Building Your Band

A better conversation about music, with David Loftis and Peter Bulanow

Sound 101 – Sine Waves

By

Transforming Sound from the Time Domain to the Frequency Domain

Probably the most foundational thing any musician or sound engineer could take the time to understand is sound. And probably the most important way one could do that is to understand Fouriers theorem.

If you ever said to your math teacher “how am I ever going to use this in the real world,” you are about to eat those words. I hope they’re delicious.

Fouriers theorem says that any waveform (i.e. timbre) can be made by adding sine waves at various multiples (i.e. harmonics) of the fundamental (i.e. note).

More mathily – Fouriers Theorem transforms sound from the time domain (the way we see and experience it) and rotates it 90 degrees to look at it sideways in the frequency domain (which actually provides insight).

The six arrows represent the first six terms of the Fourier series of a square wave (they are sine waves!). The two circles at the bottom represent the exact square wave (blue) and its Fourier-series approximation (purple).

Put another way, Fouriers Theorem shows us that sine waves are the atoms of sound.

Isn’t that cool? It doesn’t get much more awesome than that people. All of a sudden, sound is much less mysterious.

And the more you think about it, the more situations it helps you make sense of, the more situations you see people who don’t understand this get things wrong, the less mysterious sound becomes.

(So that’s why they test our hearing with “pure” sign waves, because they’re checking our hearing at a given frequency and don’t want our ability to hear overtones to affect the results.)

Throw-away songs

By

I thought Brandon Peoples raised a really interesting point in this tweet. We’ve all seen the people walk out during the last song of a service. We’ve maybe even done that ourselves (I know I have). Sometimes we have places to go. Sometimes people are just trying to get out of the parking lot. Sometimes we may not like the music that much. Some churches try to smooth this habit over and say “it’s OK if you want to leave early”. But I’ll be honest it doesn’t feel great to have worked on a worship song and see people leaving early. I think Brandon is on to something here.

Yet don’t we intentionally program songs to be used in this very way when we use them as transitions at the beginning of a service? I’ve played hundreds of services where the first two songs were used as nothing more than a mechanism to gather everyone into the sanctuary. Essentially, as throw-away songs. Why then should we be surprised when the last song is perceived by the congregation to have an identical purpose – as a transition to the end of the service?

I do think there is a real travesty here, but would argue the issue is with us – the people who plan and create services, not them – the people who are simply trying to read the cues and respond appropriately.

Let me put it this way: what if sermons were used as bookended transitions to a service, so that the time spent in music-worship was safely nestled inside. I reframe this as an absurd argument, to illustrate how we sometimes intentionally treat worship music. Why should it be my skill, the one with which I’ve banked my 10,000 hrs, be the one that treated like Musak? And to Brandon’s point, is this really how we prioritize worship?

Thus we identify a conundrum. We want to gracefully transition people into and out of our sanctuary and worship time without sounding bossy and while creating connection. So starting with these (or other) values, let’s brainstorm solutions that might allow us to achieve our goals better.

So for example, in transitioning to a service, might not an engaging personality do a better job of bringing everyone in before the service begins especially if this is what we’re trying to accomplish? Isn’t this exactly what already happens at the start of any professional music concert? So we’re not really even reinventing the wheel here! But please don’t just take this solution – decide your communities values, decide what it is you really want to accomplish, and then brainstorm ways to solve your problem!

If we do this, I bet we’ll resolve our people walking out early problem because we have chosen with our actions how much we value our music-worship time.

Lyrics vs music

By

It’s very rare to find a complete package in a song, where the balance of words and music is more or less equal. Usually, when I listen to music, the words sung, that’s not what I’m listening to. That’s not what usually grabs me out of a song. ~Chris Thile

Our Engagement Day

Our Engagement Day

There is a wonderful story early in my relationship with my wife (when we were still dating). We were just getting to know each other, and I sent her a Nickel Creek album. Her first reaction to it (it’s bluegrass, in case you’re unfamiliar) was “Oh. He really doesn’t know what kind of music I like.” And then she kept listening, and the more she listened, she found herself overwhelmed and drawn in by the beauty of the lyrics and the music. She very much saw the lyrics as if I had sent a message to her through them.

Turns out, I’m not really much of a lyrics guy. Actually, I was quite unfamiliar with the lyrics on the album. Of course, I loved the vocals and the harmonies and the playing and the song writing and the music, and I may have picked up some small snippets of the lyrics, but I don’t really listen to lyrics when I listen to music. Of course my wife was shocked to find this out.

This begs the question: did I intend to send the message my wife received?

Framed another way: do the music and the lyrics carry the same meaning?

My answer is: in a good song they do. Recently, we discovered an interview in which Chris Thile talks about this very issue – about how hard he works to create a song that is the whole package. So I fully believe that I was telling my future wife all of those things, just using a different language.

I often hear song selections discussed in terms of lyrics. I guess that is OK. I don’t think songwriters think or speak this way (exclusively in terms of their lyrics). I think songwriters speak in terms of both what the lyrics and the music are saying.

But we owe it to the integrity of what we do to think in terms of both the lyrics and the music. To choose songs that are coherent, and songs that are balanced. Part of the wonder of music is that it can speak to truths beyond facts or rational thinking. It can appeal to things we know in our hearts to be true – that God is big, that we are small, that He loves us regardless, and that we can’t contain him within our minds.

A new song about an old story

By

It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes. ~Ecclesiastes

While we’re talking about classical music and playing from the heart, check out what Steinway Pianist Chad Lawson did to a bunch of Chopin nocturnes – he charted them out! This is exactly why we need to get all of the inversions of all of the chords under our fingers – so we can voice it the way we hear it.

One of our jobs is to exist in the tensions, and in our case, that is telling the old, old story with a new song, which in my mind also means doing something artistic with it. Chad Lawson is doing that with Chopin, because what he did next was to mute his piano with felt to soften the tone. Toss in a little distressed violin and cello bowing, and you have something truly magical (listen below). He’s telling those old stories using a current voice that seems to be connecting with many.

Our job isn’t to use the latest trends for their own sake, and our job isn’t to hide away in a bubble. What’s left is a pretty amazing space to explore though. Let’s get going!

Chad Lawson Chopin Variations on Amazon / iTunes

Redeeming Oceans

By

By now you’ve probably seen this version of Oceans getting bounced around the internets. I hope the people in that video have kept their heads held up high and aren’t shying away from playing, because that would be a real shame.

However, this scene is one that is repeated all over the nation, Sunday after Sunday. Musicians are getting up there and doing the best they can, what they think is the right thing, but there is no one stepping back to look at the big picture and make decisions. There is no one producing.

Just a couple weeks ago, I visited a church that had a couple play and sing during the sharing of the Lord’s Supper. The husband and wife duo brought in their own equipment – electric guitar, mics, ‘verb, mixing board – all great equipment, and they sub-mixed themselves down into the house system. What happened next may be accounted for by the fact that they didn’t have a monitor, so they were only hearing themselves being bounced back from the mains. Two things were apparent: there was way too much ‘verb on everything, and they were desperately pitchy. Much like these guys, the good folks involved are clearly good enough and gifted enough to be playing and leading church. But without someone who can diagnose what is going wrong and offer a suggestion, this kind of thing is going to continue Sunday after Sunday.

Here is a pretty fantastic drum tutorial for playing Oceans:

And let’s be honest – the guy on top wasn’t that far off was he? Ok, he got a little carried away with the triplet 16th note tom fils, but that’s kinda what the song does – come in like gangbusters. The drummer read at least a portion of the intent right. So what went wrong?

Let’s start with the electronic drums that are doing nobody any favors. It is really hard to control dynamics on those things. The whole point of those, by the way, is they aren’t supposed to be too loud. Where exactly was that most important musician, the sound tech who was mixing this? And yes, the drummer was rushing, so that didn’t help, but these are all things that can be dialed down.

Personally I’d be happy to walk into this situation and work with these guys. At least they showed up and were willing to bring it!

Chris Tomlin holograms

By

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. ~Ecclesiastes

You and I, we all have a philosophy about technology. If we’re using hymnals, we’re using printing press technology from the 15th century. If we’re using projectors for our lyrics, we’re using digital technology that is very recent. But unless we’re operating strictly with an oral tradition, we’re all using some kind of technology. We’re all operating with some kind of assumption about how much of it we want to use, from what year, and to what end.

The point is to think through what those assumptions are, and to be able to verbalize our philosophy about technology. So let me lay down a couple of my thoughts as a starting point. I’m not trying to convince you to agree with me, I’m asking you to think through what it is you think and disagree with me if you like.

I would argue that in and of itself, technology is fairly inert. Using old technology is a statement unto itself. It could be a we’re-out-of-touch statement or it could be a hipster statement. Using the latest technology makes another statement, perhaps one saying we’re relevant to what’s happening today. I would argue that ultimately technology should be a means to some other end. Knowing that end is what should inform our choices. Technology makes a lousy end unto itself – just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. Our (human / relational) values should also drive our choices. Finally, I would argue we’ve successfully used technology when the technology disappears from the experience.

Right now a single worship leader and Ableton Live on a laptop can flexibly and dynamically trigger lights, lyrics, loops – the whole shebang in real time. It won’t be long before we can download a Chris Tomlin hologram to lead his latest song, or maybe even our own latest song, in real time with our own band. So we ought to engage with technology and these conversations and think some things through.

p.s. kids react to the hologram pop star 😉

What is your approach to technology?

The simplest thing

By

What if I told you there was one simple thing you could do to make your whole band sound better from the first note?

A quick story – I used to play at a church and with a worship leader who liked a lot of Steven Curtis Chapman songs. Typically the set list included one. However, the sound engineer would also play Steven Curtis Chapman CDs as intro music. Of course that music sounded fantastic. It’s got a great mix, it’s played by a tight band, and it’s nicely compressed. How were we going compare with that? Answer: only poorly. Sometimes, the very song we were playing in that service would be used for the intro music!

I can’t think of anything more unfair to a band than to do that to them. There is simply no way to compete! This leads us to a better way to do things.

The simplest thing you can do to make your band sound better is to play intro music decidedly different than what your band will be playing for their set. Preferably something that sounds worse, or lower fidelity. If you don’t have something that sounds worse, you can make it sound lo-fi by rolling off the lows and highs and not sending it to your subs. Finally, if you don’t play it so loud, then psychoacoustically it won’t sound as good.

The kind of thing I am suggesting for intro music for a traditional CCM service is something like Rivertribe. These are melodies that are familiar, but use a completely different instrumentation. They have enough energy to feel positive, but they also let people talk. And they have a great electronica and world vibe to them. Most importantly, they set your band up for success from the first note!

What do you use for intro music?

Latin 101

By

Just like the language of aviation is English, the language of music is Latin. Here are some terms that should keep you covered about 99% of the time (selected and edited from wikipedia):

Two different kinds of articulation:

  • staccato: making each note brief and detached; the opposite of legato
  • legato: joined; i.e., smoothly, in a connected manner

Four different ways to talk about tempo:

  • accelerando, accel.: accelerating; gradually increasing the tempo
  • ritardando, often said simply ritard., rit.: slowing down; decelerating; opposite of accelerando
  • rubato: i.e., flexible in tempo, applied to notes within a musical phrase for expressive effect
  • a tempo: in time; i.e., the performer should return to the main tempo of the piece (after an accelerando or ritardando)

Six different levels of volume:

  • pianissimo or pp : very gently; i.e., perform very softly, even softer than piano.
  • piano or p: gently, softly
  • mezzo piano or mp: half softly; i.e., moderately softly.
  • mezzo forte or mf: half loudly; i.e., moderately loudly.
  • forte or f: strong, loudly
  • fortissimo or ff: very loud

And finally, two different ways to change your volume:

  • crescendo: growing; i.e., progressively louder (contrast decrescendo)
  • decrescendo: decreasing in loudness; i.e., progressively softer

If you know these – you’ve got the basics!

Playing from the heart

By

With 17 years of piano lessons (most done with really poor teachers, some done with really fantastic teachers), I’m firmly grounded in notes and classical technique. While this provides an excellent foundation for playing well, it’s not a great foundation for playing what is on your heart and mind.

At one time classical technique was rooted in improvisation [citation] but this has long since calcified (perhaps not unlike our faith?). While my piano teacher would tell me which publisher to purchase a specific piece from in order to assure correct fingers are annotated, she would then continue to specify exactly what was to be played at each flourish – precise notes, fingering, and timing. This was never the intent of these flourishes, as each was to be improvised.

Jazz trumpeter Wynton Marsalis duly illustrates this in the baroque recording: In Gabriel’s Garden. While a casual listener could be forgiven for believing this to be one more classical recording, a seasoned ear will be surprised by the note choices. Wynton improvises them, not using Jazz chords as one might fear, but by staying faithful to the expected scale and using anything but the prescribed choices. In doing so, I would argue Wynton is being more faithful to the original than those who would repeat musical orthodoxy.

To break away from notes and the “correct” way to play a piece represents no small undertaking for the trained musician. I’ve now spent more time trying to unlearn notes than I did learning notes, and I continue to work at it.

To make progress, I can recommend two main techniques:

  1. Have a friend start improvising something in an unannounced key. Play along. (I use this as an audition technique).
  2. Start up a music player on random, or better yet use Pandora so you’re potentially hearing unfamiliar songs but in a specified genre. Play along.

You can start by doodling along with one note, then two, then perhaps a full hand, and eventually both hands. The point is this: practicing this unlearning is intentional.

Of course playing from the heart should be predicated on a knowledge of chords. But a knowledge of chords alone won’t tell you what to play.

The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of… We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart. – Blaise Pascal

Snake Alley Band

By

One of my favorite books to read to my kids is Snake Alley Band. If you have a reason to read to kids, I highly recommend picking it up.

It’s a super fun book, with great rhythm and sound effects. Any musician will love reading it.

But the moral of the book is what drew me in. It shows what happens to all of us when we get exposed to new sounds, new genres, new instruments, new ideas – just as I did recently when I visited Jamaica.

I really hope you can enjoy the book and get a chance to use it!