's our job to do them one better"
@@luigivercotti6410 I like that quote. Putting that on my list of famous quotes.
That outro is pretty bangin...
But what about...
*THE SPACE BETWEEN THE NOTES?*
0:55 - no it RAISES the question, begging the question is something else.
Huh? Isn't writing the code, choosing the way the AI is fed information and selection of the information you give it enough effort to make the result of that AI's work somebody's effort?
Since AI doesn't choose to write music, it's just a music writing tool for somebody.
you get the copyright to the code. the result if it is deterministic maybe else its a mystery
There are a few papers out there denoting the pitch/timbre relationship in the literature, but they're a bit old. Carol Krumhansl* did some studies on timbral effects on pitch perception where they found timbre to be fixed, as in, there wasn't a clear linear relationship between timbral recognition and pitch perception; it was only when the pitch/target pitch relationship remained constant that participants were able to perceive timbral differences. I think this points to the idea that embodiment plays a significant role in unlocking our understanding of pitch, timbre, and the pitch/timbre space. Proprioception (perceptual understanding of the body in physical space and in this case, position of the fingers on the sax or fingerboard) might transmit hidden layers of musical information that are tough to detect - hence the reason why this phenomena doesn't really have a name. To that end, we've actually found a nugget of life in this idea with our most recent paper with guitar players, where the hand shape seems to encode musical information that influences the guitarists' ability to perceive harmonic congruence. All that to say that I personally think the key to understanding this more is to look at the role of the body.
* www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol_Krumhansl/publication/21654594_Perceptual_Interactions_Between_Musical_Pitch_and_Timbre/links/0deec5187f79de20ad000000/Perceptual-Interactions-Between-Musical-Pitch-and-Timbre.pdf
Embodiement for the win !
Adam,
thoughts on The New School? I know a lot of great artists went there, including non-musicians I admire, and lately I’ve been comparing it to Berklee a lot for my “dream school.” I was curious if you, as a Berklee alum in New York, had any perspective to offer.
The "feeling" of a minor sixth as a melodic interval also depends on which scale degrees they go between and whether it's up or down. 3 up to 1 always has a nice tension-and-release feeling for me, where 4 down to 6 just implies intermediate harmonies without much "goal-directed motion" (a favorite phrase of my undergrad theory professor).
Make a Doris Day cover when possible, Adam
In my singing we call that "pitch memory". Remembering what pitch a song is at, the sound of an in tune instrument etc.
As a saxophonist, i‘m triggered by that low g....
THANK YOU!
make music in free-fall or orbit, it's low g all the time!
Question for your next Q&A:
I’ve always felt like I don’t practice enough. No matter what I feel too busy to put in the time to practice everyday. I’m not one to make excuses but I feel all sorts of pressure to practice all the time. I was wondering what you had to say about students in high school who have a lot of commitments other than music, but still want to get better and practice. Thanks!
Everyone ready to learn?
Hello, recently discovered your channel. Just wanted to say I love your editing/teaching technique. To explain something and then show an exemple right away is really enjoyable and helpful. Many Thanks
Developing the AI, choosing the training data, tuning the ML parameters. Those are the real labor intensive and creative tasks. AI is a lot of time more art than science. Copyright of AI created music should belong to the author of the AI.
Picking a result is not, sorry. That's work of critics, not composers.
Consider a clothes designer. He "composes" a bunch of clothes. Then a manager comes in and decides which designs should go into production. Does the manager hold the copyright for the design because he has chosen it? Absolutely not, that's nonsense. The designer is the author.
D1ndo It is really a bit more complicated than that, no?
I completely agree that Adam severly understates the amount of work & creativity that goes into programming. However, to make a similarily incomplete analogy based on your example: nobody cares who made the sewing machine in fashion.
What the AI developer does is create the sewing machine... and part of the designer?
So I think this is definitely a bit more complex, but a really interesting topic nonetheless.
Question for your next Q&A: do know a way I can "entertain " myself when I'm practicing the same, repetitive exercises/techniques when I'm practicing?
You definitely should get a law degree Adam.
Question for next Q and A:
Do you have any tips for putting together a musical project with a large amount of instrumentation, both in studio and live contexts, particularly within the financial scheme of things (being able to afford to pay hella musicians etc)? Any other pointers would be super useful as well. Thanks in advance Adam, love your content :)
Just want to say that I appreciate how much thought, care and (I assume) research you put in to these Q&A videos. With a channel as popular as yours, many would probably choose to half-ass these kinds of videos. You don't.
So thank you.
I think that you're discounting the effort of the original creator of the AI. There is a significant amount of creative labor that goes into writing an AI that has the capacity to create any music that is worth copywriting.
In french, we call oblique harmonisation "notes pédales", or pedal notes, in reference of it being kept while the melody changes, like a sustenuto pedal on the piano does.
Kinda random but I was reminded of it when you talked about the emotions you get from the minor 6th: I've always loved that Superman's theme is known for it's Perfect 5th (Happy, Empowering), where as Batman's theme always had that minor 6th jump (Tim Burton's Batman theme)
The bass playing on that clip with Sarah Longfield reminds me of Jeff Berlin on Bruford's records. Love it.
Something that I find to be interesting is that the most comfortable note for me to sing is a Bb. If you ask me to sing a random pitch, it will be Bb. That's probably because I play trombone and euphonium (which are instruments pitched in the key of Bb). Bb major is the first scale you learn on those instruments, and most music for those instruments typically have at least one flat in the key signature. My point is, Bb is the most neutral note in my brain.
The entire outtro speaks to my soul.
I can't stop watching your videos dude.
re: Remembering precise pitches, I think a metaphor that also makes sense is like... The difference between memorizing that 9 x 9 = 81, and knowing how to multiply any number with any number. On top of all the other musical skills that are contributing, while most people don't have perfect pitch (the ability to do accurate pitch math instantly in their head, in this metaphor), if you hear an 'equation' (a melody) repeatedly enough, your brain will remember the specific results of that song, without necessarily having the raw skillset to do it everywhere. Kind of like memorizing the answers to a test instead of truly understanding the material.
So interesting to hear somebody talk about the "Adam bandleader gig vlog thing" (lol). I definitely don't have perfect pitch, but I can do the whistle from the start of "Cigarettes and Alcohol" by Oasis at the right pitch every time, and I've never really heard anybody talk about that sort of phenomenon. Also more in tune with what you mentioned, whenever I restring my guitar I can usually get the strings within a half-step without a tuner.
A great example of contradictory motion is Dreaming by SOAD. The lead vocals and backup vocals during the verse have different lyrics, rhythm and melody.
loving the new background 👌
A question for the next Q&A, could you analyze Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” and how it modulates between the I and bVI (E major and C major)?
Hey Adam, 3 questions for your next Q&A.
How do you feel about the Phrygian mode?
Are you looking forward to Tool finally dropping their new album this fall?
Finally, how does Tool's use of Polyrhythms and multiple different odd-time signatures affect your opinions on the music?
I play bass and guitar switching between both frequently and everytime i play one of Tool's songs i can actually feel each note interacting someway with my body.
Its one of those feelings that i find absolutely downright difficult to explain and was hoping your insane library of music knowledge and theory might open my eyes to something i never considered.
Thanks!
I've been noticing the "Adam Neely bandleader gig vlog thing" more and more recently with the trombone and listening to other trombone recordings could pick out a note as "obviously" an Eb and im really glad you put it into words for me! thanks!
the name of the adam bandleader gig vlog thing... i think is called true pitch. but regardless of its name, it is super cool!
Adding on to what Adam said regarding timbral distinctions within one's own instrument, especially for the sax sometimes I am not only able to associate a certain tone colour with a note but also the embouchure that goes along with it and in turn I can relate that embouchure back to the note's pitch also giving me a very faint sense of relative/perfect pitch.
For the pitch memory thing, our choir has an attendance F note for attendance and our choir is able to sing the pitch in tune without a reference
My choir director called it "relative pitch", which is definitely not as correct as "timbral memory", but was close enough for our purposes. It's really helpful for a cappella group leaders, because it meant we didn't always need a pitch pipe to start things off.
I have got a question for your next q and a: When buying a bass, what do you personally look for? What would you consider important qualities in basses?
I've always called it pitch memory. Just because it's different from perfect pitch (knowing the notes through synesthesia or otherwise), relative pitch (knowing the notes in relation to others) but it relies upon a good aural memory of the music. So I call it pitch memory.
As both a software developer and musician I can comment on how much time and creative effort goes into creating an AI. It is a similar creative mindset and technical knowledge that is required to play an instrument. I think that the music generated would belong to the developers of the AI since the AI is their creative work and the music generated is the extension of the software.
This is how the Robot Uprising starts Adam! It's video's like this that will start it all...
for the next q+a: talk about that new dingwall BASSSS please!
Hey adam! Here's a q for your next Q+A : What do you think about the jazz version of Master of Puppets and Enter Sandman?
Thank-you for bringing the important topic of timbrel distinction to light.
Referring to the question Adam was trying to answer around the 5:38 mark, the way my music teachers always taught us there are two versions of this phenomenon: perfect pitch and relative pitch. Technically Adam is correct in saying that perfect pitch doesn't exist but what most people refer to as "perfect" pitch is really a very intuitive and accurate version of relative pitch. Relative pitch is exactly what Adam explains in that you know what the pitch should sound like based on experience. You develop relative pitch by listening to different pitches on different instruments. The most basic version is matching pitches with another pitch being played but as you gain experience you can begin to remember the pitch even without having to hear it every time you need to match it. Perfect pitch refers to individuals who are born with an uncanny natural ability to remember where the pitch is.
Essentially what I mean to say is that most of the musicians I've talked to refer to the thing that Adam didn't have a name for as "Relative Pitch".
On the timbre memory thing, it's something that I noticed as well. When I hear my neighbor play the bass and he plays the A string, I recognise it instantly ! Also, because I listen to a lot of Metal, I can sometimes tell if a song is in drop D just by ear.
Best bass fill has groovy punch, boop-boop, smooth note, and fast neato.
Descending triplet bass fills is so choro! Now I know what it's called.
Regarding the tone colour: I’ve been playing guitar for 9 years, and because I’ve always used a tuner, the only thing I can tune by ear is when tuning the low E string to D and back to E. That being said, I’ve surprised myself the last couple of times when chaning the strings. While winding them up, I’ve repeatedly managed to stop winding at the correct pitch for the respective string. Probably it’s also related to the tension I feel in my fingers while winding the string, but damn it feels awesome to get a string perfectly in tune without using a second note to use a reference
I love the journey that the lick has gone on since it has found you