what part "plays" serependity or chance in your music ?

[KBD_TRACKER]

for me, honestly, i'd say random "luck" is responsible for over 3/5 of the sounds/music/sequences that i have been happy with.
so i have dutifully read and learnt about modulation, filters, phase, envelopes, oscilators and all that... but the most "beautiful" things i created with my synths happened by sheer luck. a trial of combinations, some "what ifs", mistakes like grabbing the wrong parameter, etc.

are others here in the same situation ?

it seems a bit sobering that after all these years, i can't just turn on the gear and know pretty much what to do to get something worthwhile or pleasing. there is for me always this sort of hide and seek with sound, groping a bit in the dark. so that when i stumble upon a nice sound i feel a bit guilty as if the real musician here was not me but sheer "luck".

[griffin avid]

I think it's important. Mystery and not knowing what's around the bend makes the journey more enjoyable.
A bit of randomness breaks away from the Something I would do tendency.

"Anything you keep, you meant to do...take credit for it."

[nvbrkr]

95%.

[Jack Spider]

I've had a few really interesting sounds just by hitting the 'manual' button on the Jupiter 6, which uses the current settings that the controls are set at. I'll occasionally hit the manual button, just to hear what comes out.

A lot of the time, I'll have a sound in mind and whilst trying to create it, hit upon something that I like even more - serendipity definitely plays a large part with my sounds.

[Zamise]

Maybe 10% or less of my stuff is random chance. A lot of my goodness comes from knowing the affects of LFO on a sound or waveform. Without knowing the LFO you might as well use canned instruments with some portamento. I must say that my RS7000 has tought me a great deal about how a 'subtractive' synth works (AG in mind there), even though it is a rompler and limited. After several years, I still find new things within its 'subtractive' and "additive" form to manipulate, it does surprise me occasionally, yet I more than ever can relate it to an old 'analog' synth, then sequence it to kick all the rest of their assess.

[nathanscribe]

... the most "beautiful" things i created with my synths happened by sheer luck. a trial of combinations, some "what ifs", mistakes like grabbing the wrong parameter, etc.

...there is for me always this sort of hide and seek with sound...

That's art though isn't it? Exploration. Otherwise, where's the creativity? Where's the invention? These things don't happen mechanically.

[shaft9000]

thingamagoop!


also, i work a lot on improvising with simple themes and structures.
regardless of the gear, as long i'm well-prepared - most anything can happen and it will still fit - or guide it somewhere new.

[cornutt]

I do a lot of Soundscapes-type stuff, so I arm wrestle with chance all the time.

I recall an interview long ago with Jim Ladd interviewing Keith Emerson. He asked, "Do you ever just plug patch cords in at random [on the Moog], just to see what comes out?" Emerson replied that that was how he came up with the "Hoedown" sound.

[Johnny Lenin]

I spend a lot of time improvising. When I come across something that works for me -- by accident -- I'll play through it a couple of times and jot it down or record it [and jot it down -- I'm still tied to notation, I'm afraid]. I can't quantify how much that contributes to composing, since I usually start a project with a pretty well-defined goal, but I'm able to call on a binder full of "accidents" to reach those goals.

I have been experimenting with more aleatoric approaches to actual writing, though. I actually had some success with randomly erasing notes from a score to see what I'd get. Rhythmically, this has been very interesting... And I did the Scarlatti thing: One of my cats ran across the keyboard of my fantom when I had the sequencer on real-time record. After I quantized the notes to 1/16s, it produced a very interesting, bluesy phrase that I subsequently used. I don't know if I have to share the credit with her, though...

[plikestechno]

A good 70% experimenting, a good 30% planning.

[ColorForm2113]

I like to mix several lfos into one or two destinations to create pseudo-sequences. I have a couple songs that I have recorded (and probably will never be able recreate 100%) where I match up a each lfo to make a very steady rhythm, and gradually start changing speeds and shapes and amounts to discover some pretty great surprises.

[hfinn]

Everything is left to chance when you use one of these:

[Christopher Winkels]

Happy accidents are a wonderful thing.

I learned (and continue to learn) a lot by making mistakes or doing random things then trying to retrace the whys and hows of why a patch sounds so good.

[CapnMarvel]

I always get better results with randomness than planning. I mean, I know how to use my stuff, but my brain gets in the way of my creativity when I try too hard to get to where I *think* I want to go.

Generally, most of my stuff comes out of what feels right at the time, no matter if it's a 'mistake' or what.

[Denms20]

As far as actually synthesizing sounds goes, there's not much accident there. I pretty well hear it in my head, then go after it when it comes to patches.
Now as far as the notes themselves go, that seems to be changing, and I have mixed feelings about that. I used to view music as kind of an exploration thing, and it was cool to "stumble" into concepts while improvising, then go back and figure out what happened to use again sometime. But I started taking serious jazz theory lessons maybe two years ago. Now I know where to go, what to use over what, etc. I've found that jazz theory, especially bebop type stuff is pretty full of rules. I have a lot more control over a solo now. The good thing is I no longer get "lost" soloing over a tricky progression and make a fool of myself. The bad news is I no longer get lost over a tricky progression and find something fresh and cool.
I stumbled on an article on the web the other night, which expressed a lot of my internal thinking lately, and the guy actually gave me quite a bit of hope on getting the "mystery back". It's here:
http://www.jeff-brent.com/Lessons/mystery.html
I don't consider myself to have got to the mastery point yet, but I fear I'm leaving the "mystery" point slowly. But I think it'll come back. I remember hearing Joey DeFrancesco talking at a hammond seminar once, and he stated something to the effect that he was still surprised at what he played, and he seemed to have gotten the Mystery back. And he's one person I would put in the "mastery" column.