THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Black_Chamber on 22 Jul 2009, 13:52
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A1LrNQCMic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A1LrNQCMic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk7TxhxkkhQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk7TxhxkkhQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx9mG-aKMwo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx9mG-aKMwo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwSSNMoCdG0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwSSNMoCdG0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxZiMvXtOtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxZiMvXtOtc)
From the outset I wanted my sound to disregard music theory entirely. Because I have no formal training I was able to approach my instruments (I play guitar and drums) in unsophisticated & abstract ways to create something that sounds incomplete and abrasive at times. becuase of my lack of music theory, [and understanding of what to do and what not to do] my 'music' (i'm sure some of you will say its just noise) is a pure extension of myself. I just recorded how I was feeling at the time. I posted my stuff on some other boards and about 50% of the people say i'm a pretentious hack, 25% say its genius, and another 25% say i have potential if I study music theory and apply some structure to my songs.
what do you think?
-
I go for "strange but oddly interesting"...
I'm probably a minority here because in my humble opinion... Music Theory means nothing. Some of the best music I've ever heard get's the tag "Noise" and I really don't understand why. I fail to see where the line between music and noise is. Some music that it's well written sometimes turns up to be good music but with lack of feeling [Progressive Metal, I'm looking at you right now].
But well.. It might help you to know what's normal and what's not.
Soooo... I believe this is interesting, the only thing I can say to you is the classic "follow your heart". Some of the best musicians, painters and writers were the ones that thought "screw them, I do what I want"
-
I didn't like it much, to be honest, but I guarantee no matter what kind of music you make, someone will like it. Even bands like the Jonas Brothers and Nickelback have fans (that being said, your music was better than those bands' "music").
So go for it.
-
It was all right, but you should really learn some music theory, and take lessons on your respective instruments. It WILL help you, even if your plan is to make 'unstructured' music. You have to know the rules before you can break them. Theory and technique are tools that allow you to express yourself more articulately in music.
-
I think it's a common mistake to think that music theory is useless to those seeking to break barriers or create unstructured music. For me it's the single most useful tool for creating such music, because when I know the basic chord progressions, where people's ears will be expecting a certain sequence of notes to move, you can then subvert their expectations. Put together things that are deliberately out of time or key, or non-diatonic. Knowing what's normal is how you create abnormality.
-
The music is all right. People who dismiss anything as noise don't have worthwhile opinions on music.
But. And don't get me wrong I don't mean to be insulting—do people actually call you it genius? Because while you make decent sounds, or even if they were very good sounds, please do not think of your self as some mythical, touched-by-god savant. That would be the worst of pretensions. The way you talk about your music is indeed a bit pretentious, and the ideas you seem to present are pretty old hat, which is fine really, provided what you produce is interesting and worth listening to, but don't use this nonsense about "pure extension" and "unsophisticated abstraction" as a crutch.
-
For what it is, it's decent. It's not groundbreaking by any means (see, for example, brainwashed.com (http://brainwashed.com), for plenty of artists working in pretty much the same genre) but if this is really your first attempt at making this kinda stuff I'd say you have a decent natural talent for assembling sounds and effects. Frankly, I think the structures are fine for the type of music you're making.
My suggestion would be to move away from your reliance on samples. Both the cliched movie-dialogue ones and the musical ones.
-
The music is all right. People who dismiss anything as noise don't have worthwhile opinions on music.
But. And don't get me wrong I don't mean to be insulting—do people actually call you it genius? Because while you make decent sounds, or even if they were very good sounds, please do not think of your self as some mythical, touched-by-god savant. That would be the worst of pretensions. The way you talk about your music is indeed a bit pretentious, and the ideas you seem to present are pretty old hat, which is fine really, provided what you produce is interesting and worth listening to, but don't use this nonsense about "pure extension" and "unsophisticated abstraction" as a crutch.
There does exist a potential ontological perspective recently in the philosophical spotlight so called humor that may be worth applying to the interpretation of the text. With that, it begins to seem as if there is potential for said label to be a "joke", in that it is an act committed the said intention, eg. offhandedly in an attempt to induce laughter or lighten the situation at hand.
Honestly, I find your criticism is far more pretentious than his actual description. While I do agree that perhaps a less stereotypical choice of words could have improved his explanations there, there really isn't any sort of reason to assume that he considers himself a genius for creating music with such a perspective. I think that you'd have to be living under a rock to not realize that those ideas have been used before, given that there have been several musical movements triggered by those exact sentiments. It seems much more probably given common sense that the two elements are for the most part unrelated. It seems as if he's wondering whether or not he's successful in his execution rather than as to the integrity of his ideas.
As to the actual topic at hand I haven't listened yet but probably will soon.
-
I listened to one of the songs and enjoyed it. I wouldn't call it pretentious, so much as bold. It certainly has a very ambient sort of feel. Atonal, but this sort of pleasant, chaotic mishmash of pretty noises. Since I see it, you're taking an alternative approach to something that many people seem to have set ideas on, and making something that fulfills your own artistic urges rather than simply going: "Fuck theory or any of that bullshit. It's overrated wank. This is much better than that stuff with structure and whatnot."
-
It was all right, but you should really learn some music theory, and take lessons on your respective instruments. It WILL help you, even if your plan is to make 'unstructured' music. You have to know the rules before you can break them. Theory and technique are tools that allow you to express yourself more articulately in music.
This this this this this this this
seriously the best way to break the rules is to understand them as best as you can. (yes there are exceptions i know shut up)
also i would not say this is pretentious in fact that is a very silly question to ask. stop reading pitchfork or something.
-
Music theory is great. You will not regret learning it.
-
Lhefriel Medies, you sound so very pretentious.
-
Music theory is a set of shackles that you should never put on.
There is no need to know anything about music theory if you are making electronic music.
There is no need to know anything about music theory full stop. It's extremely dull.
Listening so far, I would buy this music.
-
Music theory is incredibly useful. As you begin to learn and grow without it, trying to figure out what works and what doesn't, you slowly begin to realise that there actually are these patterns and that everything you're learning has been learned a thousand times before by somebody else and then packaged as music theory.
Nobody who learns about music theory suddenly gets worse as a musician. Not a single person, ever.
Learn some theory, save yourself a few years. It's foolish to think you're better off without it.
-
I voted "study music theory because there's some potential there." Not exactly my cup of tea, but good for what it is. I agree with whoever said to stop relying on samples too.
-
Music theory is incredibly useful. As you begin to learn and grow without it, trying to figure out what works and what doesn't, you slowly begin to realise that there actually are these patterns and that everything you're learning has been learned a thousand times before by somebody else and then packaged as music theory.
Music theory is an essentially arbitrary set of rules that conditions us towards hearing sound in a certain way (it is just as easy to arrange sounds in any number of ways). It is a pointless contrivance unless you want to make some boring fucking rock music or something.
Also it makes people who jack off about music theory really upset, which is wonderful because it is an unbelievably joyless way to treat music.
Knowing music theory would almost certainly make this guys music more boring.
-
This is the exact opposite of boring, and was created with the knowledge of shitloads of music theory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGrHibHrNg&fmt=18)
So there!! :mrgreen:
-
Music theory is an essentially arbitrary set of rules that conditions us towards hearing sound in a certain way (it is just as easy to arrange sounds in any number of ways). It is a pointless contrivance unless you want to make some boring fucking rock music or something.
Also it makes people who jack off about music theory really upset, which is wonderful because it is an unbelievably joyless way to treat music.
Knowing music theory would almost certainly make this guys music more boring.
You'll only ever hear this from people who don't know theory.
Besides, "theory" refers to any system used to describe the relationship between notes. As soon as you start describing the relationships between notes, even in your own terms, that is theory.
The thing about theory is that it doesn't set down rules. Instead, it describes an action/consequence relationship between notes. It's not like there's big neon lights saying "DON'T PLAY C# OVER G". That's the domain of harmonic purists.
-
This is the exact opposite of boring, and was created with the knowledge of shitloads of music theory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGrHibHrNg&fmt=18)
So we should make music just like music that was made a hundred years ago to satisfy your mathematics fetish?
It's like the last sixty years or so have never happened! And all that 'you need to know the rules before you can break them' stuff is utter crap. That's just something they like to trot out to prevent outsiders getting a decent look-in.
-
The idea that music theory is a limiting factor is ridiculous, and is only considered as such by people who haven't learned it.
-
Hey Firebird was only composed 99 years ago! : P
I'm the last person who will try and stifle creativity. It's why I like the Romantic period of music more than the Classical and Baroque periods. Because they finally allowed composers to do what they wanted.
I just don't get how learning about what people before you did pigeonholes you into copying them...
-
The idea that music theory is a limiting factor is ridiculous, and is only considered as such by people who haven't learned it.
People who have learned it having been subtly shackled into its strictures so completely they don't even realise it.
Also I can't learn music theory.
-
Let's remember that music theory isn't universal to every culture in its intricacies. We speak of western music theory while ignoring eastern and middle-eastern theories. Indian music theory, in particular, is so detailed that they have guidelines for harmonising microtones.
As an aside, any serious student of music leans scales and chords that specifically break what are considered the most proper scale and chord forms. Think the harmonic minor scale, which can be baroque or eastern depending on how you use it, or the phrygian dominant (a sort of cousin to the harmonic minor) that, while technically a major scale, works melodically much more like a minor scale.
Note that most scales have more scales derived from it, equal to the number of notes in the scale itself. There are thousands of scales. They all fall under "music theory" even if the vast majority of them actually slaughter wholesale "proper" classical harmony.
-
See what you are saying is just so fantastically boring it makes me want to yawn.
*yawn*
Just make some fucking noise.
-
If you like, but there's no reason to condemn what is essentially a method of description so musicians can more easily describe their ideas and actions to one-another.
It's like saying that the colour wheel takes the expression out of art.
-
Fretless instruments are fucking cool man. Asian music rocks, hard.
Especially Gamelan music, those Indonesians know how to have a good time.
-
Music theory isn't rules, it pretty much just says 'hey if you put these two things together it could sound cool/abrasive/metal as fuck'. It's not necessary by any stretch, as it'll probably just teach you things you are going to figure out anyway but slightly quicker.
-
Music theory is an essentially arbitrary set of rules that conditions us towards hearing sound in a certain way (it is just as easy to arrange sounds in any number of ways). It is a pointless contrivance unless you want to make some boring fucking rock music or something.
Also it makes people who jack off about music theory really upset, which is wonderful because it is an unbelievably joyless way to treat music.
Knowing music theory would almost certainly make this guys music more boring.
Everything in this post was written in ignorance. Music theory is a clumsy language. It is nothing more than a way of communicating music. It does not condition you to hearing sound in a certain way anymore than learning the names of different shades of colours conditions you to see photographs any differently.
You seem to be under the impression that music theory has everything to do with maths, but after learning about it for the past 6 months, I haven't had to use any application of maths whatsoever. Perhaps you're confusing music theory (which is about what the names for the sounds are, and virtually nothing more) with acoustic theory (which has everything to do with maths).
Honestly, I doubt that learning the names of notes has ever transformed an interesting, creative and talented music lover into a joyless, uninspired boring asshole, however much you seem to be genuinely convinced it will. If you could find me sufficient evidence that it does, then I'll gladly admit that you're right.
Maybe you should try to learn some music theory and see if you turn boring.
-
Maybe you'll grow boring a piece at a time so you can stop, the minute you discover the first boring toes on your feet!
-
I have tried learning music theory. Did music at school for years, put me off even trying to play an instrument for ages. Impossible to enjoy playing an instrument whilst reading music. The shit is definitely maths.
Music theory is pretentious.
God I love annoying you guys sometimes.
-
You know you think that eventually they'd finally sit up and say "Oh, that's just Khar, he hates everything, ignore him" but nope, they just keep on coming back for more.
-
Everything in this post was written in ignorance. Music theory is a clumsy language. It is nothing more than a way of communicating music. It does not condition you to hearing sound in a certain way anymore than learning the names of different shades of colours conditions you to see photographs any differently.
Hi there! I'm the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)!
There's an interesting thing underlying this whole thing. I mean, if you want to make music that consciously plays with the rules then music theory is an essential component of what you will do. It is difficult to deconstruct music without first knowing how it is constructed. Postmodernism is a word that I think I am going to throw in here for no real reason.
On the other hand, you don't need music theory to make music. Hell the whole "Here are three chords, now start a band" concept has produced some ridiculously awesome music. While personally I would probably like to have some music theory under my belt before starting out to make anything significantly complicated, I'd say the bits I remember from doing music for ages would be enough to get me through.
With regards to the purpose of the thread, there is certainly something in there. I am intrigued. I like the sort of "odd noises and bits and pieces" approach to music - albeit generally I prefer it when they are mixed in with some thumping beats, flashy lights, and a roomful of Class-A ingesting loons, but that is personal preference. If you want to, learn some music theory. If not, keep on banging out stuff and you will probably 'learn' things as you go along.
-
I consider my time spent in dabbling in music theory to have been a complete waste of time. It's useful in the sense that it's a common grammar with which to communicate, but essentially that means I never, ever use it because I've found that I could not possibly care less about learning from others when it comes to fucking around with music.
-
The thing about theory is that it's just a language, not a tool. So whether you speak the language or not, other people who do can and will be able to see your music in terms of music theory, regardless of whether or not you paid any attention to it your self. The odds of any music at all existing without people being able to see it in terms of music theory are nil because it is just a big collection of words and phrases that account for just about anything.
It's not a strict collection of rules at all, it's just a more complicated way of saying "this one has a 'chuggah chuggah' bit with a 'deeeeeedle dwoooooooop' over the top."
Music theory is just adjectives.
-
"Here are three chords"
Congratulations, you just learnt some (albeit very little) music theory!
-
Silliness aside I genuinely believe that music theory restricts the creation of interesting music, but then again my definition of interesting music is probably a little different to most people here.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxZiMvXtOtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxZiMvXtOtc)
new song. I think its my best one yet..
-
If you have to ask if your music is pretentious, it is pretentious.
-
I never understood the true meaning of the word pretentious... I mean, I know the word per se but not when it's okor not ok to use it.
-
Congratulations, you just learnt some (albeit very little) music theory!
Wait, we're defining learning notes and chords as music theory? I think that's stretching the definition a little, to be honest. It's not like it explained what chords were or why these three chords go together.
-
I never understood the true meaning of the word pretentious... I mean, I know the word per se but not when it's okor not ok to use it.
A pretense is essentially a false reason presented for doing something, so the act of being pretentious is to do things for reasons different to those you use to justify said actions.
Also perjorated to mean 'full of ones self' and 'stuck up' etc
I mean, I know the word per se but not when it's okor not ok to use it.
use words whenever you feel like it dogg
-
If you have to ask if your music is pretentious, it is pretentious.
I started writing something exactly like this yesterday but it became too wordy. You are a succinct master!
-
Wait, we're defining learning notes and chords as music theory? I think that's stretching the definition a little, to be honest. It's not like it explained what chords were or why these three chords go together.
This is exactly what the argument is about, I think. These things are music theory, whether you learn them as such or not. A lot of people who don't learn music theory could end up playing a solo in the pentatonic major scale and not know it. They don't know it, but it is still a solo in pentatonic major. You won't learn anything by dicking around on your own that hasn't already been learned before by somebody else and then written about in music theory. Whatever it is you do, there is something about it in music theory, guaranteed.
I never understood the true meaning of the word pretentious... I mean, I know the word per se but not when it's okor not ok to use it.
I think it's a really heavy word to throw around. Be very careful with it.
As far as I'm concerned, it is never okay to call somebody pretentious. No matter how badly I think of something and how much the word may actually be applicable. I've called music and people pretentious in the past only to find I'm wrong and regret it. I've been accused of pretention often in the past and it is genuinely upsetting to me when my motivation and creative output is called into question like that.
I wouldn't want to be called it, and I wouldn't call it anybody else. Your mouth is a loaded gun, be careful when you shoot it.
-
These things are music theory, whether you learn them as such or not.
Nailed it.
-
Silliness aside I genuinely believe that music theory restricts the creation of interesting music,
It's already been said, but music theory is not rules, it is understanding. Understanding what you are trying to do is good, yes? Oh, silly me...
From another post of yours, I guess you had a bad teacher.
-
Silliness aside I genuinely believe that music theory restricts the creation of interesting music, but then again my definition of interesting music is probably a little different to most people here.
Tell that to Tony Iommi.
-
From another post of yours, I guess you had a bad teacher.
I dunno, I've taught myself lots of things.
How to make music, for example.
-
Perhaps you could say you've formulated your own... theories about how music works?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZORiQHbcoM4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZORiQHbcoM4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfMmA24L-cs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfMmA24L-cs)
both are pretty deranged. For example the second song is a concept song; I wanted to make a song about how music must have sounded like back in the womb. Pretty nuts, I know. The first song is more trip hop than rock.
-
While the thread has derailed (into a pretty interesting topic at least), if you want feedback on these new posts, it would help to respond to the folks who did have comments to offer on the first one rather than just spamming the board with more links.
-
I see absolutely no need to translate music into English.
-
Actually I find music theory quite interesting and fun.
anyways you can't go around being 'atonal' because tonality is a musically theoretic construct.
-
While the thread has derailed (into a pretty interesting topic at least), if you want feedback on these new posts, it would help to respond to the folks who did have comments to offer on the first one rather than just spamming the board with more links.
its not spamming...if people want to talk music theory thats fine. i'm just posting some links to some of my better newer stuff for the few that care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qElwmS2ucvM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qElwmS2ucvM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8z_3QrWqo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8z_3QrWqo)
this is some of my craziest stuff yet..
-
I see absolutely no need to translate music into English.
That's silly.
Think about it. Maybe you're in an open jam situation with a bunch of other people. You don't want to sound like shit, so you ask, "What key are we playing in?"
The organiser might shout out, "A minor!".
So now you know that the notes A B C D E F and G will always work. That doesn't stop you from using the enharmonic notes! It just means that they will be more dissonant in comparison to the notes above. But you might want to use G# if you're going for a Latin feel, or if you want to bust out some neoclassical. A# is a good one if you want to add some severity or darkness to your melody. Or what about F#? That's a pretty solid choice, in the key of A minor, if you want to be a bit bluesy or jazzy.
Or we could just summon the fucking darkness up from the bowels of hell and move C to C# and B to Bb, giving us the phrygian dominant scale.
Music theory is pretty great.
-
i mean i know theory but i still just play what i feel, man
-
But you can do so with the kind of sound you want in mind.
-
The organiser might shout out, "A minor!".
Which consists of the same notes as C Major but with a different root note! Knowledge is power!
I'm taking a music theory course next year because I figure it will make me a more literate musician which is important considering that I'm going to be a choral student of five years and currently attempting to become a decent guitarist. Really, there's a lot of things music theory, or at least courses, can teach you that will help you even if you want to just play "noise." Transcription and ear training for example.
-
i mean i know theory but i still just play what i feel, man
hey so it turns out that one does not necessarily preclude the other!
(not calling you out or anything John, your post was just a good springboard was all)
-
That music was fine. I was not bored, I was not offended and it wasn't hackneyed. I was in fact, entertained. Is there more to it than that?
Music theory?
What?
-
Disease Culture IS utterly pretentious. Between the spoken voice at the beginning (which I dearly hope was a soundbyte from something and not just you speaking into your computer's mic) and the image you chose for the video (hands holding cliche-looking drugs? seriously?) I had to supress my gag reflex. But the other three songs rock my socks, particulalry Disorder.
But I hardly think you qualify as a genius. You seem to be doing with music what I did with writing; when I was first developing as a writer, I ignored all literary convention and didn't read any books because I wanted to develop a unique flavor without any outside influences. It ultimately worked, but for the first ten years I was writing, all I produced was crap. I consider having gone through that a contributing factor to the talent I have as a writer today, but know that after I had sufficiently developed my own style, I did start studying actual conventional literary form and so forth, and it helped me to refine.
So keep on doing what you're doing, keep developing without any structure or formal training, but once you think you've sufficiently developed your own style, start studying the conventions just to brush up.
-
So now you know that the notes A B C D E F and G will always work. That doesn't stop you from using the enharmonic notes! It just means that they will be more dissonant in comparison to the notes above. But you might want to use G# if you're going for a Latin feel, or if you want to bust out some neoclassical. A# is a good one if you want to add some severity or darkness to your melody. Or what about F#? That's a pretty solid choice, in the key of A minor, if you want to be a bit bluesy or jazzy.
Or we could just summon the fucking darkness up from the bowels of hell and move C to C# and B to Bb, giving us the phrygian dominant scale.
Why don't you just go and masturbate in the toilet of a jazz club?
-
They wouldn't let me in the front door, because my grasp of theory is far too basic.
-
I also think it's pretty funny how the most prominent metalhead on a forum where most people listen to a form of punk-derived pop rock is the one who is decrying theory.
-
Some more of my newer stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtAq35nu-pc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtAq35nu-pc)
some low key, trip-hop kind of sound on this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCitO90s2s0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCitO90s2s0)
psychedelic improvisation here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yZVIv9vsog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yZVIv9vsog)
psychedelic hardcore punk
-
I'm not a metalhead.
-
What?
-
hey so it turns out that one does not necessarily preclude the other
Some of my favourite records have been created by people who have no idea about music theory, so knowing theory doesn't preclude making good music either
BUT
that being said, I have to hammer home the point that if you play music then you utilize music theory whether you know it or not and so it's kind of absurd to hold out against it like you can possibly insulate yourself against what is effectively a system that gives language to something you already know from instinct.
-
What?
You heard me.
You seem to be making a weird assumption, Johnny, that everyone, in the process of making sounds, automatically arrives at a common system of rhythms and harmonies, and this is always what sounds best to people.
Have you ever heard African or Chinese or indigenous South American music?
-
Theory is a framework for understanding music of any and all types. You seem to be talking about what in the UK I would call "Grade V Theory", which is as limited as using a nineteenth century school grammar is when you come to analyse Joyce.
-
Picasso was an exceptional prodigy. He's hardly an example that holds perfectly across all forms of art. Besides which, there is no equivalent of music theory in painting whatsoever.
-
the way you hold a paintbrush? how you go about various stages of completion? Nobody paints in the same way, but everybody has a method behind it.
-
Besides which, there is no equivalent of music theory in painting whatsoever.
Your saying that music theory (the tonic/dominant shit that I presume is what you're going on about) is worthless because it doesn't apply to all music is about equivalent to saying that perspective is useless because it doesn't apply to all painting. That's to say, it is a quite useless remark in its turn!
-
the way you hold a paintbrush? how you go about various stages of completion? Nobody paints in the same way, but everybody has a method behind it.
But music theory wants everyone to have the same method.
-
That's not theory, that's a bad teacher.
-
You arrange things on staves, using all the symbols and time signatures etc. How is that not rigid.
-
that's not music theory, that's music notation.
for the record, I hate music notation.
-
Music notation is so composers can easily tell musicians what they want them to play.
You can innovate with music notation to express your equally innovative musical ideas.
Can you imagine trying to teach an entire orchestra of musicians a piece of music by sitting down with them and actually learning it by heart? Sight reading is way more efficient in my opinion.
-
What's the point in an orchestra?
I can see why you would need one orchestra, to record stuff on to mp3.
-
Live music sounds better, and each interpretation of the score brings a new perspective to the music...simple as that really...
-
What's the point in an orchestra?
Making orchestral music.
-
Imagine if each member of the orchestra just went away and made music on their own.
It would be 80 times better.
Or however many people there are in an orchestra.
-
okay guys fuck bands, much better music would be made if each individual band member went off and did their own thing.
-
But khar, it wouldn't sound the same. I play the clarinet, but cannot play string instruments. If I wanted to get the sound of 10 violinists playing something I would have to a) learn how to play the thing and then play and record it however many times to get anywhere near a similar sound. Even then every one of those violinists play the piece slightly differently, so it is still not going to sound the same. Also, the skill level of those in an orchestra is much higher than me, so they will be able to understand what is wanted much quicker and will be able to play it more efficiently and generally better than me.
Orchestras would be very hard to replicate, because of all the various elements in the music. You could get the various musicians and record them on different tracks and put it together that way, or you could get them all in a big group and they can work off each other and have a more organic sound. Having all the different parts and adjusting levels on a computer to make it sound right seems like a very clinical way of going about it. My brother is a classical musician, so I have gone and listened to (a ridiculous number of) Wind Orchestra concerts and have been played a huge amount of orchestral music, and saying "let each member go out and make their own music" belittles the amount of work each member puts in to their parts of the music. They all work together and have their own responsibilities and the single piccolo player that has three notes to play in the whole piece is just as important as the lead violinist who has the big solo.
-
okay guys fuck bands, much better music would be made if each individual band member went off and did their own thing.
But the majority of bands write new music. Orchestras just play often boring music dead white dudes wrote. Why the fuck does Mozart ever need to be performed ever again? I'm sure we've got some stonking vinyl lying around. New music is much more interesting.
-
I think it really comes down to the issue of taste. Some people like hearing boring music dead white dudes wrote. Some people actually compose music for orchestras who are not dead, or old, or white! Some people like playing music that dead old white dudes wrote. You don't, I don't, but some people do. Are you going to tell some kid who plays the violin that they will never be able to play the violin part their favourite classical piece because orchestras aren't important so we're not going to have them any more?
Also, what about things like soundtracks for movies? Recording every part individually would take so much more time, money and effort than bringing in an orchestra who are good enough to play what they need to in the time frame.
-
You make a fair point about listening to music written by dead white people. I honestly don't have much interest in mozart either. However, I do know I would at one point enjoy a live performance of music for 18 musicians, simply to name a specific example. I don't think we need to dismiss orchestras altogether, just have them play more interesting (or at least a greater variety of) things.
I mean if you are trying to dismiss the power of live music Khar than your just being a grumpy old man for the sake of being grumpy.
-
I like how people raise to Khar's bait so easily. Is funny! So funny.
-
Khar makes a good points, even if he is just baiting us all or not. I like how this is actually creating a conversation and discussion about musical theory, rather than a "here, look at my music!" thread, or a list thread consisting of song names that we are listening to. I like to think he is being a devil's advocate and getting us to think for once. But, I mean, if you want to just dismiss all of us like that then go ahead!
Is funny! So funny.
-
Hey, if you want to dismiss me like that, go ahead!
I can never tell if he's being serious or disagreeing purely to disagree (Well, here at least - in DISCUSS it's a lot easier to tell). It's still amusing to watch it all unfold.
-
You're the one who came in here and essentially went "oh ho ho, look at you all; arguing with the troll, isn't it cute?". It doesn't really matter if he's being serious or disagreeing for the sake of it. If you don't want to be dismissed maybe you should say something that isn't so easily dismissable.
-
Personally, I think there IS music that's being overplayed which was written by dead white european males. There's room for the classics, and the new and maybe more interesting to us music.
Yeah, Mozart is overplayed, and I'm honestly not much of a fan of his music. If that offends you well then, I don't know what to say.
I think the new thing is mixing live musicians with recordings of electronic music. That seems pretty cool to me and I think we should continue with it. There's also a lot of overlooked compositions from the last century; like stuff from composers such as Toru Takemitsu. And there are some overlooked dead white female european composers that we should revisit. Such as... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1tnzcXPWbI&fmt=18
And some Takemitsu...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT7m9LLB-Ds&fmt=18
Sounds nothing like what those white guys composed.
-
But the majority of bands write new music. Orchestras just play often boring music dead white dudes wrote. Why the fuck does Mozart ever need to be performed ever again? I'm sure we've got some stonking vinyl lying around. New music is much more interesting.
old dead white dudes? sounds like someone hasn't heard of tallarico-sensei's truly monumental achievement, Video Games Live
-
khar's arguments are a wonderful series of arguments in favour of the billion albums of ambient music you can find made by dudes on the internet who have no idea how to write a song or even approach music without turning out the light and fumbling in the darkness like a kid who's never seen a bra before
-
Orchestras just play often boring music dead white dudes wrote.
This is just the same dead-end generalisation that you were using against theory. As a counter-example, Stockhausen got orchestras to improvise en masse - I helped engineer the broadcast of one of these by the BBC Symphony Orchestra when I was at the Beeb (the broadcast wasn't as good as the best of the try-outs, sadly).
-
That doesn't stop you from using the enharmonic notes!
I am glad you like theory so much and stuff, but the word you're looking for is 'accidental.'
-
khar's arguments are a wonderful series of arguments in favour of the billion albums of ambient music you can find made by dudes on the internet who have no idea how to write a song or even approach music without turning out the light and fumbling in the darkness like a kid who's never seen a bra before
Exactly! Lots of that stuff is really good. However, it's also an argument for countless other bands and artists who created and are creating defiant, original, untutored music.
As for arguing against orchestras being arguing against live music, come on. I've been to orchestral performances, it's not live music. It's music entombed. They don't even let you dance or sing along most times. Who the hell wants that kind of joyless experience?
-
I am glad you like theory so much and stuff, but the word you're looking for is 'accidental.'
Both are applicable, since A# is equivalent to Bb. The notes outside A to G are literally enharmonic, or have multiple names that represent the same pitch.
Also Khar refuses to acknowledge
1. That different cultures produced different kinds of musical theory. But they were all theory.
2. Music theory is inherent in any description of individual aspects of music when standardised within one's own perception.
3. Music theory is not a limiting factor because it doesn't lay down laws, just action -> consequence relationships.
4. Standard notation has so many ways to vary and express notes that it hardly managed to limit anyone, anyway.
-
Every note has an enharmonic note. Eb = D#;Ebb = D and so forth. "Playing the enharmonic notes" has no real meaning, because that's what you're doing all of the time every time.
Also I'm of the camp that standard music notation kind of sucks but it's the best thing for what we got. I learned to get on with it, but I like sitting on my butt and not dancing at orchestral and chamber concerts. I don't think that means that it's "music entombed" or anything; there are different ways of appreciation than participation in my opinion.
-
Every note has an enharmonic note. Eb = D#;Ebb = D and so forth. "Playing the enharmonic notes" has no real meaning, because that's what you're doing all of the time every time.
Right, but that just becomes ridiculously superfluous except when using flat accidentals of notes already flat within the key.
-
So, what happens when you reverse the flux polarity of the dicritical bose-einstein condensate and shutter the output on planck time?
-
Explain to me again why grasping the concept of a Bose-Einstein condensate is less difficult than that of music theory, please. I must have missed it the first time around.
ETA -
Okay, sorry for being sarcastic. I don't know which bit of our conversation you're trying to make a statement about - that so much of it is theoretical and impractical to the average person such that they don't know that it is happening? Or are you saying these are pretentious, overcomplicated words and concepts that we use to bolster our own glutted egos? Or some other thing? I'll probably disagree, but for discussion's sake.
-
Specifically the post above mine. I was just whacking off some random star-trek style technobabble off the top of my head.
Perhaps I could feel differently about music theory if it did not seem to be a subjective and arbitrary set of ideas. As far as I'm concerned, if there is more than one possible way of explaining something that has equal validity then both ways of explaining it are probably wrong, or worthless, or just some shit some dude made up that seems to work some of the time. See psychiatry and religion.
-
Can we presume English is the correct language then, since it's the one you're using, and all the others are worthless?
-
Who the hell wants that kind of joyless experience?
Why do you think that people who are not like you are somehow wrong? That does nothing but highlight your own limitations.
-
I would headbang at a Stravinsky concert; people rioted at the first performance of Rite of Spring.
I think part of the problem has to do with people treating this music as being "sacred". It's music just like any other, and we should be able to enjoy it as we see fit.
Movie music is enjoyed by millions, so I don't see why we can't have some badass ballets with explosions and gunfights.
-
Exactly! Lots of that stuff is really good. However, it's also an argument for countless other bands and artists who created and are creating defiant, original, untutored music.
I legitimately want all art to be as democratized as possible but I'd really appreciate it if people didn't take "everyone make art all the time" to mean "don't put any damn effort into it."
-
The "don't put any effort into it" mindset is what separates shitty, but empassioned and therefore somewhat appreciable music from flat-out borefests.
Ultimately, Khar's ears seem closed, but I'll repeat this once more:
Music theory is a system of description more than anything else. It's simply a standardisation of language, in a literal sense. It's a system that allows everyone to use the same language terms to describe their musical ideas. It doesn't actually alter the melodies or harmonies at all. Anyone who knows theory understands how it can only be limiting to those with only the most basic knowledge of it.
I think it's worth noting that plenty of artists that claim not to know theory adhere ridiculously well to its conventions regardless.
Therein pretty much lies another point - not knowing theory doesn't seem to make that much of a difference in terms of inventiveness, and it's generally the learned musicians that are more likely to push boundaries.
-
Can we presume English is the correct language then, since it's the one you're using, and all the others are worthless?
English is a language created democratically by everyone who uses it to speak and read, constantly changing and metamorphosing. Music theory is an elitist and arbitrary system. It is as much barrier as enabler, and all it enables is imitation. And who said "don't put any effort" into it? I've been working on my current album for two years. I'm simply not composing it according to dull and tedious rules. I just do what sounds good, which is all you should ever do.
People are taking my comments about classical music far too seriously. I'm playing devils advocate a lot here, but I do think there's a real core of truth to what I'm saying.
-
Still rather puts paid to your claim that if there are two different but equally worthy ways expressing something both are wrong and/or worthless though. Where you're seeing a confining system others see a means of communicating information, nothing more nor less. English has its rules of grammar and although you can use the language very adeptly without articulating them it can become incredibly hard to help someone else understand the language without being able to tell them the way it works. My ability to articulate grammatical rules is appalling despite being able to use English to a pretty high standard, so when I tried to help out at a conversational English class I found myself unable to help people learn how to do what I can. Grammatical rules are the way to communicate that information just like music theory can be the way to communicate that information about music.
-
English is a language created democratically by everyone who uses it to speak and read, constantly changing and metamorphosing. Music theory is an elitist and arbitrary system. It is as much barrier as enabler, and all it enables is imitation.
False.
In addition, only music notation is in any way elitist, as it was a system commissioned by the Church to set a standard for representing music on paper.
Music theory itself, while having a consistent method of communication throughout genres, follows different conventions depending upon who you talk to, what kind of music education (if any) they've had, what genre of music you're playing, what the role of the notes in the harmony are and much more. Much of this is unofficial. Jazz musicians, for instance, tend to treat things differently than classical musicians when discussing and expressing theory. But both are drawing from the same concepts, much like how some say "to-may-toe" and some say "to-mah-toe". Neither is wrong.
I'm simply not composing it according to dull and tedious rules. I just do what sounds good, which is all you should ever do.
Music theory does not prevent you from doing that and is not, as we have pointed out numerous times, a set of rules. It is a set of language conventions.
If you care to claim otherwise, could you explain, in detail, why I am wrong? I'm not looking for the usual soapboxing here - give me the hard facts on how theory can damage creativity.
-
It damages my creativity, because it is an incomprehensible load of utter garbage.
-
If someone only feels the need to learn the basics of music theory and go no further, they'll be limited in their lack of knowledge. If someone only learns, say, the C major scale, and that's all they'll ever play in, that would be especially damaging, as opposed to just telling them to play what sounds right to them.
Edit: What the hell, when I clicked on the 'go to new post' button it skipped like half a page, which I ended up reading way after I made this post. Son of a ...
-
And who said "don't put any effort" into it?
khar's arguments are a wonderful series of arguments in favour of the billion albums of ambient music you can find made by dudes on the internet who have no idea how to write a song or even approach music without turning out the light and fumbling in the darkness like a kid who's never seen a bra before
Exactly! Lots of that stuff is really good.
this is called "being an enabler"
-
Khar I know that you think you're making REALLY GREAT POINTS with this devil's advocate thing you got going but has it occurred to you that possibly you aren't really changing a lot of minds on theory, you aren't really making very good points, and you're frequently clowning yourself?
-
Has it occured to you that I have mental health and drink problems.
But seriously this shit is properly rooted in Sappir-Whorf etc.
-
Sapir-Whorf (which is not universally accepted) would have some bearing if music required theory in order to be made. But as music can be considered a language of its own, that is not so; theory then should be seen as merely descriptive, explaining aspects of the musical language in terms that enable study and analysis. The use of study and analysis is not to tell you how to write music, but to help you understand why a particular bit of music works as it does - this is useful if it is something you wish to emulate (or repeat, if you wrote it) in another context.
-
Still rather puts paid to your claim that if there are two different but equally worthy ways expressing something both are wrong and/or worthless though. Where you're seeing a confining system others see a means of communicating information, nothing more nor less. English has its rules of grammar and although you can use the language very adeptly without articulating them it can become incredibly hard to help someone else understand the language without being able to tell them the way it works. My ability to articulate grammatical rules is appalling despite being able to use English to a pretty high standard, so when I tried to help out at a conversational English class I found myself unable to help people learn how to do what I can. Grammatical rules are the way to communicate that information just like music theory can be the way to communicate that information about music.
People need to stop using this music theory=syntax analogy because if it was a good analogy (it isn't) all it does is show just how ridiculously broad a definition of "music theory" you are talking about here.
-
It damages my creativity, because it is an incomprehensible load of utter garbage.
I am pretty persistent, and can continue to ask until you give a reasoned answer.
-
A reasoned answer to what?
I've given answers both reasonable and flippant.
Also, this is more the equivalent of him trying to play me at Halo but I don't even own an x-box.
-
That is so apt.
-
Ok, let's lay it out. Musical theory describes a series of sounds and the relation between those sounds. Musical theory is a product of our culture. It is subjective: if you imagine a group of people growing up in some isolated environment where the frequency of all notes had been shifted by 100 hertz, they would see that set of sounds as normal, and would think our general music is weird and sludgy, just as we might think of there's as slightly grating and squeaky (many people, though, might not actually notice. 100 hertz isn't much). In fact, the way one could make the most interesting music is if one had never heard music before. Furthermore, there is an elitism factor involved. The more you know about musical theory, the more you tend to appreciate musicians who employ it in complex ways, even if these complex ways sound like utter shite. Examples of this for me personally would be people whacking off about the 'complex melodies' and time signature changes in garbage like Converge and The Dillinger Escape Plan. Folk musicians got by for thousands of years without even writing music down. I wish I knew even less about music sometimes. Having knowledge of music theory may be great for making music, but only if you want to make reference to music that has come before. A lot of people do, that's great. But I hold that for creating original music, it is not necessary, and can hinder. It's the difference between some barely competent punk band somehow managing to great an amazing, glorious noise and Yngwie fucking Malmsteen giving all the music students a hard-on with just how fast he can work through all the scales.
-
Musical theory describes a series of sounds and the relation between those sounds.
Yes.
Musical theory is a product of our culture. It is subjective: if you imagine a group of people growing up in some isolated environment where the frequency of all notes had been shifted by 100 hertz, they would see that set of sounds as normal, and would think our general music is weird and sludgy, just as we might think of there's as slightly grating and squeaky (many people, though, might not actually notice. 100 hertz isn't much).
It's not subjective. The terms you use to explain things might change, but the note relationships are the same. Add 100 hertz to A and C, and the difference between them is still classified and works as a "minor third", which is just a way of describing the sound that always results when two notes of that aural distance are played together. That's why music theory is such a powerful tool - it not only lacks restrictions, but is relative to where you start or the terms you prefer to use.
In short, only the descriptive terms of music theory and music itself is subjective. The relationship between notes is always the same, and that's what music theory describes. Therefore, music theory describes something observably objective.
Furthermore, there is an elitism factor involved. The more you know about musical theory, the more you tend to appreciate musicians who employ it in complex ways, even if these complex ways sound like utter shite.
That's an opinion bred from ignorance and counter-elitism. I have a strong grasp of theory and I find plenty of modern classical music absolutely atrocious; an awful, cacophonous mess of dissonance without anything clever in its rhythm, harmony or melody. A genre of music seemingly dominated by music school graduates without any grasp of writing pleasing music that look down upon extreme music without understanding that they surpass its "flaws" manyfold.
I am of an opinion that the core of classical music mostly resides in soundtracks - appropriate, given that much of the classical we consider staples of music was written for the same purpose.
Examples of this for me personally would be people whacking off about the 'complex melodies' and time signature changes in garbage like Converge and The Dillinger Escape Plan. Folk musicians got by for thousands of years without even writing music down.
Folk musicians got by for thousands of years with poor intonation and the same bloody songs, not to mention a general lack of musical progression which, in turn, showcases a lack of creativity. In comparison, when the Church organised music in a way that previous music could be referenced, progression was made possible as all the previous music did not have to be repeated to be kept. Therefore, from European folk music and Gregorian chants we developed baroque, and from it classical, and from that, romantic.
There was also the blues/jazz progression from the slave community of North America, which eventually allowed for the creation of the various kinds of rock music. I think that implies that referencing previous music allows for more progression, with the amount of progression essentially defined by the amount of music one has to draw from. Think about Led Zeppelin, and their combination of hard rock, blues and folk elements. It's still weird today.
I wish I knew even less about music sometimes. Having knowledge of music theory may be great for making music, but only if you want to make reference to music that has come before. A lot of people do, that's great.
All music references what you've heard before. That's the nature of the way we store information and express ourselves, and applying language terms to the elements you hear changes absolutely nothing at all.
But I hold that for creating original music, it is not necessary, and can hinder. It's the difference between some barely competent punk band somehow managing to great an amazing, glorious noise and Yngwie fucking Malmsteen giving all the music students a hard-on with just how fast he can work through all the scales.
You ignore that punk bands, even in the early days during the 70s, were calling upon what they considered the true spirit of rock and roll, so they were always going to reference rock bands that developed before the explosion of progressive rock. In addition, if you look at the chord progressions of many punk bands, you'll find that the actual harmony of the music isn't what's original - it's the way they upped the ante with rhythm and dissonance. Most punk is a bit of melodic singing, a bit of yelling, some rock 'n' roll riffs and a whole lot of major chords. There's nothing mind-bogglingly magical about it - it can just be incredibly effective.
It must be noted that Yngwie, much like punk, has to be judged according to the context of his time. No-one really did what he was doing - applying classical violin phrasing to guitar. Richie Blackmore did it to an extent, but Blackmore called upon his classical phrasing like Iron Maiden calls upon their harmony riffs, while the rest of his phrasing was powerfully rooted in the blues. Yngwie, while studying phrasing more conventionally rock 'n' roll as well, did something entirely new by making the majority of his melodic phrasing so firmly entrenched in Baroque music. What's amazing about Yngwie is less his speed, and more how easily he calls upon melodic phrases that are distinctly sweeping and wide in scope without sacrificing the intensity of speed.
Because of Yngwie, we had amazing guitarists like Jason Becker and Marty Friedman. His phrasing has become a staple influence on death metal, due to the compatibility of the genre with the sinister diminished arpeggio, a favourite of Yngwie. Decapitated and Necrophagist are highly notable examples of death metal bands that would be nowhere near as interesting without Yngwie's influence.
-
you two are talking about creativity like it's a d&d stat
-
also this
Furthermore, there is an elitism factor involved. The more you know about musical theory, the more you tend to appreciate musicians who employ it in complex ways, even if these complex ways sound like utter shite
is super funny because you're literally railing against people who are able to broaden their tastes, their ability to appreciate music and/or their ability to discuss that music beyond the accurate but super-reductive "if it sounds good, it is good"
-
I think music theory is pretty fun sometimes.
I don't like the OPs music. Sorry OP.
-
is super funny because you're literally railing against people who are able to broaden their tastes, their ability to appreciate music and/or their ability to discuss that music beyond the accurate but super-reductive "if it sounds good, it is good"
This is absolutely untrue. Broadening taste is not equivalent to improving it. It is not a requirement that I be able to expound on the subtle flavours of shite bef0re saying thst I do not like eating turds.Also madassaex devoted a space longer than my post to expounding the merits of yngwie cuntshitting nunfucking arsedevouring malmsteen, so I now win forever.
-
It's lucky Johnny wasn't talking about improving taste in the first place. Not to mention that "improving" one's musical taste is an act so subjective as to be effectively meaningless anyway.
You don't have to know about music, or shit, to know you don't like it. But it helps if you want to explain why.
-
That was khar, in case anyone couldn't tell.
-
This is absolutely untrue. Broadening taste is not equivalent to improving it.
Broad taste is the closest thing one can have to "good taste", which is ridiculously subjective. Broad taste allows one to appreciate a large variety of musical elements and viewpoints, which is more important in my book than necessarily listening to the bands that are considered the best.
It is not a requirement that I be able to expound on the subtle flavours of shite bef0re saying thst I do not like eating turds. Also madassaex devoted a space longer than my post to expounding the merits of yngwie cuntshitting nunfucking arsedevouring malmsteen, so I now win forever.
As opposed to you devoting exactly one sentence to an objective statement? Subjectivity cannot win a debate of this nature.
-
...you..cannot win a debate of this nature.
-
As opposed to you devoting exactly one sentence to an objective statement? Subjectivity cannot win a debate of this nature.
did you just try and make the claim that is possible for objectivity to have any relevance in a debate about musical taste?
i mean, i disagree with khar pretty strongly here but this is just silly
-
Clearly I am not, as I rejected that idea in the same post. I was commenting on Khar's method of debate, where he substitutes raw opinion where reason should be.
-
Imagine going to a party without any knowledge of human beings, social etiquette, basic local or global culture, clothes, music, literature, fashion or design... Would that be interesting? Yes (people would laugh and point fingers), but totally unoriginal and stupifyingly meaningless.
That is the same as saying music (art in general) should be untainted by outside impressions to be interesting/original/good/stimulating.
Learn what you can about what you like and then use it.
-
Clearly I am not, as I rejected that idea in the same post. I was commenting on Khar's method of debate, where he substitutes raw opinion where reason should be.
Subjectivity cannot win a debate of this nature.
ok now i'm confused. subjectivity is the only thing that's relevant in a debate of this nature. it's personal preference, more or less.
-
Imagine going to a party without any knowledge of human beings, social etiquette, basic local or global culture, clothes, music, literature, fashion or design... Would that be interesting? Yes (people would laugh and point fingers), but totally unoriginal and stupifyingly meaningless.
I would just like to say (since I cannot talk about music but boy howdy can I talk about parties) that the least interesting people at any given party are the ones with the well refined opinions on these topics you list and the best people to have fun with are the ones that don't have carefully honed senses of etiquette
god what is with you music nerds and bad analogies
-
the least interesting people at any given party are the ones with the well refined opinions on [basic local or global culture, clothes, music, literature, fashion or design]
this isn't remotely true
e: at a stretch i guess fashion can be kinda boring to talk about
-
Johnny don't take this the wrong way but nobody has ever jumped a motorbike over anything on fire at any of the parties you go to, have they?
-
What I am saying is that maybe it is possible to find those kinds of parties interesting if you are also the kind of person who would engage in an entirely arbitrary debate on music theory on the internet
-
That's a bad analogy if I ever saw one. At a party those who have a high sense of etiquette stay with those of high etiquette, but that's just human behavior.
If you're talking about music, most people (except fanboys but those exist in any culture) aren't uptight about music in general. Sure they may not like another type of music but mostly musicians respect and exchange with other musicians. And that has nothing to do with the original argument...
The real point is that in music, "rules" are no rules. They are a guideline to how previous music has been made, what works, etc. And once you know what has been made, you can try to do something else, while retaining musicality. Hence the fact that Music Theory is also interesting if you want to think outside of the box.
-
Johnny don't take this the wrong way but nobody has ever jumped a motorbike over anything on fire at any of the parties you go to, have they?
you're right, i don't have any interest in nascar, monster truck rallies or voting for john mccain. why do you ask
-
*needs fire, things which amuse children, drug abuse in order to enjoy self*
-
i wish i knew how to "party"
-
Johnny I am really sorry that your idea of unwinding from the stress and minutia of everyday life is to sit around a table sipping tea and discussing critical theory instead of doing whatever the fuck you feel like and enjoying yourself
-
Also the whole Motorbikes + fire = NASCAR PARTY assumption was pretty fucking insulting dude you do realise that, right?
-
as is the implication that either you're a sober, straight-laced uptight asshole who has no idea how to unwind or you are the only person worth spending leisure time with???
-
the nascar thing was only off the mark insofar as the other type of dude who likes to party that way is the sort of guy who incessantly held up student union meetings a couple years back because he kept petitioning them to immediately and unconditionally end their contract with Killer Coke despite the fact that it would cost the union an exorbitant amount of money (thanks shitty contract! there has to be a way out of you but it isn't that way)
-
maybe and this is just a wild guess but maybe it is entirely possible to enjoy yourself and also know things
-
as is the implication that either you're a sober, straight-laced uptight asshole who has no idea how to unwind or you are the only person worth spending leisure time with???
I didn't say that you are making inferences dude are you ok I was about to just abuse the shit out of you for basically being an elitist asshole but basically this sounds like stress posting to me do you want a hug, maybe I can send you a soothing picture of baby ducks?
-
maybe and this is just a wild guess but maybe it is entirely possible to enjoy yourself and also know things
I do this all the time
why do you assume I don't know this
-
I didn't say that you are making inferences dude are you ok I was about to just abuse the shit out of you for basically being an elitist asshole but basically this sounds like stress posting to me do you want a hug, maybe I can send you a soothing picture of baby ducks?
you're right i have no clue where i could have got that ide
Johnny I am really sorry that your idea of unwinding from the stress and minutia of everyday life is to sit around a table sipping tea and discussing critical theory instead of doing whatever the fuck you feel like and enjoying yourself
-
Are you trying to say that you need to drink alcohol to have a good time dude because that is not cool
also note how practically everything in the world worth doing is hyponymous with "doing whatever the fuck you feel like" so don't feel restricted or anything by my judgement of you.
-
well "i'm sorry that your idea of unwinding from the stress and minutia of everyday life is to do whatever the fuck you feel like and enjoy yourself instead of doing whatever the fuck you feel like and enjoying yourself" isn't particularly coherent so you'll have to excuse me for failing to remix your sentence that way.
to address your concern from further up this page, i'm being sarcastic and glib because this whole conversation is super dumb and everyone, myself included, is creating these false dichotomies with like no room for any leeway and it's completely ridiculous. normally "please be polite" is my motto but mostly i just don't have the energy to do it in this thread. sorry!
also i had a super fun pair of weekends and now i'm mostly just unwinding and detoxing so actually life is quite pleasant but i appreciate the concern.
-
dude you are arguing with an idiot here I don't know what a false dichotomy is maybe use a dumbed down version when talking to me like "bullshit distinctions" or something
-
ok now i'm confused. subjectivity is the only thing that's relevant in a debate of this nature. it's personal preference, more or less.
Music taste is personal preference. But the elements of music that make it what it is can be objectively defined and described.
But I suppose what I was really saying was "jeez khar i think you're kind of being an asshole by refusing to return the respect i've shown you by trying to post coherent arguments on a constant basis instead of restating your opinion".
I mean, music theory is a set of designations. That is A Fact. If all musical sound was shifted up or down a certain distance, the relationships between notes would not alter. This is also A Fact. Music theory does not have to be a limiting factor when it comes to composition and improvisation. Another Fact, since a musician is free to ignore theory if they choose to do so. If they are limited by theory, then they are probably not creative in the first place, as they allow themselves to be restricted by designations.
Basically what I am saying with my argument is "I think music theory is a good thing and here are some facts about music theory that support my claim".
-
a musician is free to ignore theory if they choose to do so. If they are limited by theory, then they are probably not creative in the first place
After all, they can produce a new theory to suit their inclinations if the old one no longer fits. Oh yes, so they did! - both Schoenberg and Hindemith designed new theories to suit the music they wanted to write (and wrote books on them), as did Bartók (who didn't). And probably lots of people I know less about. As far as I can see, though, Stockhausen took Khar's view (but also went pretty much barking mad - this may be unrelated).
Allowing yourself to be limited by nineteenth-century music theory (I used to have a copy of Ebenezer Prout's 12-volume work on it, which I now see goes for $50 a volume - bother!) is about as admirable as arguing about nineteenth-century grammarian's rules like the split infinitive or dangling preposition.
-
What a ridiculous argument. Why did we even have this argument?
-
I think music theory is fantastic. What are we talking about?
All those little squiggles and things are so pretty.
-
If the tails are hanging down you can draw little ears on them and imagine them being tiny musical cats.
-
if they're pointing up, draw ears on them anyway and say they're vampire cats.
-
i have a new musical theory i'd like to run by you guys.
it's fairly simple and follows only three rules:
1) all notes must be followed by a lower note, never higher* **
2)*unless there is a blast beat in between. blast beats are the only way to reset back to a higher note.
3) all songs must be about either kittens or revolution, but never both. this is important.
it will revolutionize the music industry.
** an equivilant note would also be acceptable, i guess
-
After you take the industry by storm and make this the new default, I will overthrow you by releasing my breakthrough album, "Revolutionary Kittens".
-
I'll just say that I find music theory confusing and scary and that makes me dislike it.
-
So Jens, you're saying people can generally easily correlate the idea of moving in one direction with making higher sounds and moving in the other direction with making lower sounds.
Fascinating.
-
Now, see, that rips Yngwie Malmsteens fucking legs off and pisses up the stumps.
-
So Jens, you're saying people can generally easily correlate the idea of moving in one direction with making higher sounds and moving in the other direction with making lower sounds.
Fascinating.
I haven't actually watched what Jens linked but yes, that is a fascinating concept when you think about it. Why do we think of a low note as being lower in space? Or a high note as being up in the air? I would have presumed this was just cultural conditioning but if not that really is an interesting idea!
-
Also, I think what the guy is trying to show in that particular video is that in him moving in one direction everyone could have sung a note that was different (but higher), but even though he didn't specify the next note, the audience all sang the same one. And that no matter where he did it the audiences were able to do that.
-
Maybe that is a function of group psychology? What happens when you do that test on individuals? What happens when you do that test in a group of, say, Chinese traditional musicians?
I mean I liked the clip and all (well, the Bobby McFerrin one, didn't watch the whole panel), but I dunno if it answers all those questions.
-
They used the pentatonic major scale (C - D - E - G - A, if this helps you), which is probably the most common scale in the world. AFAIK it exists in every kind of folk music (with small differences in the exact frequency of the notes for the local flavour) and it's the base of many other scales such as western major (add F and B) or blues major (add Eb and Bb).
-
There's only one rule you really need to know for music theory.
All songs can be improved by putting a banging donk on it.
-
Jazz-blues song I made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JgYWfiIqg0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JgYWfiIqg0)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A1LrNQCMic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A1LrNQCMic)
new trippy song I just made. This is probably going to be the last time I bump this thread
-
The Notes & Neurons video was awesome ... thank you for sharing that. It was right up there with The Music Instinct.
So the OP's music somewhat reminded me of Tim Hecker. If you haven't heard of Tim Hecker, I would say he is one of the most prominent and dare I say revolutionary composers of ambient music. However, Tim Hecker is leaps and bounds ahead of the OP's. What black_chamber has going for him is his production quality - (although there was a track I listened to which had some really harsh clipping going on).