Music Theory: Roots and Pursuits

[Uni 306]

Reflections (and a couple of questions) for a quiet Wednesday evening. . . .

I spent some idle time this afternoon thinking that music resembles a number of other activities in that it's something that can be enjoyed on myriad levels. For a comparative example, consider chess. One can learn the rules of the game and the moves of the pieces in five minutes, and out of that can enjoy hours of playing against another amateur with similar skills and understanding. But they don't have to leave it at that. They could begin to study fundamental strategies to improve their abilities and comprehension. Eventually they might take to learning a wide range of openings, and advanced strategies, and start to take on more experienced opponents, even entering tournaments just for fun. They could open the encyclopedic window into the classic games of Kasparov and Morphy and Capablanca and Fischer, dissecting the classic matches to better understand how grandmasters think. And after working through all that . . . a student might still have only scratched the surface of all there is to learn about the game.

Music's a lot like that. Most people spend their whole lives just listening, and finding plenty of fulfillment in it. Beyond that, a guitar and the basic I-IV-V chords--a short afternoon's worth of effort--can make a musician out of anyone. (There are rock stars out there making millions with little more than this basic palette at their disposal.) A little more time and effort can open an understanding of intervals, scales and modes, and the circle of fifths--the ground-level components of all music. Then comes the deeper stuff, the higher theory, the more complex chordal relationships, the study of the classical and modern masters. And after working through all that . . . a student might still have only scratched the surface of all there is to learn about the craft of making music.

So with that in mind, and considering the possibilities out there for people who want to move up to the next level (now that the internet has opened the door for people to learn in ways that weren't available twenty years ago), here are my two inquiries. First, since we have the privilege of watching the several theorists we have on this forum banter over the finer points of film music structure, I think it would be interesting to know how these folks gained their knowledge. What sort of training did you receive? Formal music education? College degree? Self-taught? Apprenticeships? Do any of you work in music as a professional vocation, or is it all a personal pursuit?

Second, as a practical matter for those who'd like to step up to the next level of learning, what would you recommend as a good means of learning higher music theory (beyond the fundamentals I mentioned--the circle of fifths, scales, basic chord progressions, etc.)? Are there online courses you've heard of or personally used? Is it something only long years of schooling can impart? Or are there other ways to go?

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

I played the cello till Grade 7 and with that I had a rudimentary understanding of music theory (Grade 3 I think, for some reason by teacher stopped the theory exams after that). Everything else has been self-taught from books, PDFs and talking with people who know far much more than I do.

My answer may seem kinda trite, but it's this: never stop learning. Keep soaking shit up like a sponge—you never know when it may come in useful.

[Uni 306]

Very cool. And I agree--if you're serious about it (about anything, really), you never stop learning. The point of this thread (hopefully) is to help people learn where to go shit soaking, so to speak.

On that note: when you say "PDFs," are you just talking about analyzing songs and scores?

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

This kind of question inevitably leads me to tell my whole life story and philosophy of music. Let me try to be succinct for once.

I had various forms of elementary musical education during my formative years.

I majored in physics in college but quickly took on a minor in composition when I realized that's what I actually wanted to do. Through that I had access to private composition lessons, and courses in harmony, ear training (fear training), music history/literature, orchestration, and conducting. And I sat in on whatever performance courses I could, both for keyboards and also all of the instruments I don't play.

After I graduated I bummed around for a while in NYC before a truly remarkable man and composer took me on as a student. During this time I learned more about that idea of thinking about music rather than studying it. I also got to refine what I already knew, discover the joys and annoyances of analysis, and become slightly less horrible as a conductor. But most important was the element of being taught to truly think about music in the right way. I said I'd say more on this but I'm realizing I can't. If I could, if anyone could, becoming a truly mature composer would be a hell of a lot easier. I also learned here how to actually go about creating something from nothing. That's...a matter for another thread.

After that period sadly but inevitably ended I continued to bum around, playing with friends in chamber groups or jazz groups, writing here and there and performing what I wrote or bugging others until they did. Got myself into another good relationship with another remarkable man. His studio got me access to serious performances of my stuff and also (infrequent) glimpses into film scoring.

What I actually "do" now, then, is more of the same. Playing, writing, and getting stuff performed. I'm in LA now though and it's even more promising, especially on the scoring front. And I've gotten pretty good at doing mock-ups which is frankly much more efficient than having to rely on others if you want a performance to pass around and get good attention.  I kind of hate doing it though.

The way I learned happened to be perfect for me. I don't think I can advise anyone on how to learn beyond saying that you should find out what the best way is for you and do that. Had a brief stint as a composition teacher...obviously wasn't my thing. Some people thrive in a heavily academic environment. I responded more to a relatively improvised method. But one analogy I always use, and I think anyone can benefit from it, is to think of music as a language. Approach it in the way you might learn a new tongue. Or better yet in the way you learned your native one. You can speak before you can spell. You can form verbal thoughts before you understand how. Internalize what music is - manipulation of thought through sound - and then learn about the why. The why is just a tool. But it's not how you create.

[KK 3,202]

Great thread. I took a bunch of piano exams at the RCM here, through which I learnt rudimentary theory on the side. Did some performing here and there, but I'm not that great a pianist. I am a better flautist though, principal in my high school band, got involved in a couple of ensembles and chamber groups in my community. i got most of musical theory from my piano theory exams though, but I never went into any advanced harmony or anything.

During high school, I dabbled a bit in composition. My music teachers took notice of this, and encouraged me to write for some chamber groups, but learning-wise, it's all basically self-taught. I didn't think about pursuing music in university, I don't think I was a strong enough pianist for that anyways (entrance is performance based), but maybe as a flautist?

The point is, as much as I loved it, I couldn't see music as my major career path. And now I'm majoring in biochemistry. I was in my university orchestra as a flautist for my first year, but stopped in my second (and current) year just because my workload was getting overwhelming, and I had to prioritize. Now I still compose for small local short films and stuff, and I try to get some work done on some personal projects of mine whenever I get the chance. But there is so much for me to learn still. I just wish I had more time to pursue it more extensively. And this board of full of folks with a vast amount of know.edge that I try to soak up whenever I can.

I definitely want to pursue composition in a more major way at some point in my life (whether it be dabbling in Hollywood or the concert hall). The thing is, it's a lot tougher than it sounds...

But this thread is cool because it'd be nice to offer resources (PDFs, texts, etc) about more advanced harmony stuff, or techniques, etc.

[karelm 2,355]

As for me, I always wanted to be a composer once I realized it was possible (in my youth I thought composers had died out long ago and no one was still doing it). In 7th grade I started trumpet in my school band but switched to trombone as I really wanted to play that. In fact, the bass trombone is my instrument. I started composing while in high school and my first work was an ambitious 45 minute long symphony. It was certainly flawed and was repurposed while in college as a set of piano etudes. In college I studied Aerospace Engineering and loved all the maths and science courses especially orbital mechanics, fluid dynamics, physics and chemistry and of course astronomy. BUT I pulled out and went into music instead focusing on composition and a few years of piano. I wanted to pursue classical composition so took about 7 more years of piano and composition privately with professors at the local conservatory but eventually went for a graduate program in music. I play in symphony orchestras and make my living as a working composer in film, concert stage, and video games and have worked as composer, orchestrator, and arranger. Like most here, I count a mentor as a very important part of my development both personally and professionally. Someone with established credentials and who "believed" in me and saw something and nurtured it.

The career is a slow slog. At times it is very discouraging but you look back at the year in retrospect with pride of lots of accomplishments that you forget about in the day to day slog. I am very lucky to do what I do and love it very much but it can be so frustrating as a career. You have to distance yourself somewhat from your personal opinions of the work since it is a business but then find outlets somewhere else. For me, that comes in the form of performing orchestral music and also writing concert music that might not pay much if anything.

Video games are great fun because they are almost always written in the style of movies from the past and tend to have decent recording budgets. All these projects are very intense schedule wise and the pressure is extreme. I believe one must have a lifestyle of learning in this field and I'll tell you, JW even in his 80's studies music to this day and constantly seeks to learn something about how to improve his craft. He perfectly embodies the attitude of eternal student and strives for greater control, brevity of ideas, skill, etc. I believe that is essential attitude. Goldsmith was also like this. Basically the point of the study is not to mimic/imitate someone else but that is part of the process of learningto unravel what others have done and ultimately take elements and make it your own. School is excellent because in my experience it encouraged experimentation in a relatively safe environment (this was my experience and I know others found school constricting). We were routinely told that if you know what it will sound like then try something else. Failure is good. I study scores and continue to try new music even if I don't like it. For example, I recently completed a project with a rock score which I never listen to that style. I am more the grand orchestral style but I enjoyed working with a rock band and pushing myself to try something different.

I believe you have to be self motivated to learn this stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't need school but even in school, you have to want to master the material and a lot of this comes from your own pursuits. Some classmates were very vocal that they learned nothing in school and I found this to be more a reflection of their attitudes than the education process. Similarly, there is only so far self study can take you. Having someone with wisdom, experience, patience, and knowledge walk you through the material will certainly expose more than just walking through it on your own. Also important, we learn from peers so classes are full of others who made a mistake so you don't repeat it or otherwise did something you never would have thought of so you explore it further. School also is important for your first opportunities because there is a network that you are part of. It was probably the most important stepping stone for me.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

"If you know what it will sound like then try something else."

Yes.

[Incanus 5,519]

A fantastic thread idea Uni and I really enjoy reading all your experiences in the world of music and advice for those who would pursue their musical interests further from the basic level.

[Ludwig 1,000]

Oddly enough, I'll be the third person in this thread to say I started out in science with an interest in physics who then made music my primary pursuit. I started out with years of study on the piano but was always keen on theory, so veered more towards composition. Once I decided science was not the route for me, I took private composition lessons then did a Bachelor degree in composition, taught piano and theory privately and at a community school for a couple of years, then went back to school to study music theory specifically at the graduate level.

Even with my attraction to theory, however, I should say that, in my first years in music, I spent many thousands of hours doing things to develop the essential musical skills of harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic dictation by ear, playing chord progressions at the piano, singing melodies and rhythms at sight, and analyzing harmony to the point where I could see chords as immediately as words on a page. These are all skills I am very glad I have today and I wouldn't trade them for anything. They are fundamental to the way I understand music, which, as it is with TheGreyPilgrim, is like a language. In other words, my natural response to hearing music is much like the way we understand someone speak - for the overall meaning we get without having to stop and think, rather than for the theoretical grammar and syntax. For anyone aspiring to learn a higher level of music theory, I'd advocate for developing these skills to a very high degree before learning more about theory itself. For me, those were all self-taught even though I was in a degree program, so a university education is not a requisite for such a pursuit.

Analyzing harmony is a skill that is usually acquired with the help of a book. You can learn an enormous amount from even a single textbook on the subject, especially one of the newer ones by authors like Laitz, Roig-Francoli, and Clendinning and Marvin. Books like these are aimed at Bachelor programs where you complete the material in four semesters, which is generally two years of study. But a keen student could easily go through it much faster. Learning harmony in this kind of detail is an essential musical skill for anyone aspiring to learn about the higher levels of theory.

Beyond learning these essential skills, one may ask how one "sees" things in a piece of music - patterns, relationships, and so on - that go further than the mere chord labels we might ascribe. In other words, how does one develop the ability to analyze music in a meaningful way? In graduate school, I had a professor who always encouraged us to look for more musical relationships than we thought existed in a piece, especially those at more of a long range that involved larger swaths of music than just a few notes in a bar. "Keep going", he would always say when we were analyzing a piece in class. Maybe a short motive that appears within a bar is also used across several bars at the same time, or even across a whole section or an entire piece. I cannot tell you how many times I have been rewarded in searching for relationships in this way. After a while, one begins to expect them and it becomes a habit to seek them out by considering all kinds of possibilities.

But in the end, any analysis must always agree with those intuitions we have about a piece that we formed just by listening to it without all these theoretical "blinders". That is, an analysis should always fit the music and help us to understand why it is we hear a piece the way we do, so that we may better perform, compose, listen to, teach, and learn about music. That, to me, is the single greatest benefit of music theory.

[filmmusic 925]

I can't think of my life without music and can't do anything else..

Right now I'm a music teacher at primary schoold but it's a job I don't like at all, and hope that it's only temporary and I will be able to pursue my dreams (becoming a working film composer in the near future). Well, the country I live in doesn't help (at all), but anyway..

Started music at my 8 years, studying at conservatory, keyboard, then double keyboard with pedal, and then piano.

Went through all the basic theory, harmony and stuff: the subject levels here after harmony are: harmony - counterpoint - fugue - composition. I reached fugue and after that due to many problems I didn't continue with composition, though I want to, to have a more guided learning, than self-taught.

After high school i went to the department of music studies at university and it was there and then that my horizons expanded, listened to more music and started appreciating more pieces of expanded harmony, atonal etc..

I would never thought I could be a composer, but in those years I started experimenting and now I can say with certainty that this is the thing that I want to do and want to live for..

The thing with me is that I always want a teacher behind me to guide me in the right way.

Now I'm trying to finish my PhD on WIlliams' film music analysis..

These years I'm a bit lost concerning music due to personal and other issues, and all is a bit blurry in my mind. I really hope I could get back on track and concentrate, because I see that when I create, or I read a score or something, it's a thing that makes me extremely happy and I feel I'm "alive".

So, moving on to your 2nd question:

it depends on the person.

if you can concentrate on your own and not let anything and anyone interfere, you can read a lot on your own and learn a lot from that. Read for example widely used harmony books and study many scores..

If you can't, like me, a systematic studying course would be suggested.

Can't write more right now because I'm at work, but I'll get back to this thread..

[Quintus 5,391]

I heard the Birdie Song when I was 3 and there's been no looking back.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Incanus 5,519]

Quintus and BBoal, you are inspiration to us all.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

On that note: when you say "PDFs," are you just talking about analyzing songs and scores?

That, but also dissertations. They can be really dry, but I've learned to sort of scan through them for relevant stuff. Ctrl-F.

For this kind of thing, check out Music Theory Online.

http://www.mtosmt.org/index.php

[Uni 306]

Wow. I was hoping for something on this level—though you can never tell on these boards. It's great to learn more about all of you like this.

I also learned here how to actually go about creating something from nothing. That's... a matter for another thread.

Please don't neglect to start that other thread, now that you've got me hooked.

But one analogy I always use, and I think anyone can benefit from it, is to think of music as a language. Approach it in the way you might learn a new tongue. Or better yet in the way you learned your native one. You can speak before you can spell. You can form verbal thoughts before you understand how. Internalize what music is - manipulation of thought through sound - and then learn about the why. The why is just a tool. But it's not how you create.

Beautifully said, and something I've always believed too. It's really all about learning how to parse other people's harmonies and properly conjugate your own chords. I've always been better at written language—composing words is falling out of bed for me—so music is a much bigger challenge, like learning a foreign language. Maybe that's what I enjoy: the challenge of it.

But this thread is cool because it'd be nice to offer resources (PDFs, texts, etc) about more advanced harmony stuff, or techniques, etc.

Please, please do. It's hard to even know what to ask for specifically, but if anyone's found a particularly useful tool or a method that made it easier for them to understand a musical concept, don't be shy about passing it along. The internet's an enormous tool, but that can sometimes be a drawback—trying to find specific and helpful information in such a vast pool can be a daunting task.

As for me, I always wanted to be a composer once I realized it was possible (in my youth I thought composers had died out long ago and no one was still doing it).

I love this! ("Everyone STOP WRITING! We've left the classical period behind! It's NOW now!")

I believe one must have a lifestyle of learning in this field and I'll tell you, JW even in his 80's studies music to this day and constantly seeks to learn something about how to improve his craft. He perfectly embodies the attitude of eternal student and strives for greater control, brevity of ideas, skill, etc. I believe that is essential attitude. Goldsmith was also like this.

Watching the evolution of composers like these is one of the great joys—and profound learning sources—of studying film music.

Oddly enough, I'll be the third person in this thread to say I started out in science with an interest in physics who then made music my primary pursuit.

Maybe that's why music's harder for me. I was never great at the math 'n' science thing. . . .

Even with my attraction to theory, however, I should say that, in my first years in music, I spent many thousands of hours doing things to develop the essential musical skills of harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic dictation by ear, playing chord progressions at the piano, singing melodies and rhythms at sight, and analyzing harmony to the point where I could see chords as immediately as words on a page. These are all skills I am very glad I have today and I wouldn't trade them for anything. They are fundamental to the way I understand music, which, as it is with TheGreyPilgrim, is like a language. In other words, my natural response to hearing music is much like the way we understand someone speak - for the overall meaning we get without having to stop and think, rather than for the theoretical grammar and syntax. For anyone aspiring to learn a higher level of music theory, I'd advocate for developing these skills to a very high degree before learning more about theory itself.

This is what I'd love to be able to do. And, if I read correctly what you're saying, it's ultimately just about sitting down at the piano and pounding out those chords and scales and listening to how they sound and relate to each other. And I would think that having a rich trove of orchestral music in your head would help with this too, in that some combinations you attempt will resemble something you've heard in a score somewhere, and you'll begin to draw relational contexts from auditory input alone.

Analyzing harmony is a skill that is usually acquired with the help of a book. You can learn an enormous amount from even a single textbook on the subject, especially one of the newer ones by authors like Laitz, Roig-Francoli, and Clendinning and Marvin. Books like these are aimed at Bachelor programs where you complete the material in four semesters, which is generally two years of study. But a keen student could easily go through it much faster. Learning harmony in this kind of detail is an essential musical skill for anyone aspiring to learn about the higher levels of theory.

This is extremely helpful too. I take it these authors and their texts can be found online?

Went through all the basic theory, harmony and stuff: the subject levels here after harmony are: harmony - counterpoint - fugue - composition.

See? I've never heard that, but something as simple as this can be very enlightening for those of us who are grasping for the path ahead.

Thanks for all of this, folks. Keep it coming!

[filmmusic 925]

Another very good source for music articles is

jstor.org

You go up in advanced search, write keywords in the searchbars (I usually select to search in "item title"), then narrow by "articles", and select "Music" in NARROW BY DISCIPLINE AND/OR PUBLICATION TITLE.

See eg. the results for "harmony" in article title:

http://www.jstor.org/action/doAdvancedSearch?q6=&f6=all&c4=AND&f4=all&la=&q4=&isbn=&f3=all&f2=all&dc.music-discipline=on&q3=&c5=AND&f0=ti&c6=AND&q1=&acc=on&f5=all&q5=&ar=on&c3=AND&q0=harmony&Search=&f1=all&q2=&sd=&c1=AND&c2=AND&pt=&ed=

If you want to have access to the actual complete pdfs, send me a private message.

[Glóin the Dark 1,068]

To continue the theme, I also started out as a student of physics, although my conversion wasn't to music and my interest in it is on the purely amateur side. Over the last decade or so I've found myself increasingly compelled to seek out relationships and transformations within pieces of music beyond the blatantly obvious - I think a preoccupation with Shore's The Lord of the Rings scores, and an attempt to understand my own responses to them more fully, was what pushed me towards developing this habit. With the internet, it's now a doddle to find out whatever one wants about the theory and terminology concerning harmonic, melodic and rhythmic issues. Something that I would imagine as being more difficult to acquire this way is expertise or skill in the area of instrumentation. Perhaps I'm wrong, though - can a self-trained, online learner acquire the knowledge needed to write a full-blown symphony?

[KK 3,202]

Uni, you might find this very useful. It really lays down principal concepts in a couple of concise and useful guides. Great read.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dolmetsch.com%2Fform.pdf&ei=4nl3VN_2NeHIsQSSiYCoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHALAU3ZIYXOJDAXpDFQdNk8_TcZA&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc

The guy has also done other guides on orchestration, counterpoint, etc. Check 'em out:

http://www.alanbelkinmusic.com/ABWritingNAV.html

[Uni 306]

To continue the theme, I also started out as a student of physics, although my conversion wasn't to music and my interest in it is on the purely amateur side. Over the last decade or so I've found myself increasingly compelled to seek out relationships and transformations within pieces of music beyond the blatantly obvious - I think a preoccupation with Shore's The Lord of the Rings scores, and an attempt to understand my own responses to them more fully, was what pushed me towards developing this habit. With the internet, it's now a doddle to find out whatever one wants about the theory and terminology concerning harmonic, melodic and rhythmic issues. Something that I would imagine as being more difficult to acquire this way is expertise or skill in the area of instrumentation. Perhaps I'm wrong, though - can a self-trained, online learner acquire the knowledge needed to write a full-blown symphony?

I don't see why not—if that person has an aptitude for the art and the craft. In the words of Lex Luthor, "There are those who can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." When you consider that Korngold and Steiner were writing operas by the time they were 15 years old, long before they would've had access to university-level training, then it's obvious that some people have the ability to take a small amount of learning and understanding and multiply it exponentially.

And I don't think it necessarily takes a prodigy to put together a symphony out of parts ordered online. Anything can be learned by any number of means . . . but I have to think it would take a great deal more self-motivation and effort to reach that point than if you followed a more traditional route.

[Ludwig 1,000]

Analyzing harmony is a skill that is usually acquired with the help of a book. You can learn an enormous amount from even a single textbook on the subject, especially one of the newer ones by authors like Laitz, Roig-Francoli, and Clendinning and Marvin. Books like these are aimed at Bachelor programs where you complete the material in four semesters, which is generally two years of study. But a keen student could easily go through it much faster. Learning harmony in this kind of detail is an essential musical skill for anyone aspiring to learn about the higher levels of theory.

This is extremely helpful too. I take it these authors and their texts can be found online?

Not sure. I ordered all mine from the publishers. Newer texts like these tend not to be found online, but they are all very good sources. An older one that's still quite good is by Aldwell and Schachter. In fact, many schools still use this over newer ones.

And yes, the thing I didn't mention about obtaining the essential skills is the many hours sitting down with scores and trying to hear them mentally, which comes with having a wealth of pieces memorized and knowing what you're hearing when you're hearing it. That skill of hearing mentally goes hand in hand with all the other skills I mentioned. And it's truly an indispensable part of my understanding of music - the visual element - so much so that when studying film music, I'll often transcribe what I hear to get a better understanding of how the cue is put together. Paradoxically, it seems that seeing can help one to hear better.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Perhaps I'm wrong, though - can a self-trained, online learner acquire the knowledge needed to write a full-blown symphony?

Yes I believe so. I also believe a composer can create a full-blown symphony "in the box" with no knowledge of notation. I don't believe that one method of extracting music from your head is more legitimate than another. Whether it's a pencil on paper or MIDI piano rolls, all that matters is the quality of the music being extracted. Composition should happen in the imagination. The method of capturing it in the real world shouldn't determine its quality. Who will be the first to tell me I'm very wrong?

[Uni 306]

And yes, the thing I didn't mention about obtaining the essential skills is the many hours sitting down with scores and trying to hear them mentally, which comes with having a wealth of pieces memorized and knowing what you're hearing when you're hearing it. That skill of hearing mentally goes hand in hand with all the other skills I mentioned. And it's truly an indispensable part of my understanding of music - the visual element - so much so that when studying film music, I'll often transcribe what I hear to get a better understanding of how the cue is put together. Paradoxically, it seems that seeing can help one to hear better.

Like I said, I thought that was the case. Actually, it applies specifically to my own background in music . . . which makes me realize that to this point I've done all the taking and none of the giving. Meaning I haven't shared my own story. Sorry 'bout that. . . .

I started with piano lessons around the age of 7—and, as is the case with many students this age, I hated them. I stuck with it for a few years, but when the opportunity came, I stepped away. It wasn't until high school that I began taking music that I knew and enjoyed, sat back down at the piano (we still had one in the living room), and began rebuilding my reading abilities from scratch. I literally had to go back to the most basic basics: that note is a C, that one's an E, that one's a G, and together, they make . . . oh, that's right, C major! It took time, but eventually I got back into the swing of things. Somewhat, at least. I was the piano player for the first dixie band that my high school music teacher formed (the Arapahoe Dixie Dogs). We went on to win some local awards, and now, more than 25 years later, the school still has a Dixie Dogs group.

The problem with my approach is that I gravitated more toward what I heard rather than what I saw. In other words, I wasn't reading the music as it was, so much as I was using the collection of notes to create an imitation of the songs that I knew. As a result, my sightreading never improved to any great degree, and I didn't have as solid a grasp of the theory as would've been helpful—y'know, if you understand the scales and intervals, you understand why you're playing that second inversion and why it transitions so easily to the IV chord and so on, which makes it easier to play in the end. And because of that, as I had earlier in life, I eventually drifted away from it again.

A few years ago, compelled by my now vast collection of film scores and appreciation for both classical and modern music, I decided to give it another go. This time I made the determination to do it right. I worked through the basics of music theory and developed a solid understanding of the circle of fifths and fundamental harmony. I really wanted to try my hand at composition, but I figured it was way, way out of my reach. However, I read in one book that arranging for an orchestra is mostly about the distribution of the voices among the instruments; the fundamental harmony remains the same. (It's a simplistic description, of course, but not an inaccurate one.) With that in mind, I dug up some old notes I'd scribbled out years earlier. I'd once wanted to musically express a dramatic work that wasn't a movie, in order to avoid suffering by comparison with the real composer. So I thought I'd try my hand at "scoring" a book. I chose the Prydain chronicles by Lloyd Alexander, a young adult fantasy that I figured would provide enough semi-serious fodder to work with.

At that time I never did much more than work out a few melodies. Now I thought I'd put that theory of arrangement to the test. Using MuseScore, I composed a theme for one of the characters in the books—Fflewddur Flam, bard and king, something of a comic sidekick but a brave and noble one all the same. And (if I can be forgiven the apparent gap in modesty) I was blown away with what I put together. Not that it was a perfect, or even very good, piece of music, but by the fact that I discovered I could do it. I'm sure most of you can relate with that feeling: the discovery that you have an aptitude for something. That you really can accomplish something you never thought you could.

Well, I was hooked, and so I've wanted to build on that small achievement and begin to find the tools that will help me do it again. That's why the interest in music, and that's why the thread, and that's why the bald-faced panhandling for resources that'll help me (and others too, hopefully) to grow.

Yes I believe so. I also believe a composer can create a full-blown symphony "in the box" with no knowledge of notation. I don't believe that one method of extracting music from your head is more legitimate than another. Whether it's a pencil on paper or MIDI piano rolls, all that matters is the quality of the music being extracted. Composition should happen in the imagination. The method of capturing it in the real world shouldn't determine its quality. Who will be the first to tell me I'm very wrong?

Not I, said the chicken.

[RedBard 71]

My story is a little different from the others on this board.

I didn't always have a love for theory, composition, and film music as I do today. In fact, my love of music to begin with wasn't even my own discovery. It was bestowed upon me by my parents.

I started taking piano lessons when I was 11 years old aloing with the rest of my siblings. I was reluctant to play because I wasn't too excited about repetition, rote, and scales, but after a while, it started to grow on me. After they dropped out of taking piano lessons to pursue other creative/interpretive outlets, I continued to practice for 15+ years, and now (as of this Fall) I am officially a concert pianist. Theory was never really a priority amongst any of my private instructors.

It wasn't until my Junior year at college that I discovered a love for music. At the time, I was an English Education major and I was doing horribly in classes. Looking back on it, I don't know why I thought I could ever be an English Education major. I swtiched majors, went straight into a Music Major, and just began soaking up all my theory classes. It only got really challenging when I got to the atonal and aleotoric materiel in my final semester of theory.

It was around this time that I decided to take seminars in Composition, and this was when I discovered my love for composing. It was a transforming experience, to say the least. The ability to just take notes out of seemingly non-existent realms and plotting them on staves like an architect to create something that could send your emotions on a roller-coaster ride whether it was in the concert hall, in a cineplex, or even in the comfort of my own home... and yet it wasn't enough. After asking one of my professors about how to learn to score for symphony orchestra, he told one piece of advice I will never forget:

"Go read the scores of those composers while listening to their music."

Best. Advice. From a Music Professor. Ever.

I had never fully appreciated the tremendous amount of time and talent that went into creating such scores from the Baroque to the Present until this time in my university days. My command of theory, my perfect pitch, and my sight-reading, made it all just click into place. It was like a big neon sign from the universe was flashing in my face, saying "Your future lies in writing music."

And that's what I've been doing ever since. Reading the full scores of composers before me (dead and alive) and learning how to create the perfect blend of notes on staves to produce unique sounds and melodies; i.e. my education in writing for symphony orchestra is entirely didactic (with the exception of my arranging and orchestration classes). I'm even at the point where I can determine (almost every time), what instrument and technique is being played no matter how culturally obscure it is, and this knowledge has only added to my composer's toolbox.

This link has been especially useful to me in learning the different registers, timbres, coloring, and techniques of the various instruments of the symphony orchestra:
http://www.music.indiana.edu/department/composition/isfee/

[karelm 2,355]

Oddly enough, I'll be the third person in this thread to say I started out in science with an interest in physics who then made music my primary pursuit.

Maybe that's why music's harder for me. I was never great at the math 'n' science thing. . . .

I think it is just hard to learn period. It takes effort and time and you have to find a way that works for you because the material builds on itself. Why don't you try an iterative approach rather than a sequential? For instance, learn the basics of theory first, then the basics of harmony, then basics of orchestration, structure, etc. Then go into more advanced theory, more advanced or extended harmony, 18th century counterpoint, more nuanced orchestration, larger forms, then very advanced theory, etc., etc. Basically take it as a gradual mastering of a lot of inter-related and dependent subjects that are all possible to be a master of. I don't know if it matters that lots of us like science and math.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though - can a self-trained, online learner acquire the knowledge needed to write a full-blown symphony?

Yes I believe so. I also believe a composer can create a full-blown symphony "in the box" with no knowledge of notation. I don't believe that one method of extracting music from your head is more legitimate than another. Whether it's a pencil on paper or MIDI piano rolls, all that matters is the quality of the music being extracted. Composition should happen in the imagination. The method of capturing it in the real world shouldn't determine its quality. Who will be the first to tell me I'm very wrong?

It also depends on how far the composer intends to go. Only part of composition happens in the imagination. A lot of it is pure craft and I wouldn't ignore that part. DaVinci would not have accomplished his art if he only used imagination. There is a technique he mastered as an apprentice too. It has to be an idea and a knowledge of how to develop, document it as well. If you intend to just write music for your own enjoyment I certainly believe books and online courses should suffice. I also believe that the less trained you are the more reliant you are on someone else who is trained. But there is a cap on how far you can go that route alone. On the other hand, study and training alone won't get you far either. Lots of great composers challenged, rebelled, or ignored their studies and academic training…but they had that training.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

I don't mean anything with regards to theoretical understanding. Only the method by which a person transcribes the music they imagine. I say transcribe because I have never written on a note to note basis. You wouldn't try writing a book from one word to the next. If the music doesn't exist in my head yet, if I don't know where I'm going, I don't touch a pencil.

The parts of theory that directly inform composition aren't part of a conscious process for me. They're instinctive, guiding what I think up in an imperceptible way. That's why I'm so useless in most raw theoretical discussions.

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

Oddly enough, I'll be the third person in this thread to say I started out in science with an interest in physics who then made music my primary pursuit.

Maybe that's why music's harder for me. I was never great at the math 'n' science thing. . . .

Neither was I. I hated maths in particular - I wasn't terrible at it, but it didn't come naturally to me either. I remember loving science at school and being at the top of the class (at least in biology and chemistry), at least until applied mathematics started to come in it, big time. That's when I dropped out of sixth form at about 16.

That said, while when it comes to long division, nth terms, trigonometry or finding the prime factorisation of 3 digit + numbers - I'm fucked, set theory is relatively easy for me. And that's because even when you come to advanced music theory, the maths is primary school level. There's nothing to it, TBH.

It's like what John says here.

Even Jerry wasn't great at math.

If the music doesn't exist in my head yet, if I don't know where I'm going, I don't touch a pencil.

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

[karelm 2,355]

Oddly enough, I'll be the third person in this thread to say I started out in science with an interest in physics who then made music my primary pursuit.

Maybe that's why music's harder for me. I was never great at the math 'n' science thing. . . .

Neither was I. I hated maths in particular - I wasn't terrible at it, but it didn't come naturally to me either. I remember loving science at school and being at the top of the class (at least in biology and chemistry), at least until applied mathematics started to come in it, big time. That's when I dropped out of sixth form at about 16.

That said, while when it comes to long division, nth terms, trigonometry or finding the prime factorisation of 3 digit + numbers - I'm fucked, set theory is relatively easy for me. And that's because even when you come to advanced music theory, the maths is primary school level. There's nothing to it, TBH.

It's like what John says here.

Even Jerry wasn't great at math.

If the music doesn't exist in my head yet, if I don't know where I'm going, I don't touch a pencil.

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

Great clips, Sharky. Have you ever thought about collaborating with another composer? Basically maybe your version of someone else's piece and see how that works for the idea process? For example, imagine what a Shostakovich work would should like if done in the style of Ravel but with Shosty's intensity? Or what if Ravel was done in Sharky's style?

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

When this happens to me, it's because I don't have a real concept. Starting out in my 20s I had a billion ideas but none that accreted into a real concept that genuinely moved me and drove me to complete it. This led to a billion false starts, tons of aborted pieces. Because those pieces would only exist to serve a very fleeting sonic goal. Once I began to understand why I wanted to compose in an almost spiritual sense, music began to flow. Once the ideas had actual perspective, a personal point of view, it worked. Now again, I can't possibly know what works for you. But maybe try thinking about that. Try to understand the spiritual impetus behind what you want to write. If there isn't any, then figure out what it should be! Find your trees to write about.

[karelm 2,355]

Some good quotes about the process:

"I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way." - Gustav Mahler

"I always said God was against art and I still believe it." -Edward Elgar

"Without craftsmanship, inspiration is a mere reed shaken in the wind." - Johannes Brahms

There is a great documentary about Malcolm Arnold and the toll writing took on his psychologically. I will try to upload it on youtube in a few days if anyone wants to see it. Talk about a very dark soul. Anyway, it isn't easy for most. It is very hard but also a muscle that can be worked out.

[filmmusic 925]

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

When this happens to me, it's because I don't have a real concept. Starting out in my 20s I had a billion ideas but none that accreted into a real concept that genuinely moved me and drove me to complete it. This led to a billion false starts, tons of aborted pieces. Because those pieces would only exist to serve a very fleeting sonic goal. Once I began to understand why I wanted to compose in an almost spiritual sense, music began to flow. Once the ideas had actual perspective, a personal point of view, it worked. Now again, I can't possibly know what works for you. But maybe try thinking about that. Try to understand the spiritual impetus behind what you want to write. If there isn't any, then figure out what it should be! Find your trees to write about.

I am not sure I understand correctly what you're both saying here, but if I do I would say that inspiration can come just by sitting on the piano and scribbling various things..

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Maybe for you, sure.

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

Have you ever thought about collaborating with another composer? Basically maybe your version of someone else's piece and see how that works for the idea process? For example, imagine what a Shostakovich work would should like if done in the style of Ravel but with Shosty's intensity? Or what if Ravel was done in Sharky's style?

That sounds like an interesting idea, at least as a technical exercise, though I'd probably only be able to do it if it was a work by a composer who was (or is) at best, mediocre, or worse. The idea of re-arranging a Shostakovitch, Ravel or Mahler piece is bloody intimidating! No matter how it good it is, it'll be nothing compared to the original.

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

When this happens to me, it's because I don't have a real concept. Starting out in my 20s I had a billion ideas but none that accreted into a real concept that genuinely moved me and drove me to complete it. This led to a billion false starts, tons of aborted pieces. Because those pieces would only exist to serve a very fleeting sonic goal. Once I began to understand why I wanted to compose in an almost spiritual sense, music began to flow. Once the ideas had actual perspective, a personal point of view, it worked. Now again, I can't possibly know what works for you. But maybe try thinking about that. Try to understand the spiritual impetus behind what you want to write. If there isn't any, then figure out what it should be! Find your trees to write about.

This is what I'm looking for. A source of inspiration, a muse. But what do I have to do to find it? Travel round the globe, train with the League of Shadows? For you it's the cosmos, but you've got a background in astrophysics. Maybe it'll just happen...

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Have you ever thought about collaborating with another composer? Basically maybe your version of someone else's piece and see how that works for the idea process? For example, imagine what a Shostakovich work would should like if done in the style of Ravel but with Shosty's intensity? Or what if Ravel was done in Sharky's style?

That sounds like an interesting idea, at least as a technical exercise, though I'd probably only be able to do it if it was a work by a composer who was (or is) at best, mediocre, or worse. The idea of re-arranging a Shostakovitch, Ravel or Mahler piece is bloody intimidating! No matter how it good it is, it'll be nothing compared to the original.

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

When this happens to me, it's because I don't have a real concept. Starting out in my 20s I had a billion ideas but none that accreted into a real concept that genuinely moved me and drove me to complete it. This led to a billion false starts, tons of aborted pieces. Because those pieces would only exist to serve a very fleeting sonic goal. Once I began to understand why I wanted to compose in an almost spiritual sense, music began to flow. Once the ideas had actual perspective, a personal point of view, it worked. Now again, I can't possibly know what works for you. But maybe try thinking about that. Try to understand the spiritual impetus behind what you want to write. If there isn't any, then figure out what it should be! Find your trees to write about.

This is what I'm looking for. A source of inspiration, a muse. But what do I have to do to find it? Travel round the globe, train with the League of Shadows? For you it's the cosmos, but you've got a background in astrophysics. Maybe it'll just happen...

That's not it though! I think I'm much simpler than that now. Ultimately anything I write is an attempt to capture a moment, a feeling. Over the years the feelings I want to capture have become more elemental, less cosmic and "phantasmagorical" as you once put it though it's still there. Hence my whole changing taste thread thing earlier this year.

How do you figure it out? Wish I could tell you. I think being an honest composer is all about knowing yourself. Knowing what about life you treasure the most, aside from music. Knowing what it is about yourself that you want to share with whoever will listen. If you have that nagging feeling like there's something that you need people to hear, that there's some connection you have to make, you've gotta just think on it until something makes sense. I'm willing to bet it'll end up being something simple and natural rather than philosophically exalted.

[karelm 2,355]

Have you ever thought about collaborating with another composer? Basically maybe your version of someone else's piece and see how that works for the idea process? For example, imagine what a Shostakovich work would should like if done in the style of Ravel but with Shosty's intensity? Or what if Ravel was done in Sharky's style?

That sounds like an interesting idea, at least as a technical exercise, though I'd probably only be able to do it if it was a work by a composer who was (or is) at best, mediocre, or worse. The idea of re-arranging a Shostakovitch, Ravel or Mahler piece is bloody intimidating! No matter how it good it is, it'll be nothing compared to the original.

That's one of the reasons why I have writers' block. The music just isn't there. Maybe I should go for the note-by-note/word-by-word process instead.

When this happens to me, it's because I don't have a real concept. Starting out in my 20s I had a billion ideas but none that accreted into a real concept that genuinely moved me and drove me to complete it. This led to a billion false starts, tons of aborted pieces. Because those pieces would only exist to serve a very fleeting sonic goal. Once I began to understand why I wanted to compose in an almost spiritual sense, music began to flow. Once the ideas had actual perspective, a personal point of view, it worked. Now again, I can't possibly know what works for you. But maybe try thinking about that. Try to understand the spiritual impetus behind what you want to write. If there isn't any, then figure out what it should be! Find your trees to write about.

This is what I'm looking for. A source of inspiration, a muse. But what do I have to do to find it? Travel round the globe, train with the League of Shadows? For you it's the cosmos, but you've got a background in astrophysics. Maybe it'll just happen...

That's not it though! I think I'm much simpler than that now. Ultimately anything I write is an attempt to capture a moment, a feeling. Over the years the feelings I want to capture have become more elemental, less cosmic and "phantasmagorical" as you once put it though it's still there. Hence my whole changing taste thread thing earlier this year.

How do you figure it out? Wish I could tell you. I think being an honest composer is all about knowing yourself. Knowing what about life you treasure the most, aside from music. Knowing what it is about yourself that you want to share with whoever will listen. If you have that nagging feeling like there's something that you need people to hear, that there's some connection you have to make, you've gotta just think on it until something makes sense. I'm willing to bet it'll end up being something simple and natural rather than philosophically exalted.

It is interesting how you put this. I take a slightly different approach in that I put it out there hoping it will connect with someone. I find that most are passively engaged (and will forget about it immediately) but a few are actively engaged and might by a recording or want more. Every now and then someone is deeply engaged and really gets what you intended and for me these are the ones I seek to connect with most but it is out of my control. So it just comes back to write what you what to listen to and some will really connect to it along the way. Meanwhile, constantly strive towards improvement in the methods, inspiration, technique, conciseness, etc. Along the way are some missteps but generally the trajectory is meaningful.

[Uni 306]

People are posting so much great stuff so quickly, I'm almost missing things. . . .

Uni, you might find this very useful. It really does lay done principal concepts in a couple of concise and useful guides. Great read.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dolmetsch.com%2Fform.pdf&ei=4nl3VN_2NeHIsQSSiYCoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHALAU3ZIYXOJDAXpDFQdNk8_TcZA&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc

The guy has also done other guides on orchestration, counterpoint, etc. Check 'em out:

http://www.alanbelkinmusic.com/ABWritingNAV.html

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about--an open door to the next level. As is usually the case with these kinds of things, there'll always be some overlap; you run through concepts you've learned before as you learn new things. But that never hurts, and can often help more than one might think.

Only part of composition happens in the imagination. A lot of it is pure craft and I wouldn't ignore that part. DaVinci would not have accomplished his art if he only used imagination. There is a technique he mastered as an apprentice too. It has to be an idea and a knowledge of how to develop, document it as well.

I cannot emphasize enough how much I agree with this. This has a direct parallel to the "art" of writing. Too many people out there think telling a good story is all about imagination--that if you can dream it, you'll have a bestseller on your hands. But that's only part of it . . . and to be frank, it's really not the most important part. If you can't tell a good story well, no one will ever recognize the quality of your story or of your imagination. Writing is a craft first and foremost; you first have to master it, or at least grow a fair level of competence with it, as such. Only then can you begin to use it as an aspiration to art. Like any other form of communication, you can bend the rules--even break them sometimes--but you have to understand the rule first, and know why you're breaking it. People can tell the difference between an author who intentionally bends a rule he understands and a writer who breaks a rule because he doesn't comprehend what he's doing.

It may not be exactly the same with music, but it's not that far off. It's because I believe that so strongly that I want to get better at the craft before I try tripping my way through the dark with this stuff.

[Ludwig 1,000]

On the notion of craft in composition, I agree 100%. To my mind, the best compositions have a structure that is made intelligible to the listener. Regardless of the kind of music one is talking about, structure is of prime importance to the communication of some sort of meaning. In a Baroque dance movement, structure usually assumes a binary form with repeated halves. In a Beethoven symphony, the enlarged ABA structure that is sonata form lends an attractive sense of narrative to the piece. In a Wagner opera, the leitmotifs form a constantly evolving musical tapestry that clarifies meaning at every turn. In a Beatles song, there is often an AABA form governing the structure.

I'm a firm believer in learning how to structure music in ways such as these and taking from them what one likes to form one's own style. It all depends on what music one admires most, and for me I've always been drawn most of all to the music of the classical period. So when I was first writing full-length pieces, I found a very useful exercise was to write several sixteen-bar minuets for piano in classical style, using Beethoven's early dances as a model. It's a great way to learn because there is a focus on the essentials of composition in a miniature format. In other words, it allows one to practice writing standard harmonic progressions, working out motivic material, and writing in a rounded binary form, all without the stuffiness of workbook exercises. Once one has a sense of how to write a fairly regular sixteen-bar structure, one can then turn to the art of phrase expansions and writing more adventurously by studying minuets in more substantial classical works like symphonies, sonatas, and string quartets. Now some may think minuets to be the epitome of boring music, but remember this: rounded binary forms like these are precursors of sonata form, which is the pinnacle of musical structure in the history of Western music and is found in many of the most important concert works (especially symphonic ones) from Mozart through to Shostakovich. Although sonata form is but one type of structure one can learn how to compose with, studying examples of it teaches one how to write dramatically, as though some important narrative is being told by the music alone, without the aid of a sung text, external program, or what have you. And telling stories in a purely musical way is a skill that can be applied to just about any style of composition. For that reason, it's a damn good structure to have under your belt.

[Incanus 5,519]

Many of you seem to have background in physics and other natural sciences. Has this education been useful, the math and certain logic involved and working in numbers from the music point of view?

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

It's a load of bollocks!

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Having a scientific understanding of sound, acoustics, harmonics definitely was beneficial for me. My "textbook" when I studied privately was Schoenberg's Harmonielehre. It starts with his justification of dissonance and a discussion of the harmonic series etc. Even if I didn't understand that stuff beforehand, it still would have totally opened up how I thought about harmony, about simultaneous notes. It was a simple but fundamental insight for me, enabling me to break free of the strict harmonic thinking that seems to strangle so many young composers. No more thinking about "chord progression".

[KK 3,202]

Well none of it helped me! Though I suppose the physics helps with understanding acoustics and harmonics in performance and recording (we've even looked at that in detail).

Other than that, the most useful my academic background has been to me is I suppose with my strengths in math (or more specifically calculus). Not sure how, but I have a natural knack for rhythm, so it's easier for me to figure that kind of stuff out in my work.

[Glóin the Dark 1,068]

Browsing the internet yesterday, I stumbled across some references to "neo-Riemannian theory" (a term which I'd heard before but knew nothing about). I expect many of the musicians among you are familiar with this subject, but for anyone who isn't and is curious about music theory, it's very interesting and well worth looking into. I've found several online articles and blogs about it. Music and Mathematics (a PDF file) by Thomas M. Fiore is a set of lecture notes which provides a gentle introduction to the musical and mathematical concepts required to understand the PLR group, apparently the central idea of the first stage of the theory. A more thorough (and sometimes technical) introduction can be found in Alexandre Popoff's blog in the series of posts entitled "An introduction to neo-Riemannian theory" and, latterly, "Transformational Music Theory". (In particular, the ninth post in the series illustrates some aspects of the PLR group with a couple of John Williams themes!)

Frank Lehman's Ph.D. thesis (which I've but glanced at, as yet) seems to give consideration to the PLR group (under the alternate name LRS group) in the context of film music, with particular attention for the intriguingly (and rather amusingly) named "Horner Space"!

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

A lot of neo-Riemannian stuff was becoming very popular around the time I was studying, but my teacher never took much of an interest in it so I wasn't exposed to it. I wonder if he's ever gotten into it. I've considered it myself but I'm not sure if it would really benefit me much now, set in my ways of thinking as I am.

[Ludwig 1,000]

Lehman's also written about neo-Riemannian theory in Horner's score for A Beautiful Mind in a music theory journal. It's not a readily available article unless you're willing to pay or are connected to a university library. But still well worth reading.

Funnily enough, Zimmer's music often lends itself to this kind of analysis. The four-chord Inception ostinato is one of the best examples. The chords don't relate in a traditional way, but rather transform by moving voices through very small steps, and usually retaining one of the notes from the previous chord. That particular progression retains Bb all the way through the chords of Gm - Gb/Bb - Eb - CbM7. The orchestration often keeps that Bb going in the same instruments too, which creates the effect of feeling a kind of coherence among very strange events, not a bad musical analogy for the idea of trying to make sense of the weirdness of Inception's dreamworld.

[Glóin the Dark 1,068]

...set in my ways of thinking as I am.

You're still a youngster!

The four-chord Inception ostinato ... Gm - Gb/Bb - Eb - CbM7.

When I read about this PLR group, one of the first things I did was to try to get an idea of how transformations of the group would induce transformations of certain chord sequences, testing them against sequences from some familiar film themes. They tend to yield results in which the character of the original sequence is (at least faintly) discernible, but often with the more user-friendly sorts of intervals between chords (fifths or fourths, say) transformed into less conventional ones (like semitones). The Inception sequence you mention reminded me of that, since it feels like a similarly distorted image of the main four-chord sequence of the film.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

A youngster? Well, flattery will get you everywhere.