The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians [Archive]

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:11 AM

MYSELF.

Just to respond to everyone first:

-In my heavily biased opinion-

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer. None of the known performers do any composition whatsoever, and if they do, the underlying reason for their fame speaks volumes anyway. Technical mastery is impressive, and especially so when carried out flawlessly, but anything that can be acquired through "monkey see, monkey do" should lose its sheen. The secret to technique lies in practice, carrying an oxymoronic connotation of sorts due to the rather simplistic nature of practice and the obvious relevance of its merits. The merits alone point toward the explanation behind practice's existence.

Strictly speaking in the classical realm, if performers don't compose, then all they have going for them on a musician's level is this laughably esoteric concept they always fall back on in arguments: interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth. Interpretation basically entails three things: rubato, dynamics, and articulation, all at the performer's discretion. Does mastery over the trivialities (another oxymoron) that even infants could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges, carry any sort of weight or bearing, when classical music is an institution whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate rather than create, to be spoonfed skewed musical perceptions of what's right rather than self-realize? This is an industry that whores so much money by producing a jizzfest of knockoffs of the same piece when the only thing differing is this inane concept called interpretation. Training oneself to the point where one can dictate whether Horowitz or Wilhelm Kempff possesses a higher level of interpretation is somewhat like a mental placebo, so to speak.

That being said, at the end of the day, when I see the passion on Kempff's face while he's playing Beethoven's Third Movement of Moonlight Sonata, or just by hearing what came of Perlman's efforts to commit Paganini's 24 Caprices to audio, I can't help but respect them. The thing is though, I respect Beethoven and Paganini so much more. Perlman is incredible because he's the first person to be able to duplicate the 24 Caprices with enough accuracy to commit them to vinyl, but in the end all he hasn't composed a thing and all he's doing is calling forth an insane amount of pyro-technicality. It's not impressive when a computer plays it through midi, so by the same token it's only sensible that it's not impressive when a human does it, unless you think it's impressive being able to copy a computer (in which case I retract my entire argument and erase my account). If I copied David Blaine's entire act, I'd be called a knockoff and given no attention. If I copied Houdini's entire act, I'd be regarded as a genius because of my ability to mimic his unreal level of showmanship and finesse. If 50 people copied Houdini, we'd all experience what would happen if one person copied David Blaine. Funny thing is, no one bothers to call any classical musician a Beethoven knockoff, or a Chopin knockoff.

Most "art" these days is either completely meaningless or completely worthless. We live in a day and age where you can accurately call Stairway to Heaven a great form, the Mona Lisa an incredible song, and a beautiful samurai form a nice portrait. We live in a day and age where shit can pass as art. Art's been tainted by things such as MTV and it's acquired this strange, liberal, and too open-ended global understanding that's completely different than the understandings held by the artists themselves. A three chord song passes of as a genius composition that can top the charts, and you can probably find three paint blobs of contrasting colors in some avant-garde museum in France that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality, which is what the seller uses to argue his price of 5,000 euros. Whenever Houdini is as old as Beethoven is now, maybe we'll start seeing what's acceptable or not in the art of deception through a different lens.

Now that's out of the way, as a musician, I don't really have a greatest accomplishment, just really small things here and there that carry a lot of meaning to me. Some of these accomplishments are:

- 99% of the time I'm second guessing myself. I'm almost never happy with where I am musically, so when I surprise myself (which is extremely, extremely, extremely rare), it gives me a good feeling because I actually feel like I'm competent at something. Here are some of those few times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFIAb2X-YAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7YFWalWlLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKdZQCLm7YQ

- Finally coming to the understanding that art is just expression, and being able to consciously express myself to the fullest whenever I pick up an instrument, or listen to music.

- Receiving a special comment or email. I receive plenty of half-assed comments like "COOL! jajajajaja," but once in a while I get something like,

"thats some unbelievable improve dude, whenever i watch one of your vids it always makes my day seem a little brighter... kudos."

or

"Hey,

first I should excuse for my lame English, because I'm a bloody German :smile:

Just want to say that you are one of my favorites on youtube. Not that I have any others lol. Ever day when I come home from work I immediately turn on some of your videos. Wonder if you have a CD or something like that? Would be nice to get some of your stuff as mp3. I really think your one of the best guitarist on the whole planet. You have a really rare talent and you probably one of the best guitarist on the whole planet, keep it up! Also I like the kind of music you play. Definatly my style :smile: But also makes me kind of sad, because I know I will never get in range of your skill on guitar :smile:"

It gives me a reason to play music other than for myself. It's the most humbling thing to see how you can be so meaningful to a complete stranger.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:12 AM

MEPH.

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer. None of the known performers do any composition whatsoever

this ain't true. there are a large number of famous performers who have done fantastic arrangements, adaptations, and original compositions that are well known. you saying this tells me that you're a well spoken but musically illiterate person...else you would have remembered liszt, paganini, bach, buxtehude, chopin, debussy...

Technical mastery is impressive, and especially so when carried out flawlessly, but anything that can be acquired through "monkey see, monkey do" should lose its sheen. The secret to technique lies in practice, carrying an oxymoronic connotation of sorts due to the rather simplistic nature of practice and the obvious relevance of its merits. The merits alone point toward the explanation behind practice's existence.
if there's one thing i've learned in college, it's that practice is in no way simplistic and easy. while your statement above says 'you get good by practicing, duh' with a bunch of bling added on to make it look good, you should know that practicing is in no way an easy thing to do. it's possibly one of the most learning to practice was one of the most valuable things i learned at college, in all reality. just because you're technically good doesn't mean that you're truly a good musician.

Strictly speaking in the classical realm, if performers don't compose, then all they have going for them on a musician's level is this laughably esoteric concept they always fall back on in arguments: interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth. Interpretation basically entails three things: rubato, dynamics, and articulation, all at the performer's discretion. Does mastery over the trivialities (another oxymoron) that even infants could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges, carry any sort of weight or bearing, when classical music is an institution whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate rather than create, to be spoonfed skewed musical perceptions of what's right rather than self-realize? This is an industry that whores so much money by producing a jizzfest of knockoffs of the same piece when the only thing differing is this inane concept called interpretation. Training oneself to the point where one can dictate whether Horowitz or Wilhelm Kempff possesses a higher level of interpretation is somewhat like a mental placebo, so to speak.
this entire paragraph is an enormous load of bullshit, fyi. it also proves that your definition of music doesn't extend beyond HOSHIT INSANE GEETAR SOLO because you don't understand that. is the jazz pianist at your school as good as Herbie Hancock because he can comp chords too? of course not, and it's not because of Herbie's insane knowledge of style and his crazy technique. it's because Herbie's got a pocket so deep that a four-year-old could play in it and sound hot. interpretation is one of the most difficult things to really, truly understand for non-musicians because of the depth behind it, just like in an incredibly complex piece of artwork or a beautiful sunset or anything like that. and the fact that you're saying that a performer's ability is determined solely by interpretation is just as wrong. stage presence, interpretation, research skills, and the ability to theorize and execute a musical idea are all important aspects of a performer's ability - while we often laud interpretation because of the fact that it gets the lion's share of the time in the news, those are all just as important. interpretation is by no means trivialities, either - if someone went through to play a really great solo piece and hit every note, but it sounded lifeless and dead, is that a good performance? no! it's the interpretation that MAKES it art, not in spite of it.

That being said, at the end of the day, when I see the passion on Kempff's face while he's playing Beethoven's Third Movement of Moonlight Sonata, or just by hearing what came of Perlman's efforts to commit Paganini's 24 Caprices to audio, I can't help but respect them. The thing is though, I respect Beethoven and Paganini so much more. Perlman is incredible because he's the first person to be able to duplicate the 24 Caprices with enough accuracy to commit them to vinyl, but in the end all he hasn't composed a thing and all he's doing is calling forth an insane amount of pyro-technicality. It's not impressive when a computer plays it through midi, so by the same token it's only sensible that it's not impressive when a human does it, unless you think it's impressive being able to copy a computer (in which case I retract my entire argument and erase my account). If I copied David Blaine's entire act, I'd be called a knockoff and given no attention. If I copied Houdini's entire act, I'd be regarded as a genius because of my ability to mimic his unreal level of showmanship and finesse. If 50 people copied Houdini, we'd all experience what would happen if one person copied David Blaine. Funny thing is, no one bothers to call any classical musician a Beethoven knockoff, or a Chopin knockoff.
more bullshit. you're just writing words with no idea to what they mean. particularly since your first sentence screws with everything you just said. although i think your houdini metaphor raises an interesting question, you're forgetting something. houdini didn't do his act with the idea that people would do it over again. beethoven and wagner and bach and palestrina wrote music to be performed, over and over and over again - and the people we say are fantastic performers are the ones that can do that music EXACTLY as it was in the composer's head.

Most "art" these days is either completely meaningless or completely worthless. We live in a day and age where you can accurately call Stairway to Heaven a great form, the Mona Lisa an incredible song, and a beautiful samurai form a nice portrait. We live in a day and age where shit can pass as art. Art's been tainted by things such as MTV and it's acquired this strange, liberal, and too open-ended global understanding that's completely different than the understandings held by the artists themselves. A three chord song passes of as a genius composition that can top the charts, and you can probably find three paint blobs of contrasting colors in some avant-garde museum in France that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality, which is what the seller uses to argue his price of 5,000 euros. Whenever Houdini is as old as Beethoven is now, maybe we'll start seeing what's acceptable or not in the art of deception through a different lens.
don't get me wrong, i agree with you here. society has lost a lot of depth of understanding in the art work in the past few hundred years. that said, i'm a modernist when it comes to artwork. that does not mean, however, that all art nowadays is worthless, or that the art that's been done in previous times is not any good either.

do i understand the point you're attempting to get at? not really - as a performer it doesn't make much sense to depreciate your role. you saying that anyone can do what you do on guitar (which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already) by just repeating endlessly. but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms - and until you understand that (which, it's not a concept that an infant can understand, trust me on that), you really aren't as good as you think you are. in general, no one is, but you definitely aren't.

edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:33 AM

MYSELF.

this ain't true. there are a large number of famous performers who have done fantastic arrangements, adaptations, and original compositions that are well known. you saying this tells me that you're a well spoken but musically illiterate person...else you would have remembered liszt, paganini, bach, buxtehude, chopin, debussy...

I definitely know all of them, and I'm glad you know them too. They're really great composers. Kinda why I didn't include them in my argument against musicians that stick to exclusively performing (which include most of, if not all, members of most philharmonics for example). Paganini's a rather special case, because he was probably more known for his electrifying performances and showmanship than his amazing compositions (which are amazing beyond a doubt, but his ability to write polyphonic music is questionable and if he can't graduate beyond writing single-line violin pieces.. he sorta loses some of his grandness.) And I also recognize that all of these composers are performers, but I thought it was just the most understood concept that a composer be able to perform his own works (haha, in this day and age I can't even get away with saying something like that.). The inverse isn't true, however, which was kinda my initial point.

if there's one thing i've learned in college, it's that practice is in no way simplistic and easy. while your statement above says 'you get good by practicing, duh' with a bunch of bling added on to make it look good, you should know that practicing is in no way an easy thing to do. it's possibly one of the most learning to practice was one of the most valuable things i learned at college, in all reality. just because you're technically good doesn't mean that you're truly a good musician.

You're preaching to the choir. You're the charismatic loud pastor with saliva flying out like a rapper drops curse words, and I'm the all-black choir who hears your message every single Sunday. I couldn't give two shits less about how fast someone is. Obviously the most important thing is whether the speed was a consequence of an emotion the artist felt he could only express with blisteringly fast runs, and not the opposite. Technique for the sake of technique seems almost contradictory. I think practice starts and ends with technique, and only serves as a means to further technique. Disregarding instruments with easy access to subtleties (i.e. the bend on a guitar or saxophone), technique is all about expressing a phrase the most efficiently, sorta like how I wouldn't downpick an entire arpeggio if I had sweep picking at my disposal.. but I don't think I would be any better off in that regard (or any, really) if I had a teacher. You'd have to be pretty short of just retarded to try and downpick an Yngwie song or try and play Fantasie Impromptu with just four fingers. In the end, technique is just a means of efficiency. You don't learn how to better interpret a piece by practicing it, interpretation is all theory and practice is active. Practice is making yourself comfortable with the technical aspects of the song, and familiarizing yourself with the theory. And in that sense, you do get good by practicing, and it looks like you agree with me. Ever hear, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect?" The only thing you can build on a crooked foundation is an unstable building.

I've never practiced a day in my life, at least by conventional means. I just play a lot, or at least, I used to, and that was the easiest thing in the world. What you guys do, cooped up in small practice rooms playing songs you probably don't even want to play and having to perfect them over the course of several months, yeah, that's tons of work, grueling work that I'd hate to be doing. So, kudos, I guess. I wish I'd played more when I had the chance, because for playing for four years I'm not really where I want to be. I'd agree with that a lot of my licks are sloppy.

this entire paragraph is an enormous load of bullshit, fyi. it also proves that your definition of music doesn't extend beyond HOSHIT INSANE GEETAR SOLO because you don't understand that. is the jazz pianist at your school as good as Herbie Hancock because he can comp chords too? of course not, and it's not because of Herbie's insane knowledge of style and his crazy technique. it's because Herbie's got a pocket so deep that a four-year-old could play in it and sound hot. interpretation is one of the most difficult things to really, truly understand for non-musicians because of the depth behind it, just like in an incredibly complex piece of artwork or a beautiful sunset or anything like that. and the fact that you're saying that a performer's ability is determined solely by interpretation is just as wrong. stage presence, interpretation, research skills, and the ability to theorize and execute a musical idea are all important aspects of a performer's ability - while we often laud interpretation because of the fact that it gets the lion's share of the time in the news, those are all just as important.

Wow. Just wow. Look at yourself man, you know a sentence in my autobiography and you're already spitting off presumptuous claims about how I view music. Yngwie, out of 282 artists in my music library, is the only guitar driven artist I have. I mean I could just stop there. Seriously.

It's the most painfully obvious thing that you wanted to segue into that Herbie Hancock phrase because you heard your teacher say it in Jazz improv class and since then, have wanted to use it in any context so badly. Aside from that, let me clarify my definitions to you such that they're beyond a shadow of a doubt. Composer: one who composes. Performer: one who performs. LOL. I didn't mean for you to take any implication of live performance, but the misconception is easily understandable. Someone who merely plays and doesn't compose is what I meant by "performer." Music is an auditory art, so I'm talking from a purely auditory perspective. As for the Herbie Hancock remark, I completely agree, but I respect him for his ability to compose. I've never seen the dude live, I could care less what his stage presence is like. You see an artist live after you've heard their recordings. Tell me, why do you go to concerts? To see whoever's playing, right? Exactly, the primary appeal of concerts lies in the visual and social aspects of it, not the auditory. The audio for live shows sucks more often than not anyway, because there're the acoustics of the venue to account for, as well as a shitton of reverb and sound bleeding. Not to mention the balance is always geared to favor the guitarist, but everything's so loud it just ends up sounding like someone puking (joke). Capturing the audience's attention well is in the vein of entertainment, not composing. My whole argument here is that people who just play others' works suck, so however well one's stage presence may be is somewhat irrelevant, because in the end he still hasn't composed a thing.

About theorizing and executing musical ideas- tell me, do you do any original thinking, or do you just regurgitate what your teacher tells you? I'm pretty sure you just play your pieces for him or her and you get corrected and taught what's "right". It doesn't seem like there's any theorizing or anything musical about institutional education, whatever song you're playing, the hardest part's already been taken care of. And I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to argue that interpreting any of the legendary classical pieces would be harder than it was for them to compose the pieces. Vivaldi actually went out of his way to meticulously outline what every section was supposed to represent (this passage is indicative of ice skating, etc.). You've got composing taken care of, and your teacher to spoon feed you the interpretation. I really don't get what the hard part is.

Your comment on research skills caught my interest. Could you give me an example of what type of research you've done to perform a piece, and why?

interpretation is by no means trivialities, either - if someone went through to play a really great solo piece and hit every note, but it sounded lifeless and dead, is that a good performance? no! it's the interpretation that MAKES it art, not in spite of it.

Well duh. But don't think you deserve a pat on the back just because you're able to play a piece back with emotion. Any human with sense of emotion should be able to do that. There are millions of people who've played Beethoven, but there's only been one Beethoven. Out of those millions, whom have had the creative capacity to actually, I dunno, CREATE, rather than emulate?

more bullshit. you're just writing words with no idea to what they mean. particularly since your first sentence screws with everything you just said. although i think your houdini metaphor raises an interesting question, you're forgetting something. houdini didn't do his act with the idea that people would do it over again. beethoven and wagner and bach and palestrina wrote music to be performed, over and over and over again - and the people we say are fantastic performers are the ones that can do that music EXACTLY as it was in the composer's head.

Stop being so dense. I can respect Horowitz and Perlman as amazing human beings, and as amazing performers. But being a performer doesn't carry nearly the connotation as being a composer does. It doesn't matter if Beethoven wanted his pieces to be played by others, the fact that he wrote it still remains unchanged, in stone. I mean I play Beethoven from time to time and I'm a crappy pianist, but I don't think he's greater than I just because I can't replicate his works well. I think he's greater than me because he can compose with an air of greatness far greater than what I could hope to even dream of.

don't get me wrong, i agree with you here. society has lost a lot of depth of understanding in the art work in the past few hundred years. that said, i'm a modernist when it comes to artwork. that does not mean, however, that all art nowadays is worthless, or that the art that's been done in previous times is not any good either.

Definitely. The self-expression which unarguably drives all art is timeless. Judging a piece's worth by its spot in time is just as fallacious as calling a gay person a communist.

do i understand the point you're attempting to get at? not really - as a performer it doesn't make much sense to depreciate your role. you saying that anyone can do what you do on guitar (which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already) by just repeating endlessly. but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms - and until you understand that (which, it's not a concept that an infant can understand, trust me on that), you really aren't as good as you think you are. in general, no one is, but you definitely aren't.

edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

I never said that anyone could do what I did on a guitar, but I'm not denying it. Technically speaking, it's not really impressive at all, but who the hell listens to music for technique. If your reading comprehension skills were up to par, you might've even caught this!

:shock::shock:

99% of the time I'm second guessing myself. I'm almost never happy with where I am musically.

:shock::shock:

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:33 AM

MYSELF (CONT).

(which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already)

You're probably referring to the jazz video, right? You've seen one of my videos, and you make this retardedly ignorant assumption about my guitar playing. Christ, and I thought I was narrow-minded at times.

but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms

I'm guessing you hate Yngwie J. Malmsteen? I think I could've done a better job on note choice at the end solo, but for the most part I didn't play a note that I didn't want to or think wouldn't fit. I mean I'm not a purist of any genre, so I guess I should apologize to all jazz musicians for using distortion and a whammy bar. I know there's more than notes and rhythms, and you're probably going to say, "The WAY you play the note." I've heard that about a thousand times, and then some. I kind of hate how teachers have to be so cryptic, but I can't really blame them since that's probably how they were taught anyway. What goes in goes out, there's no magical quality to it. The WAY one hits a note is the same thing as breaking it down into timing, clarity/articulation, and dynamics. There's nothing else to it really.

P.S.: Also, don't rag on me for my style man. I know five years olds who have better argumentative ammunition so don't stoop to that level- you don't need it. I'm not going to apologize for not dressing like a token videogame fan. At the end of the night, does my choice to wear a ring or a watch affect you in any small degree of significance?

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:35 AM

PROMETHEUS.
Mmmm.. taking part on this xRisingForcex VS Prophet of Mephisto argument, I have to stand on RisingForce's side.

Performers are truly overrated. The fact that you see the music coming throught them, sometimes makes people think they made that music, when they actually did not. The amount of musical elements you can control in a piece as a performer are LIMITED, VERY LIMITED, and normally you have to stick strictly to the damn paper, playing exactly all the notes written on it.

The strict, musical-school-taught performers are extremely overrated. They just do what is in the paper. If they do an arrangement of the piece, cool, is their life... but when they play the piece the way it is, they're just playing what someone else thought once. Let's get a cool methaphor.
A composer is someone who creates a cool, catchy phrase.
For example:
"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. " - Albert Einstein.

If I now repeat the phrase, I will become an interpreter of it (and not it's composer). Since my voice sucks I will be a bad interpreter of it. But, give the phrase to someone with a cool voice and a cool image... imagine Bruce Willis saying
"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. "
Okay,.. sounds cooler because of the voice, but the message is STILL THE SAME . Bruce Willis NEVER discovered that E = M*C^2 , he just said the damn phrase

To be a music-college performer, you need technique and MECHANICAL TRAINING... Just moving the fingers... over and over.. practice the movement,.. get speed. It's really a lot of work, but it's not the intelligent training Prophet of Mephisto says.

I've spent 8 years learning piano in a music college, and got highest marks, but i stopped because i was bored and i was sick of playing someone else's pieces.

Jazz performers are different. A jazz piece is an excuse for interpretation, creating a whole world from 5 or 6 pentagrams. A jazz partiture is, in some way an attemp to create an "organised improvisation". Jazz musicians are on the border of composition, so... they're not really overrated. They almost create from very few notes that are written on the pentagrams.

To be a jazz performer, you need INTELLIGENT training... specially like playing with bands and such.

I realised that a couple of months ago, when i started learning jazz. Still , I havent got a band, but im trying to figure out some stuff to practice.

But... WTF?... I think you guys should create a thread in the forum and keep discussing this there.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:37 AM

MEPH.
being a composer myself, i can tell you that while composition is hard - really hard - performing is more so because as a composer, you have an eraser.

as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'.

and by the way, most performers don't have teachers to tell them what to do where on a piece. i haven't had a teacher actually tell me what to do somewhere on a piece in months and months and months. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 11:38 AM

being a composer myself, i can tell you that while composition is hard - really hard - performing is more so because as a composer, you have an eraser.

as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'.

and by the way, most performers don't have teachers to tell them what to do where on a piece. i haven't had a teacher actually tell me what to do somewhere on a piece in months and months and months. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it. Guess which one you are?

The two arts of composing and performing are so inextricably linked people carelessly use words that denote one position to encapsulate both.

Passing the test signifies an understanding of the what, an understanding that barely grazes the surface in relation to an understanding of the why. When you do have that deeper understanding, your knowledge will be marred by two things. Firstly, the fact that it was acquired through a group effort diminishes the overall depth of your understanding. Secondly, the fact that it was artificially acquired implies

1. Your musical intuition has shortcomings because your sense of musical aesthetics is incongruent with conventional/institutional music theory, and/or

2. You just suck at music.

And that's where the line blurs. Inventing the why still and always will carry a fuller and more profound connotation than an understanding of the why because comparatively, inventing something entails numerous things mere understanding does not. For example, having the capacity to invent something like calculus speaks volumes about Newton's mathematical and analytical genius.

Performing is definitely an art and can be the most technically demanding slave labor in getting a piece up to public presentability, but at the end of the day you'd better not think of yourself any higher than an actor.

Fishy

05-15-2008, 12:52 PM

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer.

You know you could have stopped at here, and people would've politely agreed or disagreed. There's a reason you've garned so many heated responses in musical discussions here, its because you spout a thousand lines of irrelevance which, while eloquently phrased, doesn't really do much more then make you look pretentious.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 01:01 PM

You know you could have stopped at here, and people would've politely agreed or disagreed. There's a reason you've garned so many heated responses in musical discussions here, its because you spout a thousand lines of irrelevance which, while eloquently phrased, doesn't really do much more then make you look pretentious.

No, I think the reason I've garned so many heated, deep, and most importantly enjoyable discussions is because I'm audacious in challenging wrongly accepted thought, the thought that classical institution perpetually indoctrinates their students with. The blindness of its adherents is a bit more than obvious as shown by the intellectual depth of the most relied upon defenses. Also, if I had stopped there- who the hell states an empty thesis???

Calling solid reinforcement "a thousand lines of irrelevance" not only makes you look stupid and arrogant, but literarily incompetent and argumentatively flaccid.

I guess some people are just above having to refute key points to refute an entire argument; I can just strawman to win an argument because I'm Fishy.

Fishy

05-15-2008, 01:34 PM

No, I think the reason I've garned so many heated, deep, and most importantly enjoyable discussions is because I'm audacious in challenging wrongly accepted thought that's perpetually indoctrinated through the agency of institutional learning. The blindness of its adherents is a bit more than obvious shown by the intellectual depth of the most relied upon defenses. Also, if I had stopped there- who the hell states an empty thesis???

Calling solid reinforcement "a thousand lines of irrelevance" not only makes you look stupid and arrogant, but literarily incompetent and argumentatively flaccid.

I guess some people are just above having to refute key points to refute an entire argument; I can just strawman to win an argument because I'm Fishy.

1. Thank you for insulting me.

2. Let me clarify then. You are over-complicating your arguements, and decorating them in an very arrogant and pretentious way. Theres a difference between using big words and being coherant. You arguments are strung out and end up in the "flaccid" area as a result.

3. I was making the point that part of the problem with these discussions is that you say too much. You expand a line into a paragraph when there is no need which just makes it annoying and arduous to respond to, and then you do exactly what you just did, and label everyone else arrangant and illiterate when they make a simple point, furthering your pretentious airs.

The irony here is that I generally agree with your original point, just that the way you argue it is incredibly annoying, and it doesn't look like you take any points onboard. You just say no, and then state your opinion as truth.

Your 'thesis' doesn't have to be empty, but it could be a hell of a lot simpler then you're making it. If anything I'm just letting you know perhaps you should simplify your arugments, and you'll get a lot faster, more fluid and more concentrated response, more about the subject, and less about who is prententious and who is close-minded.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 01:46 PM

1. Thank you for insulting me.

2. Let me clarify then. You are over-complicating your arguements, and decorating them in an very arrogant and pretentious way. Theres a difference between using big words and being coherant. You arguments are strung out and end up in the "flaccid" area as a result.

3. I was making the point that part of the problem with these discussions is that you say too much. You expand a line into a paragraph when there is no need which just makes it annoying and arduous to respond to, and then you do exactly what you just did, and label everyone else arrangant and illiterate when they make a simple point, furthering your pretentious airs.

The irony here is that I generally agree with your original point, just that the way you argue it is incredibly annoying, and it doesn't look like you take any points onboard. You just say no, and then state your opinion as truth.

Your 'thesis' doesn't have to be empty, but it could be a hell of a lot simpler then you're making it. If anything I'm just letting you know perhaps you should simplify your arugments, and you'll get a lot faster, more fluid and more concentrated response, more about the subject, and less about who is prententious and who is close-minded.

Well then I guess the first thing I should do is apologize. When you respond to my entire argument with a one liner, and especially one like "You could've stopped here," the notion that you agree with me isn't a first thought. My initial post was lengthy, yeah, because I was outlining all my points. And from there on out, responses to my post were lengthy just by circumstance, so mine to theirs were as well. I can break down the reason I wrote every sentence for you if you want. There're no unpurposeful spacefillers in my writing.

Trust me, in real life I don't think I'm inflating my view of myself by saying I'm pretty affable. When in Rome, I do as they do, you know? When I step into elitist classical territory, I don't make it a habit to make unprovoked attacks, but I try and get my point across a little more than neutrally.

I'm not a narrow-minded guy. I give everything a chance, and the reason why I don't take many points onboard, as you like to say, is because they're not new to me. I still have a ton to learn, but on issues that I've already carefully and meticulously formed opinions on are pretty set in stone. If you won't attack me for "writing lengthily", I'll give you a perfect example.

Let's say a certain person is mentally ill. One of the detriments of that illness is a severe inability to control his anger, and consequently, an inability to communicate well with people, paving the way for social anxiety syndrome which leads to social withdrawal, capping off with his social status as a recluse. You see how everything is resemblant of the characteristic before it? If this guy brutally murdered a man and a news story was done on it, people would start forming opinions. The point to be noted here is how different the initial level of intellectuality of various people is. You put four guys together in a room, one guy says it's in his blood to be a serial killer, the other guy says him not interacting with society is the problem, one guy blames his failure to see a shrink for his inability to converse regularly, another says he's not societally active enough; they're all right, in a certain sense. Quoting anything but the primary reason (mental illness) as the fundament behind the act of murder is however, a bit fallacious. And in particular with music, the thought process of those four manifests itself in plenty of blatantly observable ways.

The way I approach anything and everything is to think in such a way that someone can take my point of view, and see how six other commonly held points of view stem from it. It seems both the most logical way to think, and the most logical point of view.

On a good note anyway, it's cool that we fundamentally agree on such an accepted issue.

Fishy

05-15-2008, 02:11 PM

Thanks for the apology, and I also apologize for not expanding on my point initially, but I think my point still stands even in comparison to what others wrote:

There's no unpurposeful spacefillers in my writing

I picked a random paragraph:

You're preaching to the choir. You're the charismatic loud pastor with saliva flying out like a rapper drops curse words, and I'm the all-black choir who hears your message every single Sunday.

You made your point in 5 words, and then didn't really add anything to it in the next 27. One example of many cases where you could seriously reduce the amount you've written, therefore reducing the amount of information that can be misinterpreted, and meaning you'll get a better response to your point, and come off far less pretentious.

Its all very well saying that everything you write has meaning (oddly the same comment you made about yngwie's writing a while back) but you're falling into the trap of assuming that everything that you say has a value, when in some cases, you have to be able to concede that perhaps some of your additions aren't necessary or even helpful.

You of all people should know; when a composer writes some overly complicated music it makes it a lot harder for people to interpret it accurately and so it is harder to enjoy it, much like a writers argument. Your mental illness paragraph is fine, but again, you could make the point so much more easily without a longwinded example. You basically just said "people interpret things in different ways", but you threw in 4 different opinions about what caused a murder, an by that that point people may be getting bored and frustrated with the irrelevant context of the example.

It is well-written, but it is not concise. Arguments should be both if you want them to be come over properly.

Shadow Wolf

05-15-2008, 02:39 PM

05-15-2008, 03:44 PM

Glad to see you guys being civil. Banana stickers for you all.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:UZ671zJAlhNPGM:http://gallery2.jpmullan.com/d/484409-2/banana_sticker.jpg

Here's a few more points to discuss.

When I step into elitist classical territory

Seems to be a sweeping generalization that is causing most of the communication issues. Sure there are classical elitists, but there are also rock elitists (just go into guitar center and find any employee on the guitar floor. Wankers. ;-) ), and jazz elitists (don't even get me started. Wankers x2 ;-) ;-)). Point being, most classical fans aren't elitist at all.

http://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/season/index.cfm

Check out the calendar there, half of the shows are pops concerts, and for what could be considered 'classical', it is always mentioned by the composer. Also, there are 60+ people in the orchestra and I can't find any of their names on the web site. There are soloists occasionally, but are the other 60 or so not considered performers?

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 04:09 PM

Great thread. I read the whole thing word for word, but I do have to agree with Fishy that the points could still be made with a significant reduction in adjectives. The longer you take to say something, the less likely it is it will be read. Writing is like sculpting. You're trying to form a perfect, 3 dimensional picture of whatever it is you're talking about. So chisel away everything you don't need. In the famous words of Mark Twain, "jettison the superfluous."
Alright, thanks a lot for the feedback. Why say "I have a poodle dog" when it's poodle implies the animal, right? I'm more curious on what your opinion of the subject matter is.

You made your point in 5 words, and then didn't really add anything to it in the next 27. One example of many cases where you could seriously reduce the amount you've written, therefore reducing the amount of information that can be misinterpreted, and meaning you'll get a better response to your point, and come off far less pretentious.
There is a pretentious overtone to that statement. Just saying "You're preaching to the choir" seems flat compared to what you get when you expand on it in that subtlely snide fashion. It drives the point home, it makes clear my initial awareness regarding the topic. I couldn't reduce it to just five, because that gives off a completely different impression than what I was going for.

I don't see why that wasn't realized. There was no misinterpretable information, in fact there was no information in there at all aside from the fact that I'm blatantly aware of the subject matter. It's almost like you're telling me to stick to writing three chord songs so I can have an overall better public recepetion.

Its all very well saying that everything you write has meaning (oddly the same comment you made about yngwie's writing a while back) but you're falling into the trap of assuming that everything that you say has a value, when in some cases, you have to be able to concede that perhaps some of your additions aren't necessary or even helpful.
Maybe. Your understanding of my comment is from the wrong direction- I don't aimlessly write and then bullshit respective meanings, I feel what I want to write first, and then write. At any rate, conceding isn't the problem. I'll take this into account because my wording does seem dense at times.

You of all people should know; when a composer writes some overly complicated music it makes it a lot harder for people to interpret it accurately and so it is harder to enjoy it, much like a writers argument. Your mental illness paragraph is fine, but again, you could make the point so much more easily without a longwinded example. You basically just said "people interpret things in different ways", but you threw in 4 different opinions about what caused a murder, an by that that point people may be getting bored and frustrated with the irrelevant context of the example.
Of course, of course. But difficulty of interpretation is consequent of what the writer/composer was trying to express/convey, and how. The thing is, you're exactly right about my paragraph. That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurrence, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppositions which characterize the beliefs that most people cling to. So so so so different than "People interpret things in different ways." You toss "irrelevant" around far too thoughtlessly.

Seems to be a sweeping generalization that is causing most of the communication issues. Sure there are classical elitists, but there are also rock elitists (just go into guitar center and find any employee on the guitar floor. Wankers. ;-) ), and jazz elitists (don't even get me started. Wankers x2 ;-) ;-)). Point being, most classical fans aren't elitist at all.
Hahaha, true true. I'm not saying elitism is exclusive to the classical realm, just that it's a bit more synonymous with its advocates than any other genre. Rockers are out getting buzzed/hammered, and Jazzers are off smoking hooka, talking about world peace, and the latest hollow bodies. And remember: we're not discussing casual fans, but people who define themselves as musicians of a respective genre. A casual classical fan's knowledge of classical music's probably altogether defined by "Fur Elise" and "Minuet in D." Some brownie points if they're aware of "The Well-Tempered Clavier." :P

http://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/season/index.cfm

Check out the calendar there, half of the shows are pops concerts, and for what could be considered 'classical', it is always mentioned by the composer. Also, there are 60+ people in the orchestra and I can't find any of their names on the web site. There are soloists occasionally, but are the other 60 or so not considered performers?
I'm not sure where you're coming from. At any rate, this orchestra isn't a good experimental control because they are so involved in orchestrations of these poppy, mainstream tunes. That in itself is probably a modern occurrance, reasons for which I'll list below. Concering the musicians, getting to that point entails a lot of the criticism I prior assesed. And with such a classically cultivated/trained mindset, they probably approach pop music in much the same replicative and emulative mindset they approach classical with.

Also, the motivation towards any sort of transcription of mainstream music is probably rooted in making the music more commercial and marketable/lucrative. Did you read about how John Mayer didn't believe in the pop-jazz trash he wrote (funny because it wasn't hard to see that coming); he did it to gain a foothold in the mainstream community so when he finally did compose purely from hisself, all ulterior motives removed, it's stuff that he definitely wouldn't have gotten famous for. But it sold. ;)

Kanthos

05-15-2008, 04:14 PM

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 04:29 PM

Music as an art form always has been and always will be about creation. The most basic level of that creation is interpretation: playing someone else's music with your own feeling, which is significantly different than playing someone else's music in the style of some other performer. Beyond interpretation, there's improvisation and composition. Which of the two is more valuable is subjective: a performer typically creates up to 10 notes at a time on a single instrument while a composer can write for any instrumentation he or she desires, but doesn't do so in realtime as the music is being played.

While I believe improvisation and composition are more powerful skills than interpretation, musicians who interpret music well and in their own style are still a rarity and deserve recognition above the average musician.
Well, I can say I almost agree with you. Think about it: emotions are the genesis of art; it's our purely human need for self-expression which has led to the inventions of all these different arts. What makes music fundamentally unique is that it aims to do so primarily through pitch, and then rhythm. So the essence of art is self-expression, and consequently, creation is the necessitation to realize any art.

What I don't agree with is your basic assesment. I absolutely agree on all points made about interpretation's value but interpretation is not in the same vein as improvisation and composition. I strongly believe that improvisation is the genesis of composition, and they both stem from the same inner inspiration (because think about it, the essence of composition is organized improvisation).

Interpretation in terms of classical music is extremely limiting in that composers like Vivaldi had explicit constraints on freedom which were not to be broken, and rightfully so as the piece is his. When you interpret videogame music, you give birth to OCRemix, which is basically an amalgamation of videogame songs the people have tailored to suit their own sense of musical aesthetics. And that aesthetic, is what guides improvisation.

Shadow Wolf

05-15-2008, 04:49 PM

Before I begin, it's important that you understand where I come from musically. You might call me a seasoned listener. Music is a huge part of my life, and defines much of my personality. I am strongly affected by it. In the sense of classical training, music theory, composition VS. interpretation, etc., my opinion on the subject matter at hand is largely irrelevant, due to the fact that I have no classical training, I play no instruments, and I'm coming completely from a listener's perspective. My analysis, therefore, is coming from the perspective of the feelings that music invokes, which I think most here will agree is the overarching purpose of all art at the end of the day, to invoke feeling. With all that said, I fall somewhere in the middle of the road.

I agree in one sense that composition is more difficult than interpretation, because a composer such as Beethoven was taking on the enormous task of literally transcribing his emotions into music, to show the world for all eternity what he was FEELING when he wrote a symphony. A composer is trying to give you a window into their world, to let you in for a moment and allow you to share the awesome power of their feelings. In my untrained mind, that's where the greatest difficulty for a composer comes from, trying to let people into your heart and mind through that music.

On the other hand, because I've tried this before, I can certainly say that interpretation can be more difficult than composition. Sometimes, if you're lucky, composition will just come to you. It's unfortunate that I don't play any instruments, because I've awakened in the middle of the night before with a full symphony composing itself in my head. It was an extraordinary experience, literally hearing my emotions form themselves into music, and I wish I had had a way to transcribe it.

However, in my mind, it can be a far greater challenge to interpret the works of another composer in such a way that you add your own life and emotion to it. The challenge of doing that is, in fact, the entire basis of this site's existence. When I think of 'interpretation,' I do not imagine just playing a composer's compositions note for note, exactly as they did. You can add a part of yourself to anything you play, and learning to do that, to share the composer's vision while also portraying how it made YOU feel, is an extraordinary challenge. A man could play Beethoven's 5th, note for note, and it would sound beautiful, just as Beethoven wrote it. But it would move me far more emotionally to see that the performer of that piece is completely absorbed by it, and throwing everything they have into sharing in Beethoven's emotions. It's an honor to be able to do that.

On the subject of how classical musicians are trained, I think it's extraordinarily important that they learn, play, and are forever exposed to classical works. Playing someone else's compositions is an achievement, because in doing so you have gained knowledge and experience. With greater knowledge and experience of 'the rules' for lack of a better word, comes a greater ability to bend those rules and create something completely new. In other words, make sure the roots are planted firmly, and the tree can grow wherever it wants to go.

EDIT: With regards to how interpretation is being defined, it seems to me that an 'interpretation' is more of a finished product, created after you've 'improvised' on a 'composition.' Improvisation is, to a degree, the mother of composition. But if I listen to a song, hear a chord progression, and think "That was disappointing, I wish they would've done [insert idea here]..." Am I not improvising AND composing at the same time? If I put those ideas down when I play the song, if I incorporate them, haven't I improvised on someone's original composition to create my own interpretation of it? It seems to me that we're talking here about steps in a natural process, Composition being the first, followed by improvisation and finally interpretation. In another sense, Even writing a song "from scratch" requires use of basic musical tones, so no one REALLY starts at zero. So in a sense even an original composition is an improvisation based on pleasing tones, leading to an interpretation of those tones. It is, in a very fundamental way, a sort of "Triforce" of musical concepts, and none can truly exist without the other.

That, in a (large) nutshell, is my opinion.

Kanthos

05-15-2008, 05:49 PM

Interpretation in terms of classical music is extremely limiting in that composers like Vivaldi had explicit constraints of freedom which were not to be broken, and rightfully so as the piece is his. When you interpret videogame music, you give birth to OCRemix, which is basically an amalgamation of videogame songs the artists have tailored to suit their own sense of musical aesthetics. And that aesthetic, is what guides improvisation.

I wouldn't say improv is the genesis of composition. They're similar, yes, and some composers do improv, but for some people, like me, it's the other way around. When I improv, I'm playing what I already hear in my head; were I to compose and arrange a piece instead, I'd be writing down what I've heard, not what I've played. A good composer doesn't necessarily play anything or improv well; theyr'e just gifted with exceptional creativity, however they derive it.

Interpretation becomes a much bigger thing in music after the classical period. A good interpreter breathes new life into the original piece. If we don't see that as a creational process, it's possibly because we don't have the ear to pick up the subtle differences. I know that I can't determine significant differences in interpretation between recordings of the same piece, and I wouldn't call myself a seasoned listener of classical. I'm still at the stage where I listen for the composition, not for the interpretation. I think interpretation here is much like mixing: a small and subtle change can make a big difference if you can notice it but is lost on the majority.

Brushfire

05-15-2008, 06:10 PM

When I need to express myself, I draw shitty comics (http://epicgaming.us/?p=101#comment-9309)about my friends in Paint.

Also kudos for the novel length dialouge between you and Mephi. I think I will wirte a comic about that.

Fishy

05-15-2008, 06:29 PM

There is a pretentious overtone to that statement. Just saying "You're preaching to the choir" seems flat compared to what you get when you expand on it in that subtlely snide fashion. It drives the point home, it makes clear my initial awareness regarding the topic. I couldn't reduce it to just five, because that gives off a completely different impression than what I was going for.

So basically, you couldn't miss an opportunity like that to be snide?

I don't see why that wasn't realized. There was no misinterpretable information, in fact there was no information in there at all aside from the fact that I'm blatantly aware of the subject matter. It's almost like you're telling me to stick to writing three chord songs so I can have an overall better public recepetion.

I said I picked a random paragraph and took the first example of you being over-complicated, I didn't say it perfectly encapsulated everything thats wrong with your arguments. Also if your message (which that case was simple, "you're preaching to the choir an it is quite annoying") is simple enough for three chords, why write a 20 minute symphony? You're trying to get a message across apparently, why make things difficult.

Maybe. Your understanding of my comment is from the wrong direction- I don't aimlessly write and then bullshit respective meanings, I feel what I want to write first, and then write. At any rate, conceding isn't the problem. I'll take this into account because my wording does seem dense at times.

Thats all I'm trying to point out. If it appears dense, think about re-phrasing it in a simpler manner.

That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurance, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppostions which characterize the beliefs of what most people cling to. So so so so different than "People interpret things in different ways." You toss "irrelevant" around far too thoughtlessly.

Again with the over-complicating things. You know damn well you don't have to use those words to make your point, but you do it anyway. This is just proving my point: By doing this, you just make it arduous and annoying to respond. I am annoyed that you took my simplification of your point (which really isn't that different) and responded to it in such a complicated way, meaning I am less likely to be bothered to respond therefore; discussion may end because you can't stand making a simple point. Do I really need any more proof then that?

Read my argument before you dismiss it as thoughtless please. I said the context of the example, however analogous, was not relevant, even if the point ending up being fine. People are expecting a point about the subject, not a huge paragraph about something else. Mentally ill people is not what people are talking about here. I use the term irrelevant to describe something that does not have relevance.

Dhsu

05-15-2008, 06:30 PM

But difficulty of interpretation is consequent of what the writer/composer was trying to express/convey, and how.
Yes, in this case it is *how* you're conveying your message that is being criticized here.

The thing is, you're exactly right about my paragraph. That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurance, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppostions which characterize the beliefs of what most people cling to.
I think the fact that so many people are misinterpreting you is evidence of how your obfuscated writing results in misunderstanding. For example, "deceivably" doesn't even make sense in this context...you might have meant "deceptively." Using big words is fine, but they should be used judiciously, or at least correctly. And why say "the beliefs of what most people cling to" when you most likely mean "the beliefs that most people cling to"? The two sentences have completely different meanings. Like Fishy said, one could take pretty much any paragraph you've written thus far and point out similar flaws that obscure and/or distort what you're trying to get across.

Regardless of whether you think your style of writing is justified, it is extremely cumbersome to decipher, and you end up coming across as someone who went overboard with their thesaurus. In an age of "tl;dr", people are likely to ignore what you say entirely.

In the end, just keep in mind the advice of Strunk & White: "Omit needless words."

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 06:33 PM

**NOTE**
I just want to make clear the usage of the word interpretation. Because the direction of classical music is outlined so explicitly, I constrained the word's definition to "Control over fluctuations in speed, dynamic, and articulation." Because interpreting videogame music is by nature more lax due to the lack of classical teaching and conditioning, the far more liberal restrictions have ultimately given birth to what we refer to as remixing.

So for the sake of clarity, please don't use remixing within a classical context and please don't use interpretation within a videogame music context.

Before I begin, it's important that you understand where I come from musically. You might call me a seasoned listener. Music is a huge part of my life, and defines much of my personality. I am strongly affected by it. In the sense of classical training, music theory, composition VS. interpretation, etc., my opinion on the subject matter at hand is largely irrelevant, due to the fact that I have no classical training, I play no instruments, and I'm coming completely from a listener's perspective. My analysis, therefore, is coming from the perspective of the feelings that music invokes, which I think most here will agree is the overarching purpose of all art at the end of the day, to invoke feeling. With all that said, I fall somewhere in the middle of the road.
First off I just need to say that you have an amazingly rich opinion, and that I believe we have congruency. :)

I actually have no formal training either, and have never read a single theory book in my life. I have a self-taught, or rather, self-invented sense of music theory. My theory is really just a collective realization of what makes the clock of my own auditory aesthetics tick. Whenever I think I come up with a new concept, I dig around to see if there's a universally accepted term for it; just for the sake of being able to communicate my ideas through understood terminology. It's the coolest thing to be able to say that you've reinvented the wheel- that is, discovering that your own musical ideology is correct, and you have the stamp of conventional theory and its rules that have been refined for centuries to prove it.

I agree in one sense that composition is more difficult than interpretation, because a composer such as Beethoven was taking on the enormous task of literally transcribing his emotions into music, to show the world for all eternity what he was FEELING when he wrote a symphony. A composer is trying to give you a window into their world, to let you in for a moment and allow you to share the awesome power of their feelings. In my untrained mind, that's where the greatest difficulty for a composer comes from, trying to let people into your heart and mind through that music.

However, in my mind, it can be a far greater challenge to interpret the works of another composer in such a way that you add your own life and emotion to it. The challenge of doing that is, in fact, the entire basis of this site's existence. When I think of 'interpretation,' I do not imagine just playing a composer's compositions note for note, exactly as they did. You can add a part of yourself to anything you play, and learning to do that, to share the composer's vision while also portraying how it made YOU feel, is an extraordinary challenge. A man could play Beethoven's 5th, note for note, and it would sound beautiful, just as Beethoven wrote it. But it would move me far more emotionally to see that the performer of that piece is completely absorbed by it, and throwing everything they have into sharing in Beethoven's emotions. It's an honor to be able to do that.
I think you're pretty close to stating what I've stated. Like I said before, although they're so different, the two arts of composing and performing are so inextricably linked people carelessly use words that denote one position to encapsulate both. If you're a composer, then performance is just the other side of the coin. Thing is, when you're a performer, the inverse of the prior statement isn't so true, simply because of the fundamentally different necessities of execution. The process behind the creation of a piece is just so different than that of learning it, in that a good sense of aesthetics, creativity, being very in touch with emotion, and most importantly, connecting all of them are all integral to composition. Interpreting a piece requires firstly the technicality to learn it, and the next step is where many deviate. The difference in how people deviate is to what magnitude they do so.

I agree with what you've said regarding the emotional connection between performer and piece. Needless to say, that's the only way to really perform a piece. Where your wrong is when you champion someone trying to marry a different perception of the song with the already existing, and by virtue of composer more important one. I personally think that a great composer composes with specific intent regarding every subtlety and emotive emanation, so if your emotions are different from what the composer intended, suffice to say you felt wrong.

The very concept of interpretation is flawed because ideally, there should be room for none. And if there is, well, then what's the point of the composition? The biggest failures in cinematography are those with intentional open-endings. Why in the world would I paint a beautiful foreground just to make mass prints of it so millions around the world could draw their own backgrounds? In fact, I have seen that, and those are art books which capitalize on the insatiable market for instruction. It's funny because in this vein of realizing what a composer wants to convey, submissions are criticized here for making generous use of the "source material."

After removing the bias towards hi-fidelity music, how many of you have heard remixes that you've liked more than the actual song itself? And incredulously, if for some odd reason the remix is better, that's the most tremendous shame for the composer. It's a slap in the face to tell the composer, "Hey, I can express exactly what you want, better than you." That's impossible, which is a bit contradictory and humorous because that's is the only way you can feasibly draw a direct comparison between remixing and composing. Because the essence of remixing is to tailor a song to suit a personal sense of musical aesthetics, and that aesthetic is what guides improvisation, one can argue that remixing does require a certain amount of compositional skill.
I saw a Stairway to Heaven flamenco remix. Think about that for a bit. The entire reason flamenco is played is to induce that wild, animalistic lust for rhythmic movement. Why the hell would you ever put Stairway to Heaven in such a context? There's a very fine line between interpretation and bastardization. So many "remixes" on this site have crossed that line.
But, since we're on OCReMix.. so long as you stay within the boundaries of what emotion(s) the original is supposed to evoke, then remixing is alright. Doing so while retaining enough of the original to warrant a "remixed" status is quite difficult because the melody is what primarily dictates the mood, and the harmony a more specific declaration of it, so it's the only possible way to change the melody would be through subtle note choices and embellishments. This would be very similar to turning a shade of blue lighter, or darker.

I don't particularly like the term "remix" because it carries a connotation of changing a song entirely, while staying the same. That's a friggin' paradox. Remixing is taking blue, mixing it with yellow, getting green, and trying to argue that the green product is still blue. Changing anything significant about the song significantly gives it a completely different color- what remixing is is creating a new song entirely, and we need a separate term to reflect that.

If we can come to a conscious consensus that what we perceive as remixing flies as an unnamed concept and that there needs to be another word for it, then I think people would be a lot more open minded towards the concept of it, because accusations of bastardization would pretty much be out of the picture.

On the subject of how classical musicians are trained, I think it's extraordinarily important that they learn, play, and are forever exposed to classical works. Playing someone else's compositions is an achievement, because in doing so you have gained knowledge and experience. With greater knowledge and experience of 'the rules' for lack of a better word, comes a greater ability to bend those rules and create something completely new. In other words, make sure the roots are planted firmly, and the tree can grow wherever it wants to go.

That, in a (large) nutshell, is my opinion.
It's not playing the composition that's an achievement, it's understanding everything about the piece and letting that come through as the interpretation, and needless to say, the understanding has to come first. That's why I always try and understand a piece before I perform it, so I can have the deepest knowledge of how the creator understands it.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 06:34 PM

I wouldn't say improv is the genesis of composition. They're similar, yes, and some composers do improv, but for some people, like me, it's the other way around. When I improv, I'm playing what I already hear in my head; were I to compose and arrange a piece instead, I'd be writing down what I've heard, not what I've played. A good composer doesn't necessarily play anything or improv well; theyr'e just gifted with exceptional creativity, however they derive it.

Interpretation becomes a much bigger thing in music after the classical period. A good interpreter breathes new life into the original piece. If we don't see that as a creational process, it's possibly because we don't have the ear to pick up the subtle differences. I know that I can't determine significant differences in interpretation between recordings of the same piece, and I wouldn't call myself a seasoned listener of classical. I'm still at the stage where I listen for the composition, not for the interpretation. I think interpretation here is much like mixing: a small and subtle change can make a big difference if you can notice it but is lost on the majority.
Oh no my friend, they are inseparably linked in that your own sense of musical aesthetics primarily accounts for your own unique sense of them. Why would you ever play or compose something that sounds bad to you, lol. You're supposed to do that with improvisation. You're supposed to hear it in your mind first, because your mind's the only asset you have that's infinite. And that is the key link between composition and improvisation. Thinking in singular terms of an instrument puts a considerable constraint on what you can express and how you will express it. Haven't you ever heard "Think, before you speak."? It's the same way with music!!

If a rock guitarist writes music, he will have a severely bent predilection towards use of the boxed scale, the banal transitions from shape to shape, and an absence of arpeggios. A pianist writing in the vein of a piano will think differently because of what's more easily expressible, like how arpeggios on piano are rudimentary in execution. That's why guitar playing sounds very scalar and piano playing very chordal. It's that one-dimensional mindset that plagues the pursuance of composition that so many are ignorant to. That's why you come up with the melody independent of the instrument, and then express it through the voicing of your desire.

And for the record, a good composer always improvises exceptionally. That's where my entire analysis comes from! They're two sides of the same coin.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 06:37 PM

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 06:53 PM

Yes, in this case it is *how* you're conveying your message that is being criticized here.

I think the fact that so many people are misinterpreting you is evidence of how your obfuscated writing results in misunderstanding. For example, "deceivably" doesn't even make sense in this context...you might have meant "deceptively." Using big words is fine, but they should be used judiciously, or at least correctly. And why say "the beliefs of what most people cling to" when you most likely mean "the beliefs that most people cling to"? The two sentences have completely different meanings. Like Fishy said, one could take pretty much any paragraph you've written thus far and point out similar flaws that obscure and/or distort what you're trying to get across.

Regardless of whether you think your style of writing is justified, it is extremely cumbersome to decipher, and you end up coming across as someone who went overboard with their thesaurus. In an age of "tl;dr", people are likely to ignore what you say entirely.

In the end, just keep in mind the advice of Strunk & White: "Omit needless words."
Thanks a lot for the great criticism. I'm definitely not using this as a scapegoat or anything, but I've been responding to these posts since 8:00 AM and as you can obviously see, they're lengthy. I slipped up with the preposition usage, so thanks for pointing that out.

Just for the record, the first definition of "deceptively" means "tending to deceive." Either make sense here because blaming a situation on the side-effects of a condition rather than the condition itself is a subtle fallacy that people commit every day. And the veracity of analyzing such a situation and coming to the conclusion that a side-effect was the primary cause is deceptive, because it appears to be perfectly correct.

For the record: I don't use a thesaurus. The essence of synonyms lie in similarity, so it's wrong to simply replace words because they don't carry explicitly identical connotations. I know that. :)

Maybe it's that a forum isn't as formal as I thought. Would you have the same disposition towards my writing if it were presented in a more formal fashion?

Dhsu

05-15-2008, 07:06 PM

Just for the record, the first definition of "deceptively" means "tending to deceive."
Yes, but "deceivable" means "able to be deceived." So did you *really* mean that it is easy to deceive a supposition's veracity? Such a meaning would, of course, be nonsense.

blaming a situation on the side-effects of a condition rather than the condition itself is a subtle fallacy that people commit every day. And the veracity of analyzing such a situation and coming to the conclusion that a side-effect was the primary cause is deceptive, because it appears to be perfectly correct.
This was MUCH more clear than your original paragraph. Keep it up!

Maybe it's that a forum isn't as formal as I thought. Would you have the same disposition towards my writing if it were presented in a more formal fashion?
Formality is not the issue here. Even though you use big words, your writing comes off as messy and amateur. That said, I would definitely err on the side of informality in this situation, for the sake of our collective sanity...

zircon

05-15-2008, 07:29 PM

Yep, gotta agree with Dhsu. You need to get to your points faster and use words more effectively to convey your message. I want to participate in this discussion but don't have time to re-read the same paragraph to figure out what you're trying to say. And this is coming from someone who loves contract law.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 07:33 PM

Yes, but "deceivable" means "able to be deceived." So did you *really* mean that it is easy to deceive a supposition's veracity? Such a meaning would, of course, be nonsense.

Well, "deceivably" comes from "to deceive," and not from "deceivable." The first definition of "to deceive" is "to mislead by a false appearance or statement," so "deceivably" would mean "characterized by misleading through false appearance or statement." So, what I meant by "deceivably veracious suppositions" is "something supposed that has correctness but is misleading," in that it is mistaken for the cause when it is a result of the cause.

Formality is not the issue here. Even though you use big words, your writing comes off as messy and amateur. That said, I would definitely err on the side of informality in this situation, for the sake of our collective sanity...
Haha, fair enough. I'm getting a bit tired of arguing the quality (or lack thereof) of my writing. The point here isn't to sell a novel, but to convey my point, and the only way I know how to do that is just to do what I've been doing.

Yep, gotta agree with Dhsu. You need to get to your points faster and use words more effectively to convey your message. I want to participate in this discussion but don't have time to re-read the same paragraph to figure out what you're trying to say. And this is coming from someone who loves contract law.
Is my writing that hard to comprehend? You're a veteran member here, and I'd love for you to put in your two cents.

Dhsu

05-15-2008, 07:35 PM

Well, "deceivably" comes from "to deceive," and not from "deceivable."
According to whom??
Haha, fair enough. I'm getting a bit tired of arguing the quality (or lack thereof) of my writing. The point here isn't to sell a novel, but to convey my point, and the only way I know how to do that is just to do what I've been doing.
That's cool, it seems like you've recognized our points and are making efforts to improve. That's pretty much all I wanted to achieve here. :)

PhiJayy

05-15-2008, 07:36 PM

Geeesssh. Too many words. My eyes! You must be a walking dictionary.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 07:43 PM

According to whom??
Here, "deceivably" is listed as an adverbial form of "to deceive."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceive

Is "deceitfully" a better word here?

Geeesssh. Too many words. My eyes! You must be a walking dictionary.
Lol, I don't know too many words.

And with that, can we get this topic back on track?

05-15-2008, 07:45 PM

Is my writing that hard to comprehend?

To be totally blunt (and please don't take this as a slight against you, just the tactics you are using), it really is. In my opinion, I think you are (occasionally mis-)using large words to try to distract from your anemic arguments. It seems like you are trying to impress people and achieving the opposite effect.

You are spending so much effort in typing a lot, but nothing you are saying is focused, and I am having a very hard time taking you seriously.

PhiJayy

05-15-2008, 07:52 PM

And with that, can we get this topic back on track?

whoops didn't mean to throw the "topic" off. BUT.....

In my opinion, I think you are (occasionally mis-)using large words to try to distract from your anemic arguments. It seems like you are trying to impress people and achieving the opposite effect.

You are spending so much effort in typing a lot, but nothing you are saying is focused, and I am having a very hard time taking you seriously.

This statement pretty much sums up this thread, I'm sorry for even posting.:-?

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 07:53 PM

To be totally blunt (and please don't take this as a slight against you, just the tactics you are using), it really is. In my opinion, I think you are (occasionally mis-)using large words to try to distract from your anemic arguments. It seems like you are trying to impress people and achieving the opposite effect.

You are spending so much effort in typing a lot, but nothing you are saying is focused, and I am having a very hard time taking you seriously.
I don't intentionally pick longer words, and I don't pick them to impress people. It's just the way I write. If people are turned off by it, it can't be helped.

If you got anything from this thread, I seriously hope it wasn't waving my arguments off as anemic. I guess I'll go back and edit unnecessary verbiage, but I hope you're able to see the main points which are anything but anemic.

Dhsu

05-15-2008, 08:05 PM

Here, "deceivably" is listed as an adverbial form of "to deceive."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceive

Is "deceitfully" a better word here?
It's listed as a "related" form (see here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deceivably) for a straight definition from Webster's). The other adverb listed, "deceivingly," is much more appropriate. "Deceitfully" is not as a good a choice, as it has the connotation of malicious intent.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:07 PM

It's listed as a "related" form (see here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deceivably) for a straight definition from Webster's). The other adverb listed, "deceivingly," is much more appropriate. "Deceitfully" is not as a good a choice, as it has the connotation of malicious intent.
And with that, this thread has metamorphisized from a guy posing honest questions to an English workshop.

/Sigh.

Dhsu

05-15-2008, 08:10 PM

Well, would you rather have me let you keep wandering around mistakenly using the wrong words? :) I'm all for getting back on topic, I just wanted to finish clearing that up.

JJT

05-15-2008, 08:11 PM

I don't intentionally pick longer words, and I don't pick them to impress people. It's just the way I write. If people are turned off by it, it can't be helped.

It can be helped though. That's the thing. It is NOT hard to phrase your arguments in a direct manner, without using 4 syllable words incorrectly. You just have to put some effort into communicating.

If you really care about what you're saying, say it clearly and concisely. Otherwise we're going to ignore you (at best) or mock you (at worst).

Or alternately: If you're attempting to present the essence of what you're trying to possibly communicate to the rabble of this archaic collection of attenders of a multitudinous forum full of a purveyors of a form of collectivist media known as an internet community, then you should attempt to present your fantastically, melodiously, sound arguments in a manner befitting the poignancy that you direly wish to convey.

Fratto

05-15-2008, 08:13 PM

Hahaha, true true. I'm not saying elitism is exclusive to the classical realm, just that it's a bit more synonymous with its advocates than any other genre. Rockers are out getting buzzed/hammered, and Jazzers are off smoking hooka, talking about world peace, and the latest hollow bodies. And remember: we're not discussing casual fans, but people who define themselves as musicians of a respective genre. A casual classical fan's knowledge of classical music's probably altogether defined by "Fur Elise" and "Minuet in D." Some brownie points if they're aware of "The Well-Tempered Clavier." :P

Inaccurate stereotypes. This whole paragraph is a waste.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. At any rate, this orchestra isn't a good experimental control because they are so involved in orchestrations of these poppy, mainstream tunes. That in itself is probably a modern occurrance, reasons for which I'll list below. Concering the musicians, getting to that point entails a lot of the criticism I prior assesed. And with such a classically cultivated/trained mindset, they probably approach pop music in much the same replicative and emulative mindset they approach classical with.

Yeah, only the very serious orchestras are worth looking into. I know Boston, London, and Chicago are all too caught up in the pops movement. Also, these guys can't play pop music very well because they're trained musicians. They would want to emulate the pop songs too much. Pop music is never emulated or replicated like classical music is.

By the way, the point he was making is that you said all classical music is performer driven and that no one cares about the composers. This statement is false and his ad with only the composer's name and not a single performer name is a good argument against your original post.

**NOTE**
I just want to make clear the usage of the word interpretation. Because the direction of classical music is outlined so explicitly, I constrained the word's definition to "Control over fluctuations in speed, dynamic, and articulation." Because interpreting videogame music is by nature more lax due to the lack of classical teaching and conditioning, the far more liberal restrictions have ultimately given birth to what we refer to as remixing.

So for the sake of clarity, please don't use remixing within a classical context and please don't use interpretation within a videogame music context.

Okay, let's use the word arranging instead, since that's essentially what remixing is. Video game music is so lax that we can arrange it any way we want. Classical music, however, is never arranged due to the restrictions placed upon classical music.

If you're a composer, then performance is just the other side of the coin. Thing is, when you're a performer, the inverse of the prior statement isn't so true, simply because of the fundamentally different necessities of execution.

Playing the trombone and bassoon was just another side of the coin when Beethoven wrote the 5th Symphony.

Fishy

05-15-2008, 08:14 PM

And with that, this thread has metamorphisized from a guy posing honest questions to an English workshop.

Well I hope you can appreciate from the number people who have now made points similar to mine that the way you discuss the topic harms the core of the discussion. Its hard to have a debate with someone who isn't getting their point across properly.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:15 PM

Well, would you rather have me let you keep wandering around mistakenly using the wrong words? :) I'm all for getting back on topic, I just wanted to finish clearing that up.
I could've preferred the correction another day. Nobody's going to sift through all this garbage.

Fishy

05-15-2008, 08:19 PM

I could've preferred the correction another day. Nobody's going to sift through all this criticism.

*Ahem* Fixed

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:21 PM

*Ahem* Fixed
The purpose of this thread was not and is not to seek literary aid.

Tensei

05-15-2008, 08:22 PM

I could've preferred the correction another day. Nobody's going to sift through all this garbage.

So wait, you're referring to Dhsu's posts (or rather the 3 or so sentences where he corrects you on the use of 'deceitful/deceiving' AFTER YOU BROUGHT IT UP YOURSELF) as garbage, while you did a goddamn OCTUPLE POST of pretentious crap that nobody probably will even read on the first page? You're a very funny guy.

Shadow Wolf

05-15-2008, 08:22 PM

I personally think that a great composer composes with specific intent regarding every subtlety and emotive emanation, so if your emotions are different from what the composer intended, suffice to say you felt wrong.

I think you're absolutely correct up until the word 'emanation,' then it kind of begins to go downhill. Never underestimate the sheer, staggering RANGE of human experience and emotions. While it is true that each composer has their own 'emotional soundtrack' for a composition if you will, mine may be entirely different when I hear the song. A wonderful example of this is music videos. I usually hear a song on the radio before I ever see a music video, because I don't have MTV. Regardless of your opinions on whether or not MTV runs actual music, each video is a look into the mind's eye of the band creating the song, a window into what they wanted you to feel when you heard it. When I hear a song on the radio, I develop my own mind's eye video of what I think is going on, based on how that song makes me feel. Invariably, every time I have ever watched a video for a song, my ideas about that song have been utterly different from the band's. Does that mean I felt wrong? No, it simply means that I applied my own experiences to that song. In fact, to go on a slightly political rabbit trail, I would be terrified if everyone felt exactly what a songwriter or composer intended for the to feel.

The very concept of interpretation is flawed because ideally, there should be room for none.

This is intrinsically linked to your statement above, and if you don't agree with what I said there, then you won't agree with this. In essence, what I'm saying is that emotive meaning is in the ears of the listener. I may hear a song and truly appreciate what the original composer did with it. The composer may have brought their point across absolutely perfectly. But there is an instinctive 'what if' factor in the human mind, a desire to take the road less travelled and see what would happen if we press button B instead of button A. That desire is what leads to interpretations of other people's work, remixes, etc. For example, I've been grinding away on a pounding industrial remix of the Zanarkand theme from Final Fantasy X for a long time now. Originally, that song was a gorgeous piano solo. I'm fully aware of what it was supposed to invoke: Sadness, loss, the end of a journey. It did all those things beautifully. I want to see if I can get it to convey power, determination, even anger. Why? Because it's a challenge. To change that song and cause it to invoke those emotions would be such a drastic change that I simply want to see what happens if I try. There's no possible way NOT to leave room for interpretation and modification of a song.

...How many of you have heard remixes that you've liked more than the actual song itself? And incredibly, if for some odd reason the remix is better, that's the most tremendous shame for the composer.

Not to be insulting, but this is nonsense, pure and simple. Multiple mixers on this site have received personal contact from the original composers of some of their remixes, telling them how much they enjoyed the interpretation. As I said above, with any composition, there are innumerable choices the composer can make as far as composition, tone, arrangement, style, etc. But they only get to choose one. Even if they mix styles together in the same song, that's still one of infinite interpretations. How is it shameful if someone takes the basic song of ANY composer, from Beethoven to Jeremy Soule, and follows another path to create a different end result? I would be thrilled as a composer to see every possible option for a song realized, to find out how many different ways it could have sounded, not ashamed.

There's a very fine line between interpretation and bastardization. So many "remixes" on this site have crossed that line.

Where that line is, how fine it is, and what constitutes a 'bastardization' all fall firmly into the realm of personal opinion. What you consider bastardization may well be what another person considers extraordinary art. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

So long as you stay within the boundaries of what emotion(s) the original is supposed to evoke, then remixing is alright.

It seems by what you're saying that you've completely closed your mind to any interpretation of another person's work whatsoever, and if that's true then I'm sorry for you. Placing a boundary like that both on your ideas and your musicianship will keep you from an incredibly rich world of differing viewpoints and interpretations. It's not wrong to hold a different view, to want something different, to try to invoke DIFFERENT emotions. If composers throughout history hadn't tried to invoke new, different, and even controversial emotions, who knows what music would be today. Try to maintain an open mind.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:23 PM

So wait, you're referring to Dhsu's posts (or rather the 3 or so sentences where he corrects you on the use of 'deceitful/deceiving' AFTER YOU BROUGHT IT UP YOURSELF) as garbage, while you did a goddamn OCTUPLE POST of pretentious crap that nobody probably will even read on the first page? You're a very funny guy.
When someone attacks, the most logical thing to do is defend. Attack, defend, attack, defend. See the pattern?

Fishy

05-15-2008, 08:26 PM

The purpose of this thread was not and is not to seek literary aid.

I didn't say it was, I said that during the thread myself and others noticed that you have a tendency to cloud your points and you ended up making little to no discernable sense, and you have thus far refused to accept it.

You claim we have to sift through garbage to find the relevant posts, irony being we have to sift through a load of pointless vocabulary flexing to find your point.

Whether or not that is your intention, it is how it comes across.

Shadow Wolf

05-15-2008, 08:31 PM

I feel the need to point out that I haven't had that much trouble understanding his arguments. While his writing style is somewhat flowery and he does need to use fewer adjectives, let's not lose sight of the fact that

a.) He was asked to start this thread.
b.) He is readily receiving, analyzing, and attempting to apply heavy criticism of both his musical opinions and his writing style, a trait only present in .000000001% of forum users.
c.) The subject matter of the thread is actually extraordinarily interesting and thought provoking as long as childish insults are kept at bay.
d.) Other people have pulled the thread off topic with discussions of semantics.

and finally,

e.) If everyone will back up and breathe for a minute, there's a lot of good discussion to be had.

In essence, this guy is doing pretty much everything we've been begging Bluefox to do for months now, without being asked more than once. That said, please count your blessings and don't chase him off. Good writing doesn't happen in a day, and your points have been made. Give the Padawan time.

</soapbox>

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:33 PM

Tensei

05-15-2008, 08:33 PM

When someone attacks, the most logical thing to do is defend. Attack, defend, attack, defend. See the pattern?

No, the pattern I do see is that Dhsu POLITELY asked you for some clarification on your use of deceitful/deceiving/blah and that you GOD FORBID might have been using a term incorrectly.

The way you responded with AMAGAH STOP DERAILING THE THREAD when you were proven wrong on the dictionary definition( as well as perceiving this as an ATTACK OMG MUST DEFEND) is pretty much how I would expect a 4-year old to respond.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:36 PM

No, the pattern I do see is that Dhsu POLITELY asked you for some clarification on your use of deceitful/deceiving/blah and that you GOD FORBID might have been using a term incorrectly.

The way you responded with AMAGAH STOP DERAILING THE THREAD when you were proven wrong on the dictionary definition( as well as perceiving this as an ATTACK OMG MUST DEFEND) is pretty much how I would expect a 4-year old to respond.
Albeit negative, I'm glad that you have such a developed opinion of me. If you give me some time to breathe I'll try and respond to you more concisely.

Tensei

05-15-2008, 08:38 PM

If you give me some time to breathe I'll try and respond to you more concisely.

Don't worry, some people actually, you know, follow the forum rules and do one post in a row at max.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 08:41 PM

Don't worry, some people actually, you know, follow the forum rules and do one post in a row at max.
Yeah if someone were in my shoes and arguing semantics with numerous people, most of who just want to get a quick hit in, I'm sure he or she'd handle it with more calm and finesse. I'd be willing to learn from their actions.

Dhsu

05-15-2008, 08:58 PM

Sorry if you took offense at my posts, I was just trying to be helpful.

Admiral_C

05-15-2008, 08:59 PM

Shadow Wolf made a very good point about getting the thread back on track...

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 09:01 PM

Sorry if you took offense at my posts, I was just trying to be helpful.
No worries, thanks for all the help. I should be more careful before using a word when I'm not 100% sure of its definition.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 10:02 PM

Never underestimate the sheer, staggering RANGE of human experience and emotions. While it is true that each composer has their own 'emotional soundtrack' for a composition if you will, mine may be entirely different when I hear the song. Each video is a look into the mind's eye of the band creating the song, a window into what they wanted you to feel when you heard it. When I hear a song on the radio, I develop my own mind's eye video of what I think is going on, based on how that song makes me feel. Invariably, every time I have ever watched a video for a song, my ideas about that song have been utterly different from the band's. Does that mean I felt wrong? No, it simply means that I applied my own experiences to that song.
Well, it's clear that the main difference in our thought is that what I view as cardinal sin, you view as divine right. I think it's great that you have the creativity to come up with such unique interpretations. I think it wouldn't be so great if I showed you one of my compositions about the sensation of driving down a Tokyo street at night with summer wind in hair, streets illuminated by the orange glow of streetlamps and you told me it was about skiing on a European mountain. I'd definitely be glad you could connect with it, but I'd either be 1, frustrated at myself for being an inadequate composer in relaying my message, or 2, angry at you for bastardizing (for lack of a better word) the meaning of my song. Think back to a time when light bulbs were the most beautiful, mindblowing things man had ever known. And imagine if his wife disregarded the value of Thomas's invention, and used his precious light bulbs as house decoration. Inventors expect their inventions to be used in the vein of their intention.

Also, I don't think you as a non-musician is any less fit to understand music's depth than the rest of us- your learning curve's just a lot slower, because you have no way of actively interacting with the 12 tones. Having never painted doesn't make me inadequate to appreciate painting, but I'm oblivious to most of the subtlety. I suppose I could just scrutinize the complete portfolios of Monet and Picasso and maybe even derive the same conclusions as seasoned art professionals, but my creative ability.. well, there'll be none to speak of.

Since you don't play an instrument, you don't compose your own pieces, correct? It's like us men trying to understand that magical bond that forms between mother and child, that 70% of all mothers will give their lives to deliver children they haven't even met. Perhaps when you start composing (because I'm pretty sure you'd be good at it) you'll come to understand the connection between a composer and his respective works. It's not cool when you construct with explicitly specific intent and that intent isn't relayed to the listener.

Multiple mixers on this site have received personal contact from the original composers of some of their remixes, telling them how much they enjoyed the interpretation. As I said above, with any composition, there are innumerable choices the composer can make as far as composition, tone, arrangement, style, etc. But they only get to choose one. Even if they mix styles together in the same song, that's still one of infinite interpretations. How is it shameful if someone takes the basic song of ANY composer, from Beethoven to Jeremy Soule, and follows another path to create a different end result? I would be thrilled as a composer to see every possible option for a song realized, to find out how many different ways it could have sounded, not ashamed.

Well the precondition of the shame was that the remix completely outdid the original. Receiving praise from the composer as a token of gratitude for their love of his/her music isn't really incongruent with what you're trying to refute. The paradox in this situation is that fulfilling the precondition is not only absurd but impossible, because how could anyone express the underlying ideology behind a song better than its composer? Rationally speaking, how can another woman claim a more profound understanding of a child than his or her mother? Receiving praise doesn't even work towards denying the sense of shame that would dominate any mother's being if a complete stranger had a better understanding of her children. And another thing, don't you think that whatever voicing and structure the composer chose was out of reason? In creating the depth of a song's end, he chose everything that he did because purely objectively, his actions work toward what he was trying to convey. As the composer, his decisions are the most suited just by virtue of circumstance. What's this mystic logic that I'm so ignorant to? Is anyone under the notion that a composer involuntarily relinquishes all creative control over his pieces upon completion? That all consequences stemming from the undeniable connection between potter and jar are deniable? Somehow it feels to me that because free music is something so synonymous with our generation, that we live in a society where public release entails free circulation, music's value not only as a market but as something personal and sacred to the composer has been utterly depreciated. We act, many times, as if our actions were inconsequential.

But there is an instinctive 'what if' factor in the human mind, a desire to take the road less travelled and see what would happen if we press button B instead of button A. That desire is what leads to interpretations of other people's work, remixes, etc. For example, I've been grinding away on a pounding industrial remix of the Zanarkand theme from Final Fantasy X for a long time now. Originally, that song was a gorgeous piano solo. I'm fully aware of what it was supposed to invoke: Sadness, loss, the end of a journey. It did all those things beautifully. I want to see if I can get it to convey power, determination, even anger. Why? Because it's a challenge. To change that song and cause it to invoke those emotions would be such a drastic change that I simply want to see what happens if I try. There's no possible way NOT to leave room for interpretation and modification of a song.

In no way am I belittling the double edged sword of curiosity, I'm just aware that it killed the cat. Rather than manipulating the work of an artist, why don't you try composing a crazy industrial rock song yourself? I'm sure the challenge would be even greater, as you'd have no source material to footstool off of.

Luna Umegaki is in my humble opinion one of the greatest videogame composers of all time. Three of her songs, "Holy Land," "Esperanto," and "Freesia," are all entirely based off of a single developed idea. Each incarnation of the melody is only affected subtly, and the chord progression remains unchanged. The cool thing is, even with this consistency what each song represents is very different from the next; arrangements I'd be very curious to hear.

"Holy Land" is a lament on the oppressive and persecutory nature of the government, "Esperanto" is an embodiment of a hero's indomitable determination, and "Freesia" is about the death of a friend, a hero, and loved one. The cool thing about this is that every piece is driven by the same feeling of sadness and oppression extremely specific to Rockman Zero, but the difference in the songs is reflective of how that single emotion could lead and did lead to different actions. That shows tremendous adeptness as a composer on Umegaki's part.

My point is that they're all similarly linked through expressing derivative emotions of that initial emotion, and if you can work with a context like that, interpretation is extremely appropriate. The drive behind your arrangement however, seems to be aimless and more a satisfaction of uninspired curiosity than anything else. If your drive is aimless, the resulting piece is going to be as such. You seem to know well what "To Zanarkand" is about, and it's extremely relevant when it does play, because you can view the song's message through the eyes of every party member and the resultant understanding would make perfect sense. It's about the intense struggle it took for the group to surmount their obstacles to get to that point. It's about Tidus's state of mind as he has to register the huge sacrifice required to get the final aeon. These are feelings of trying to maintain sanity when the current atmosphere is dominated by anxiety and unrest. To Zanarkand is about that, and more specifically, the success in finally achieving a mental state of calmness as everyone is gathered around the crackling fire, silently meditating upon the unearthly trials of tomorrow. The overbearing tone here is sadness. It's not an emotion metal really expresses well. Haven't you heard the Black Mages version?

Corridors of Time is much about sadness also, but it's not from any observable character's point of view. It's written from an anonymous third person perspective, and what's sad is his realization of the ignorance and infantile mentality that so summarizes the mentality of Zeal's inhabitants. Those who have can't appreciate like those who haven't, but the way they say the most obscure things so nonchalantly is both disturbing and upsetting. And all that, believe it or not, is expressed within the Corridors of Time. What if you gave Corridors of Time a reggae mix? Would that relaxed, chill feeling so characteristic of it be at all congruent?

At any rate, this is a video of Esperanto (with my embellishments): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKdZQCLm7YQ

Where that line is, how fine it is, and what constitutes a 'bastardization' all fall firmly into the realm of personal opinion. What you consider bastardization may well be what another person considers extraordinary art. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Well, I think we can draw the line of bastardization with changing a song so it hasn't the vaguest hint of derivation from the source. It's like drinking soup with chopsticks.

It seems by what you're saying that you've completely closed your mind to any interpretation of another person's work whatsoever. Placing a boundary like that both on your ideas and your musicianship will keep you from an incredibly rich world of differing viewpoints and interpretations. It's not wrong to hold a different view, to want something different, to try to invoke DIFFERENT emotions. If composers throughout history hadn't tried to invoke new, different, and even controversial emotions, who knows what music would be today. Try to maintain an open mind.
You're using "different" very generically. You have to specify a context, because well, yeah, of course being different isn't bad. I'd much rather be of a world characteristic of identity rather than uniformity, but I want extremes of neither, you know? I don't want identity to the point of irrationality, where bastardizing works is seen as proper social decorum.

"I think under the single condition that the aim and purpose of all art is self-expression, and consequently, to convey emotion. As an art, I came to the conclusion that the purpose behind music was to express emotion as well, and as a musician, what bothered me was the notion that music as an expressive outlet is limited. Take Star Wars. George Lucas created Bespin from the ground up. Being associated with the sky, there's a certain surreal, elated feeling you get from it that any existing city in the world couldn't provide. Everything about it from its original architecture to its exclusive culture is a pure brainchild of Lucas. The point I'm trying to state here is that Lucas basically invented a new emotion through inventing a completely new world. Williams, while a fine composer, writes with the purpose of augmenting every thematic niche in Star Wars, and while he too may express a new emotion not yet done through song by writing a theme for Bespin, he has to use Lucas's context as a primary fundament and footstool."

What this translates to is music having an overall less creative capacity than other arts because playing off of abstract contexts entails a certain level of dependency on mediums through which these emotions are feasibly expressible. Music plays off of things already known to man. What accounts for difference in music is that you can take 100 composers, have them all write a song about a simple emotion like anger, and get 100 different pieces. Music doesn't create new emotion; that's actually one of its undeniable drawbacks.
Perhaps not grammatically, but if anything I want you to know how musically open minded I am. I give everything a chance.

Food for thought: If Williams was unaware of Lucas's work and was trying to write a song that conveyed the above outlined emotion of witnessing a floating city, he would have to visualize it first since that emotion is purely a derivative of sight. This means music is not purely auditory! There's a visual aspect as well!

05-15-2008, 10:40 PM

Rather than manipulating the work of an artist, why don't you try composing a crazy industrial rock song yourself? I'm sure the challenge would be even greater, as you'd have no source material to footstool off of.

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

I can just take the song wherever I want, forging my own holy and righteous path through the steaming and dense jungle of Borneo, rather than taking the worn, yet familar, cobbled roads of the Roman empire and merely taking a brief shortcut through a beautiful meadow before returning to the civilized path.

xRisingForce

05-15-2008, 10:52 PM

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

I can just take the song wherever I want, forging my own holy and righteous path through the steaming and dense jungle of Borneo, rather than taking the worn, yet familar, cobbled roads of the Roman empire and merely taking a brief shortcut through a beautiful meadow before returning to the civilized path.
Sounds tight man, you gotta make sure to upload it to WiP if you ever follow through with it.

And, I don't really want to say anything because I DON'T want people to start new arguments, but yeah, it seems completely logical that composition is comparatively easier because there are no real rules. So long as your piece conveys the message you instilled within it. The reason why I said it might be hard for Wolf is because probably unlike you, he's not overly familiar with the chromatic scale aka the notes at his disposal.

Tensei

05-15-2008, 10:57 PM

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

Agreed, the challenge of reconceptualizing a source in a remix of a totally different genre is IMO definitely greater than writing original music (And I have experience with both, so I know what I'm talking about :P).

The fact that you're used to hearing the source in a certain context, with the defined backing chords, rhythm and instrumentation makes it that much harder to reimagine it as something different, which is why I like this kind of remix (one that sounds totally different but where you can still easily recognize the source) best.

If nothing else, making a remix of this kind (for example Corridors of time into a metal/hardrock mix, like I'm doing myself now :P) is an incredibly good exercise for yourself as a composer since it covers so many vital areas( Instrumentation, chord progressions, orchestration, rhythmic stuff, etc.), whereas with the writing of original stuff you can basically just follow your instinct and get where you want through trial and error.

José the Bronx Rican

05-15-2008, 11:21 PM

Anything you can do to facilitate my velocitous extramuralization.

Sil

05-15-2008, 11:47 PM

It's a slap in the face to tell the composer, "Hey, I can express exactly what you want, better than you."

So long as your piece conveys the message you instilled within it.

I see what you're doing, xRisingForce. You're putting thoughts into the minds of composers by assuming they are these wet blankets of emotions loading their music with pathos and laboring over each and every note they put to paper.

I think it's very arrogant of anyone to assume they know what the composer was thinking when he or she wrote a piece, and what emotions are being expressed if any. No melody is inherently more expressive than another and anyone can interpret the same melody, despite who composed it, to express anything they want. Just because someone came up with the sequence of notes first doesn't mean they get to attach their emotional connotations to it.

DrumUltimA

05-15-2008, 11:55 PM

I haven't really read all of this because there is a lot of stuff that I simply don't have the patience to sift through, but I read a few things that got me going. So rather than targeting specific excerpts, I will only target one or two and then put in my own two cents on the importance of performers vs. composers.

first of all, this quote:

What you guys do, cooped up in small practice rooms playing songs you probably don't even want to play and having to perfect them over the course of several months, yeah, that's tons of work, grueling work that I'd hate to be doing.

If this is the case, then that person should not be a musician.

Anyway here's what I think.

Composers and Performers are equally important, because without both in combination you never actually get music. The composer and performer may share the same body, or they may be separate people. In modern times, the composer is also the improviser and the performer is also the computer. If you're Raymond Scott, the composer is the computer, and the performer gets shafted.

Speaking as not only somebody with compositional inclinations, but a heavy background in both jazz and classical performance, it's quite unfair to get on the performer for not composing. All performers compose at some points in their lives, but more often than not it's nothing substantial, just as all composers perform at some points in their lives. The fact of the matter is that people who love music all love it for different reasons. If a musician is not inclined to write his or her own music, but loves playing the music of others, than for Gods sake don't take that dignity away from them. The same goes for composers. One of my composer friends at school, upon asking him what instrument he plays, told he me he didn't. "I took piano lessons for a little while, but I didn't get very far. My teacher told me that she liked my improvisations and I should keep going with that." And surprise, I LOVE his work.

All musicians need and utilize creativity, whether you compose or perform. Contrary to a statement I read earlier, interpretation is not systematically analyzing where you place rubato, dynamics, articulation, etc. When performing a work, the interpretation involved is much more subtle, intricate, delicate, and ultimately effective than the systematic deciding on how to articulate. Whereas a composer may base a composition off of a feeling, a landscape, an experience, etc. it is the responsibility of the performer to accurately convey that feeling, landscape, experience, etc. to the best of their ability. This is where the idea of personal interpretation comes in, and the rapture that a composer may experience by hearing a composer tell him a similar story to the one he or she wrote about. Talking to other composers at school, I was surprised at how many valued the performer's personal interpretation of their work. Ultimately, it is a form of dialog.

I guess my point is that performers and composers are all musicians. They are all given the same "stuff" that draws them to music, and that "stuff" gets redistributed based on what their inclinations and interests are. But a composer is no more "god-given" than a performer, and vice versa.

As far as remixing goes, my belief is this: Anything and everything is fair game. You're interpreting, but not with any sort of responsibility. The video game musicians didn't write you music for you to perform, they already wrote the music and that process is done. This stage is post-performance.

You can have an eevee, but evolve it the way you like :D

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 12:20 AM

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 12:36 AM

wow Doug. I'm seriously thinking about framing those words on my wall.
Composers create what they're feeling, and performers must accurately deliver those feelings. (Well in my own words.)
Just because performer's perform, doesn't mean that there behind the scenes creating wonderful musical compositions. Many people make this mistake, which is so sad.
The way you so arrogantly paraphrased my argument makes the incorrect presumption that the role of performance is vacant, when realistically the composer should be fully capable of doing both. This is of course with the omission of classical, fullscale-orchestral music.

There are two types of performers in the music world:
1. Studio musicians
2. Classical musicians

I don't really mind the former, because they know their role: as an actor. To fill a role that the band leader can't play, because:
1. They're onstage
2. He's simply unable, but that certainly doesn't mean he can't compose for the instrument

Maybe I don't like classical musicians. Maybe what I don't like is how they think they're important. Maybe they don't, maybe others think they're important. However..

The most pronounced testament to an actor's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 12:50 AM

Agreed, the challenge of reconceptualizing a source in a remix of a totally different genre is IMO definitely greater than writing original music (And I have experience with both, so I know what I'm talking about :P).

The fact that you're used to hearing the source in a certain context, with the defined backing chords, rhythm and instrumentation makes it that much harder to reimagine it as something different, which is why I like this kind of remix (one that sounds totally different but where you can still easily recognize the source) best.

If nothing else, making a remix of this kind (for example Corridors of time into a metal/hardrock mix, like I'm doing myself now :P) is an incredibly good exercise for yourself as a composer since it covers so many vital areas( Instrumentation, chord progressions, orchestration, rhythmic stuff, etc.), whereas with the writing of original stuff you can basically just follow your instinct and get where you want through trial and error.
I like how I delivered my stance clearly and concisely, and you segue into a discussion with me by quoting someone else.

Your comparison almost seems like the comparison between composer and performer (sharing some common characteristics but being fundamentally different), no? And the matter of what's being compared through your vague notions of difficulty is another story; it's something you didn't even state. Remixing Corridors of Time is maybe harder than writing a little jig about going to the nearest grocery store, but I will wager my life that writing something like Corridors of Time, a piece that has the depth of an abyss, is on a completely different level than that of remixing it.

Remixing isn't the wonder drug you prescribe- in fact, without knowing what makes a good harmony and how to transcribe for orchestra (correct me if I'm wrong), you'll be fumbling everywhere because the you'll have the sense of direction of a blind man with down syndrome. Funnily enough, how you, or anyone else for that matter know what's good is largely guided by composition. The artists you listen to should display a degree of uniformity because they should define your unique, "Genius-san" sense of musical aesthetics. For Christ's sake you don't learn how to orchestrate better by simply doing it- all that does is teach you to program in Fruity Loops more efficiently. Ways to get better at orchestration are realizing what makes good orchestration for yourself or having someone teach you, whether that be a friend or professor.

Though I'll concede that remixing is an art form, since art wholly exists because of our human need for self-expression remixing is an extremely limiting art in that music (or any art, really) aims to do so through composition, and by definition, there isn't really any true composition going on through remixing.

The drawbacks:
1. You have to stick to the source material. Doesn't it say volumes that you're working with material that you yourself *probably* wouldn't have come up with?

2. You have to stick to a relevant context to the song. Otherwise the remix, not as a remix but as art, is completely purposeless in that it conveys something impossible.

3. You don't learn to fully compose because the source material acts as a stepping stool, giving you the meat of the song. Now what's left is cooking the side dishes.

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.
Check it out, he agrees with me. And I agree with him to an extent, because again, the context of difficulty is unspecified making any sort of comparison impossible. To express anything through composition is easier than making a remix, because you have to follow the standard criterion laid above such that your remix can be called a remix. They're not guidelines I've made up, just obvious and observable criteria, essential if a song is to be a "remix". Before I go on I want to asses the rather trivial nature of music being difficult. The creation of a piece, no matter how simplistic, no matter how difficult, is simply inconsequential because the only thing that matters with any art is the finished product. The finished product is what's observable, what's audible, what's visible. You can't appreciate something just because you're more aware of the complex technicality behind it- that's an inconsequential reason because musicality doesn't stem from technicality, the relationship is quite reverse. I'm not saying you shouldn't appreciate the work behind something, letting that sway your predilection however is fallacious.

For the count, I'm not denouncing remixing, all I'm saying is that the hardest part about remixing is analyzing to determine what elements need to be changed so the song's melody and harmony (at least, in terms of the pitch) remain pretty much intact, what voicing to change, what phrasing to change, and what rhythmic overcoat to give it so that it's a really changed piece yet it's intrinsically reflective of an emotion related to the original. What is vital here is consciously recognizing those elements paves the way for a better understanding of yourself and what you specifically like about a certain song you happen to be remixing. And that's definitely not an easy feat, irrelevant to the comparison. That awareness of what guides your own sense of musical aesthetics is the very foundation of the "Joren De Bruin" style of composition, because nobody else on on Earth has that specific set of what's cool and what's not. You're a snowflake, man.

Most of your "vital" areas are trivial in acquisition, purely technical things that can be learned through a simple process of reading and learning. The beauty of composition is that it's something which can't be acquired or taught, no matter how artificially, mechanically, or scientifically you try. You are yourself- that is to say nobody's going to "learn" to compose like Mitsuda because if something's incongruent with your special philosophy towards music and its aesthetics, you're not likely to be incorporating it in your repertoire anytime soon.

I swear, the thought process by which you come to your conclusions is just so.. mechanical. Your defense of remixing by its exercisable nature and vague, unspecified level of difficulty is a joke enough if that's what you're using put it above composition.
Remixing is more difficult than composing? In what sense, bro?? But what in the world is the point of exercising those technical skills if you're never going to use them to create something new? Let's also keep in mind that the reason you're remixing is because someone composed it first.

And experience my friend, means nothing without stating the quality of it. And don't give me that "How the heck am I supposed to judge myself objectively" crap. Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. As far as I know the amount you're actually benefiting from your training could be on the level of a paraplegic practicing for the 400 meter dash.

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 01:00 AM

The way you so arrogantly paraphrased my argument makes the incorrect presumption that the role of performance is vacant.

What I said was just a general statement of what I feel about the matter, that being said I'm sure some will disagree with the me.

realistically the composer should be fully capable of doing both.

Probably, but reasons for a composer not being capable varies. I personally find this to be highly likely in todays world.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 01:03 AM

What I said was just a general statement of what I feel about the matter, that being said I'm sure some will disagree with the me.
How could you feel that snide towards me when I've done absolutely nothing to provoke you? I'm sorry man, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that says volumes about your personality.

Probably, but reasons for a composer not being capable varies. I personally find this to be highly likely in todays world.
Let's hear some of those reasons, and some examples that enforce your highly likely statistic.

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 01:11 AM

How could you feel that snide towards me when I've done absolutely nothing to provoke you? I'm sorry man, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that says volumes about your personality.

You are obviously thinking way to much of yourself. I have said nothing personally against you.

Let's hear some of those reasons, and some examples that enforce your highly likely statistic.
You would just love that wouldn't you, fact is you have enough "knowledge" to talk for both of us. Take a look at this thread it's got you all over it.

D-Lux

05-16-2008, 01:12 AM

How could you feel that snide towards me when I've done absolutely nothing to provoke you? I'm sorry man, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that says volumes about your personality.

Hold a minute a here. Did you seriously just take the words that PhiJayy wrote (and further clarified as a general statement about what he feels) and turn it into a personal attack against you?

Here's some snide: get off your fucking pedestal.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 01:23 AM

You are obviously thinking way to much of yourself. I have said nothing personally against you.
Since when was attacking a person's ideology so different from attacking the person himself?

You would just love that wouldn't you, fact is you have enough "knowledge" to talk for both of us. Take a look at this thread it's got you all over it.
To be honest it's not really of concern to me but you, who has offered an empty point and have consequently been invited to clarify, because so far as I know, I'm not aware of composers who don't play their own compositions. Ball's in your park.

Hold a minute a here. Did you seriously just take the words that PhiJayy wrote (and further clarified as a general statement about what he feels) and turn it into a personal attack against you?

Here's some snide: get off your fucking pedestal.
Sheesh, looks like I'm stepping on some toes here. I only have more respect for you in that you defend your friends at the drop of a penny. Since you asked, I'll tell you what I did. I first read this:

wow Doug. I'm seriously thinking about framing those words on my wall.
Composers create what they're feeling, and performers must accurately deliver those feelings. (Well in my own words.)
Just because performer's perform, doesn't mean that there behind the scenes creating wonderful musical compositions. Many people make this mistake, which is so sad.

Now that I reread it, I see the error of my ways. The sarcastic tone is reflective of his good sense of humor, and he's actually in agreement with me. Funny, I was under the impression that he was indirectly, albeit obviously, making fun of me. Which, what do I know, might qualify as a character attack. I guess that depends what country you're in though (joke).

And with that, this thread is on its way to derailment again. You wanna restore some order, Wolf? Such a shame, since I put so much effort into responding to you and Tensai. -_-;

Seriously though, stop cluttering the thread. I'm here for some hardcore musical discussion, not to hear anyone complain about the way I spell. If you're just gonna say something stupid, get out.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 01:31 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Clavicembalisticum

If you say that performing this work is easier than composing it was, then you are wrong.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 01:42 AM

The way you so arrogantly paraphrased my argument makes the incorrect presumption that the role of performance is vacant, when realistically the composer should be fully capable of doing both. This is of course with the omission of classical, fullscale-orchestral music.

There are two types of performers in the music world:
1. Studio musicians
2. Classical musicians

I don't really mind the former, because they know their role: as an actor. To fill a role that the band leader can't play, because:
1. They're onstage
2. He's simply unable, but that certainly doesn't mean he can't compose for the instrument

Maybe I don't like classical musicians. Maybe what I don't like is how they think they're important. Maybe they don't, maybe others think they're important. However..

The most pronounced testament to an actor's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

wait.. is this directed towards PhiJayy or me? Because I didn't think that Phijayy's post had anything to do with you...

Shadow Wolf

05-16-2008, 01:43 AM

You wanna restore some order, Wolf?

Restoration of order isn't my responsibility. I've said my piece and requested intelligent discourse, where it goes from there isn't up to me.

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 01:46 AM

I'm not aware of composers who don't play their own compositions. Ball's in your park.

As everyone knows it is very difficult to become recognized as a composer these days since there are so many around.
So what do composers do?
They allow there music to be performed by someone else and in turn they receive credit and more.
So that being said I am not going to type up a list of composers who have taken this course, because that would just be taken up too much of my time.
I'm sure you personally don't take a liking too people that choose to do this, but remember everyone is there own person.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 01:49 AM

Unless a composer writes specifically for his or her own instruments, I would think that most composers could not perform their own compositions, or at least as well as most (good) performers...

DarkeSword

05-16-2008, 01:54 AM

I let my computer play all my compositions. :)

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 01:59 AM

I don't really mind the former, because they know their role: as an actor.
I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 01:59 AM

wait.. is this directed towards PhiJayy or me? Because I didn't think that Phijayy's post had anything to do with you...
It was in response to Phijayy's post, and now I see where the misconception could've arise, but I still think that he was mocking me.

I've wanted to put my view of performers up there anyway.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 02:04 AM

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.
I'm gonna quote this because it got lost on the last page, and elaborate a little on it by saying that actors are not undeserving of this attention, because what they do is NOT just "monkey see monkey do."

Also something interesting to consider is that one of the marks of a good composer is that he understands how to write for specific instruments...knowing how to write within a specific range and in a specific way that is practical to play. In other words, he is catering to the performer. I think that really highlights the importance of both roles...a composer must respect his performers and vice versa in order for truly good music to be created.

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 02:08 AM

Unless a composer writes specifically for his or her own instruments, I would think that most composers could not perform their own compositions, or at least as well as most (good) performers...
Yeah exactly. Some composers perform, but they rarely do. WelI I know to the least (40%) of composers don't perform.
Has anyone ever seen a performer that is just butt-ugly? If so, rarely. Why not?
Because this isn't what the public wants.

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.
Bingo! Same can be applied to composers/performers.

It was in response to Phijayy's post, and now I see where the misconception could've arise, but I still think that he was mocking me.
I'm really sorry that you feel that way. Seriously. I didn't mean to upset anyone.

D-Lux

05-16-2008, 02:10 AM

Sheesh, looks like I'm stepping on some toes here. I only have more respect for you in that you defend your friends at the drop of a penny.

The way I see it, your posting in this thread has turned from in depth classical discussion into "Oops, I misinterpreted what you said. Why don't you say it like this from now on so I don't make that mistake again?" with said discussion masking the quoted words. I'd say that's a pretty good reason you're getting the responses you're getting.

Assumptions seem to be your thing, so I'll play your game for a minute: you and PhiJayy know absolutely nothing about me as of the first time you read this post. I would consider him no more of a friend than you or 95% of this website. He ain't my friend, dawg, so stop classifying people based on text that makes no mention of such classification.

Judging people also seems to be your thing, so again, let's play: PhiJayy made 2 posts in this thread before his "wow Doug" post. One conveyed amazement at your vocabulary, and you brushed it off in favor of getting the topic back on track. His other post apologized for his first post's off-topic nature, and quoted another user's text since it parallels his opinion of your posting. He even said so.

Wanna know why I jumped in? You're acting like this is your email inbox. Just because you made the thread doesn't mean every post is directed at you and requires your response. Feel free to reply to whatever you want, but don't assume undertones and snide comments that just aren't there. Unless your name is Doug, there should be no reason to suspect a snide comment by PhiJayy, since he even quoted the text he was talking about. And it wasn't your text.

I'm derailing this topic not because you're getting away with elitism but because you're being a general ass. Cool off on the condescending comments and you'll rile up a lot less derailment.

I see you're back on topic with discussion, so have at it.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 02:17 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Clavicembalisticum

If you say that performing this work is easier than composing it was, then you are wrong.
Haha, good to know I'm not a fool anymore.

This really raises some interesting questions that I've been wanting to segue into.

According to your argument, I could write, in the span of one minute, a near impossible piece to play, but really now, difficulty isn't what makes a piece good. While we're all engaged in this argument, can we all use songs that we actually like as referential material? Please?

"Melody is music, music is melody." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
I, too think the most important dimension is melody, and then harmony because it primarily serves to accentuate the melody. Iffor some reason, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji wanted to express a radical emotion and the only possible way to do it was through this specific, complicated phrasing, the depth of that kind of insane expression would completely transcend anything I've ever heard. And throughout this endeavor, if Sorabji composed (you know, since this is music) musically rather than technically, any level of technicality would be pure consequence since he composed with the melody primarily in mind. At any rate, I think the real point to be noted here is that Sorabji performed his work.

And here's something you might've overlooked from earlier:

Perlman is incredible because he's the first person to be able to duplicate the 24 Caprices with enough accuracy to commit them to vinyl, but in the end all he hasn't composed a thing and all he's doing is calling forth an insane amount of pyro-technicality. It's not impressive when a computer plays it through midi, so by the same token it's only sensible that it's not impressive when a human does it.

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.

I'm gonna quote this because it got lost on the last page, and elaborate a little on it by saying that actors are not undeserving of this attention, because what they do is NOT just "monkey see monkey do.
This is fallacious because what dictates the actions of the media is, naturally, what sells. Hollywood stars are stars because they're hotter than Peter Jackson. Because sex sells, and you know this. After Playboy, there is no industry more synonymous with sex than Hollywood. I mean, just look at some of the recent cinematic archetypes (i.e. obligatory sex scene).

And it's unfair to say that as well, because there are a ton of great actors in Hollywood as well. Using Hollywood to draw a comparison doesn't work in that the success of Hollywood plays off of the same audience of sheeple that make mainstream music what it is. The same people make Greenday, Blink 182, Dashboard Confessional, Fallout Boy, and the like famous. Another subtle fallacy: thinking that there's a direct correlation between fame and the quality of a composer's music. There is no clear connection between Hollywood actors' success and their ability to express themselves as actors because 1, Sex clouds the industry, and 2, The same sheeple audience are fans of bands like Linkin Park who are lyrically driven.

Modern music is simplistic in that it takes away primarily from what makes music unique (pitch), and shifts emphasis to something that has quite possibly nothing to do with music, lyrics. Without someone singing, modern music loses all value not by an absence of melody, but an absence of words, because the instrumentation simply isn't good enough to function on its own. As such, the melody, harmony, and general polyphony are usually very weak. There's no musical emotion because the appeal is almost entirely lyrical, and when a song's strength is built on lyrics, then it's not music. It's poetry.

Both are important, of course. They can accentuate a song and make it better, sort of like how icing compliments cake, and who eats just icing? The thing people seem to get confused is that although lyrics are crafted for music, music wasn't crafted for lyrics. Poetry is expression through words. Music is expression through pitch.

The reason Linkin Park's music sold like water is because the world's vast amount of teenagers could lyrically connect through the messages so relevant to their puberty. For example, the teenage "nobody understands me" mindset is pretty much the entire creative spark behind "Crawling."

Let's also keep in mind that Peter Jackson profited the most from Lord of the Rings.

Also something interesting to consider is that one of the marks of a good composer is that he understands how to write for specific instruments...knowing how to write within a specific range and in a specific way that is practical to play. In other words, he is catering to the performer. I think that really highlights the importance of both roles...a composer must respect his performers and vice versa in order for truly good music to be created.

Well, that's not so much catering to the performer as it is having to deal with the simple limitations found in any instrument. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable, in fact, elementary. In terms of voice, I wouldn't rewrite the melody lower so that Anthony could sing it- I'd hire a soprano.

You wanna check out the two main posts now? They're more recent long ones. ;)

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 02:25 AM

you and PhiJayy know absolutely nothing about me as of the first time you read this post. I would consider him no more of a friend than you or 95% of this website. He ain't my friend, dawg, so stop classifying people based on text that makes no mention of such classification.
Unless your name is Doug, there should be no reason to suspect a snide comment by PhiJayy, since he even quoted the text he was talking about. And it wasn't your text.

Yeah I don't even know him, the best I know about him is the cool remix collaboration of "Lovers Reef," but he obviously seems to understand that I in no shape or form, purposely tried to mock you.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 02:26 AM

The beauty of composition is that it's something which can't be acquired or taught, no matter how artificially, mechanically, or scientifically you try.
This is a romanticized concept of composing and a ridiculous statement in general. There's a reason that composition classes exist.

You are yourself- that is to say nobody's going to "learn" to compose like Mitsuda because if something's incongruent with your special philosophy towards music and its aesthetics, you're not likely to be incorporating it in your repertoire anytime soon.
As a matter of fact, I have heard many, many Mitsuda copycats. It's not very hard for a composer to emulate another's style with some effort.

Also, it's odd that you seem so eager to put composers on a level higher than performers when many performers are composers and vice versa. Would you say that their worth goes up or down depending on what they're doing at the moment?

The way I see it, there are vastly different levels of skill in EVERYTHING. It takes no skill to be a bad composer who plops down generic schlock on paper, but a great performer will be remembered for a long time. Similarly, it takes no skill to be a bad performer who merely plays a score note for note without any feeling of his own, but great composers are memorialized for centuries to come. But to put one above the other is pointless and only succeeds in sowing dissension where none is needed.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 02:27 AM

The way I see it, your posting in this thread has turned from in depth classical discussion into "Oops, I misinterpreted what you said. Why don't you say it like this from now on so I don't make that mistake again?" with said discussion masking the quoted words. I'd say that's a pretty good reason you're getting the responses you're getting.

Assumptions seem to be your thing, so I'll play your game for a minute: you and PhiJayy know absolutely nothing about me as of the first time you read this post. I would consider him no more of a friend than you or 95% of this website. He ain't my friend, dawg, so stop classifying people based on text that makes no mention of such classification.

Judging people also seems to be your thing, so again, let's play: PhiJayy made 2 posts in this thread before his "wow Doug" post. One conveyed amazement at your vocabulary, and you brushed it off in favor of getting the topic back on track. His other post apologized for his first post's off-topic nature, and quoted another user's text since it parallels his opinion of your posting. He even said so.

Wanna know why I jumped in? You're acting like this is your email inbox. Just because you made the thread doesn't mean every post is directed at you and requires your response. Feel free to reply to whatever you want, but don't assume undertones and snide comments that just aren't there. Unless your name is Doug, there should be no reason to suspect a snide comment by PhiJayy, since he even quoted the text he was talking about. And it wasn't your text.

I'm derailing this topic not because you're getting away with elitism but because you're being a general ass. Cool off on the condescending comments and you'll rile up a lot less derailment.

I see you're back on topic with discussion, so have at it.
I generally agree with you, except yes, I do have to respond to every post, because every post is directed at me. I am arguing my points singly, because quite literally everyone is at a disagreement with my ideas.

Anyway, I jumped the gun on you Phijayy. I hope you'll accept my apology.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 02:33 AM

D-Lux

05-16-2008, 02:34 AM

I do have to respond to every post, because every post is directed at me.

everyone is at a disagreement with my ideas.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to give you a chance to take back these statements before taking you seriously.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 02:39 AM

Call me crazy, but I'm going to give you a chance to take back these statements before taking you seriously.

What are you talking about man, the majority of this thread is arguments between me and others.

And I don't care if someone agrees with me on a small level, it's through fundamental congruence that connection can come about. Aside from the first poster, nobody's agreed with any of my fundamental points.

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 02:46 AM

Wait.. were you not being sarcastic here?

By no means was I being sarcastic.
From your point of view I can probably see why you felt that way, but honestly I wanted to praise Doug for posting his original post about composers/perfomers.
It really made sense to me. Next time i'll say something about your post, to prevent you from leaving you wondering.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 02:46 AM

Wait.. were you not being sarcastic here?

dude, that post wasn't any more than a summarization of my post...

anyway i have more to say!

"Melody is music, music is melody." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
I, too think the most important dimension is melody, and then harmony because it primarily serves to accentuate the melody. Iffor some reason, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji wanted to express a radical emotion and the only possible way to do it was through this specific, complicated phrasing, the depth of that kind of insane expression would completely transcend anything I've ever heard. And throughout this endeavor, if Sorabji composed (you know, since this is music) musically rather than technically, any level of technicality would be pure consequence since he composed with the melody primarily in mind. At any rate, I think the real point to be noted here is that Sorabji performed his work.

See, now you're opening a whole new can of worms. I strongly advise you not to define music in this discussion...if you listen to the works of steve reich, john cage, phillip glass, iannis xenakis, etc, you will find that many composers seek to write music that does not involve melody or harmony.

Sil

05-16-2008, 02:46 AM

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji wanted to express a radical emotion and the only possible way to do it was through this specific, complicated phrasing, the depth of that kind of insane expression would completely transcend anything I've ever heard.

You're doing it again. You're assuming expression is mutually exclusive with emotion. Most people are often surprised by the fact most classical music is emotionless. Expressive, yes, but typically void of any more meaning than the composer's self-satisfaction with his or her own skill.

Sure, anyone can attach their emotions to it whether they're a casual listener or an experienced performer, but rarely is there any inherent pathos in genres like the ones Bach, Mozart, or even Beethoven wrote in. We don't know if Sorabji was expressing an emotion in his work. In any case, his message is not transferable to the performer because it is utterly and eternally ambiguous.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 02:47 AM

By no means was I being sarcastic.
From your point of view I can probably see why you felt that way, but honestly I wanted to praise Doug for posting his original post about composers/perfomers.
It really made sense to me. Next time i'll say something about your post, to prevent from leaving you wondering.
Well thanks a lot for being able to see from my POV. Arguing with everyone and then reading that, I wasn't really in the benefit-of-the-doubt mood. Which is obviously where you thought I was crazy, haha.

Get Doug over here!

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 02:49 AM

Haha, good to know I'm not a fool anymore.

This really raises some interesting questions that I've been wanting to segue into.

According to your argument, I could write, in the span of one minute, a near impossible piece to play, but really now, difficulty isn't what makes a piece good.
A-HA! My point EXACTLY. So now we're not talking about INTRINSIC worth, are we? We are talking about SKILL and what makes something GOOD. Merely creating is nothing to praise...it is when creating something beautiful that one is to be commended.

And it's unfair to say that as well, because there are a ton of great actors in Hollywood as well.
Haha, now you're disagreeing even with yourself.

Using Hollywood to draw a comparison doesn't work in that the success of Hollywood plays off of the same audience of sheeple that make mainstream music what it is. The same people make Greenday, Blink 182, Dashboard Confessional, Fallout Boy, and the like famous.
Sorry, it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who uses the world "sheeple", but I will try. All those bands you just mentioned compose their own music...are they intrinsically better than classical performers even though you don't respect the music they've written?

They can accentuate a song and make it better, sort of like how icing compliments cake, and who eats just icing?
A lot of people, actually...

The thing people seem to get confused is that although lyrics are crafted for music, music wasn't crafted for lyrics.
That is where you're wrong. Plenty of songs are written specifically to fit a given set of lyrics. Musical settings to religious texts have accounted for a prodigious amount of works over the entire history of the art form.

Well, that's not so much catering to the performer as it is having to deal with the simple limitations found in any instrument. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable, in fact, elementary. In terms of voice, I wouldn't rewrite the melody lower so that Anthony could sing it- I'd hire a soprano.
Perhaps, but I'm just trying to highlight the beautiful symbiotic relationship that results in performers relying on composers to write the notes, and yet composers relying on performers to play the notes. A composer's most complex ideas and emotions are worth nothing if he can't write it in a form that can be performed.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 02:50 AM

you will find that many composers seek to write music that does not involve melody or harmony.
That's really interesting. What does the music set out to express, and without a melody or harmony, how?

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 03:08 AM

A-HA! My point EXACTLY. So now we're not talking about INTRINSIC worth, are we? We are talking about SKILL and what makes something GOOD. Merely creating is nothing to praise...it is when creating something beautiful that one is to be commended.
Yes, but if you were going to segue into this it was incorrect to use him as an example because he is a composer, and the entirety of my argument revolves around performers.

Haha, now you're disagreeing even with yourself.

Well, no. Because I don't accept the premise that Hollywood actors are the same as performers in music. And I outlined that specifically.

Sorry, it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who uses the world "sheeple", but I will try. All those bands you just mentioned compose their own music...are they intrinsically better than classical performers even though you don't respect the music they've written?

I don't view those bands as music, because their music instrumentally has no inherent expression. It has to make use of lyrics as a crutch to convey that message. Which I previously outlined. Point in case- there's no comparison to be drawn.

That is where you're wrong. Plenty of songs are written specifically to fit a given set of lyrics. Musical settings to religious texts have accounted for a prodigious amount of works over the entire history of the art form.

Right, like the Bach church piece "Gloria in Excelsis Deo," but the fundamental difference that you're not picking up on is that his music isn't lyrically dependent- it's powerful enough to transcend linguistic barriers and grab footholds all over the world. The instrumentality alone captures the important aspects of the piece; the lyrics augment them. The measure of how good a song is is the quality of the instrumentation after all unmusical impedance has been removed.

Perhaps, but I'm just trying to highlight the beautiful symbiotic relationship that results in performers relying on composers to write the notes, and yet composers relying on performers to play the notes. A composer's most complex ideas and emotions are worth nothing if he can't write it in a form that can be performed.
This is where your notion of a relationship is broken. This only carries weight in a classical/orchestral setting, because in a modern setting, the idea of recording solo is furthered in practicality by the market for studio musicians. I play guitar, bass, acoustic, piano, trombone, and violin, so I know how to compose for all those instruments and their respective families because I've analyzed their functional roles throughout music and am extremely aware of their limits of technicality. I can compose all those parts, and just have studio musicians come and play them. I can also control the interpretation by telling them exactly how specific parts should be played, and this will always work out since studio musicians are seasoned to do so.

In again depreciating the overall role of performers (this time, in the vein of studio musicians):
The most pronounced testament to an performer's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

D-Lux

05-16-2008, 03:10 AM

What are you talking about man, the majority of this thread is arguments between me and others.

And I don't care if someone agrees with me on a small level, it's through fundamental congruence that connection can come about. Aside from the first poster, nobody's agreed with any of my fundamental points.

The majority? Yes. Every single post? No.

Again, this isn't your email inbox. Side discussions enhance threads and fuel extra discussion. I'd lean towards not making this thread your personal warzone. It might sour the attitudes and minds of the people who wish to debate with you.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 03:14 AM

The majority? Yes. Every single post? No.

Again, this isn't your email inbox. Side discussions enhance threads and fuel extra discussion. I'd lean towards not making this thread your personal warzone. It might sour the attitudes and minds of the people who wish to debate with you.
I'm I that wrong in saying every single post? Other than phijayy, how many posts haven't been addressed to me?

You might be able to better understand my point of view if you were completely foreign to OCRemix and started a debate as an utter stranger. The debate is popular, my stance on the subject matter is not. For every post that I try my best to respond to eight others take its place.

It's hard to see the worth of the comment from the people constantly writing intellectually flaccid and sardonic one liners.

Anyway, I'll take that into account. Thanks.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 03:15 AM

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 03:17 AM

The most pronounced testament to an performer's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

so are we commenting on the importance of the performer as an individual?

edit:oops sorry bout the double post

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 03:27 AM

When John Cage was studying with Arnold Shoenberg, he was informed that he was basically tone-deaf and that he was going to run into trouble with this. He was also having composition lessons for free, given that he would devote his life to music. So, he found ways to write music that did not involve much tonality, if any at all. If you listen to third construction, it is a percussion quartet made up of chinese toms, congas, tin cans, shakers, etc. He builds sort of "faux" melody out of recognizable rhythmic motifs, and introduces consonance and dissonance by superimposing polyrhythmic figures and permutations (aka, 5:4, 7:4, even (7:5):4!) over them.

Steve Reich and Phillip Glass: minimalists. Steve Reich uses melody and harmony to a limited extent... but he takes one rhythmic figure or melody and repeats it over and over again--in a manner that exposes every detail about that rhythm or melody. Phillip glass has a slightly different approach, he works with cells, adding and subtracting notes after a certain amount of repetitions.

Iannis Xenakis is also an architect. His music is very mathematical. Look for "rebon B" on youtube.

Other good composers to check out are george crumb, aspheregis, franco donatoni, to name a few. All of these people are writing pieces of music that push the definition of music to many.
It seems that such a systematic approach is more for the sake of itself than quality contribution to the music. It's clear that they approach music very.. uniquely, but what would approaching music in this manner add to the expressiveness of the song? Rather, how does it add expressiveness to the song?

Basically dude, my view on the role of a drummer is this: to set the cadence while setting groove. The drummer's there for groove, but primarily, to keep time. You'll find that the simpler songs are usually those with an absence of drums because they can do so given the simpler context, and having drums wouldn't add any relevant dimension.

A song is never completely about rhythm man, pitch is what makes music, music! There has to be a rhythmic balance towards the pitch, but songs can function with a drastic lack in rhythmic variation (Well-Tempered Clavier, Moonlight Sonata Movement 3, Fantasie Impromptu), while the opposite doesn't seem true. Making a song about a cadence is retarded because there's no instantiation of melody nor harmony to supplement. Just think of the limited array of things you could express with rhythm alone. It's hardly enough to constitute an art. I concede that although there are definitely expressions and emotions more about rhythmic than melodic strength (i.e. flamenco), there is still pitch because it wouldn't take long for the song would sound very repetitious without it. As far as I'm aware, pure rhythmic strength drives groove, dance, and other similar animalistic traits in that vein, but that's where it ends.

Sucks for John Cage. Although the story is really motivational.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 03:28 AM

so are we commenting on the importance of the performer as an individual?

edit:oops sorry bout the double post

In again depreciating the overall role of performers (this time, in the vein of studio musicians): <----------------------------------------------------
The most pronounced testament to an performer's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

That's what the current topic is.

DarkeSword

05-16-2008, 03:38 AM

Stop double-posting, please.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 03:47 AM

Yes, but if you were going to segue into this it was incorrect to use him as an example because he is a composer, and the entirety of my argument revolves around performers.
But you are comparing them to composers aren't you? What I'm saying is that composers are NOT intrinsically better than performers...simply writing notes on a page does not automatically make you more valuable than someone who knows how to play an instrument.

Well, no. Because I don't accept the premise that Hollywood actors are the same as performers in music. And I outlined that specifically.
Why is it hard for you to accept that there might be great performers as well as great actors?

I don't view those bands as music, because their music instrumentally has no inherent expression. It has to make use of lyrics as a crutch to convey that message. Which I previously outlined. Point in case- there's no comparison to be drawn.
Oh so now you're the final authority on what is and isn't music, eh?

The measure of how good a song is is the quality of the instrumentation after all unmusical impedance has been removed.
Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions??

In again depreciating the overall role of performers (this time, in the vein of studio musicians):
The most pronounced testament to an performer's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.
Try replacing a Horowitz or Van Cliburn recording with a less famous performer and see if anyone agrees with you.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 04:06 AM

But you are comparing them to composers aren't you? What I'm saying that composers are NOT intrinsically better than performers...simply writing notes on a page does not automatically make you more valuable than someone who knows how to play an instrument.
Like I saiddddd this only carries weight in a classical/orchestral setting because in a modern setting studio musicians are readily available.
And in this context, studio musicians are expendable. Why is your definition of a composer so narrowly defined? You know like, 99% of most rock artists don't make use of sheets, tabs, or any form of visually transcribing their music, right? The crazy thing about so many modern composers is that they're synonymous with their instruments. Yngwie Malmsteen's music wouldn't interpretable by anyone else simple because of every subtlety and every nuance that's ingrained into his music. Because his music, at the same time, is so characteristic of him. That sort of subtlety is nonexistent classically, maybe because of the primitive designs of the instruments. At any rate, you can't capture that kind of stuff on sheets. The point to be taken from this is that most people who make a living by performing (more often than not, classical musicians) don't do any composing and are expendable, therefore worthless.

Why is it hard for you to accept that there might be great performers as well as great actors?

I trust you've been reading what I've been writing? Kempff, Perlman, Horowitz, Yundi Li, Wynton Marsalis, etc. There's no correlation between them and Hollywood actors though, which is what I'm arguing.

Oh so now you're the final authority on what is and isn't music, eh?
Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions??

Dude, it's freakin' logical. The need for self-expression gave birth to art, pitch and rhythm gave birth to music, and composition, as well as listening, is how we utilize music. Music is, on the most basic level, pitch-driven. What value does a piece carry if the foundation of it is lyrical? Literature has absolutely no similar qualities with pitch! In lyrics' construction (making literature vocal and assigning respective notes) you can see that the purpose of lyrics is to augment music. Music however, does not exist to augment pitch.

Dude, the reason why pop punk is so simplistic is because they need an easy medium to color their poetry with, so they resorted to using four chords (D, A, B, G) because their "music" didn't really call for any musically inherent expressiveness. Their selling points are their lyriccccccs.

Try replacing Horowitz or Van Cliburn with a less famous performer and see if anyone agrees with you.
Did you somehow miss this???

(this time, in the vein of studio musicians)

Do you know what a studio musician is?

I digress since this topic, after all, is about the worth of "classical" musicians.
I doubt many would disagree if i replaced Horowitz with Gould.

The only thing differing in Horowitz's and Kempff's versions of the 3rd Movement of the Moonlight Sontata is "interpretation." All Kempff does is play it at a brisk pace, mp, while Horowitz actually subtlety changes the rhythm of the introductory chords. That's does absolutely no justice to the recordings at all, but it's still notable that this is the only thing differing in the recordings. And I'm sure the differences of all instantiations of specific pieces are too, subtle in their differences.

With such a slight deviation from the way Beethoven probably played it himself (which, if people stuck to his rightful interpretation, would eradicate any lucrative potential of becoming a classical pianist) how does a difference in interpretation account for 230498 recordings of the same piece, and how in the world is that justifiable.

Fenrir

05-16-2008, 04:18 AM

Hey risingforce. I may be a musically daft asshat, but I can tell that the way you try to argue is really, really irritating.

I don't claim to know anything about the subject of the fits you seem to be throwing here, but the way you argue your points is really snide, arrogant, and generally befitting of an elementary school playground. You're not going to win any friends with this approach, but I half expect that was never your intention. Pull the throttle back to "reasonable and rational" if you want civilized debate.

And don't play the "everyone's against me" card when you pretty much asked for it.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 04:36 AM

I trust you've been reading what I've been writing? Kempff, Perlman, Horowitz, Yundi Li, Wynton Marsalis, etc.
Yet in literally the previous sentence you say this:
The point to be taken from this is that most people who make a living by performing (more often than not, classical musicians) don't do any composing and are expendable, therefore worthless.
So are they great performers or worthless?

There's no correlation between them and Hollywood actors though, which is what I'm arguing.
Yes, under a very weak premise involving "sheeple." But just to humor you, I'll say that popular classical performers have their own share of mindless fans as well.

Dude, it's freakin' logical. The need for self-expression gave birth to art, pitch and rhythm gave birth to music, and composition, as well as listening, is how we utilize music. Music is, on the most basic level, pitch-driven. What value is there does a piece carry if the foundation of it is lyrical? Literature has absolutely no similarity to pitch! In lyrics' construction (making literature vocal and assigning respective notes) you can see that the purpose of lyrics is to augment music. Music however, does not exist to augment pitch.
You're free to think this, but realize that this is a very, *very* narrow-minded concept of music. I'm going to quote something you yourself said in the very first post:
- Finally coming to the understanding that art is just expression, and being able to consciously express myself to the fullest whenever I pick up an instrument, or listen to music.
Quite frankly, that hits the nail on the head: music is just expression through sound. While you might not believe me right now, trust me when I say there are ways to do this without any sort of pitch.

Dude, the reason why pop punk is so simplistic is because they need an easy to color their poetry with, so they resorted to using four chords (D, A, B, G) because their "music" didn't really call for any musically inherent expressiveness. Their selling points are their lyriccccccs.
I honestly don't listen to music lyrics...the music itself is catchy enough to warrant my attention. And are you seriously using the number of chords as the qualification for music? Do you know how many famous classical pieces contain 4 chords or less? The whole GENRE of blues is based on three chords, and there are plenty blues pieces without lyrics.

Did you somehow miss this???

(this time, in the vein of studio musicians)

Do you know what a studio musician is?
I know very well what they are, but again you also said this:
The point to be taken from this is that most people who make a living by performing (more often than not, classical musicians) don't do any composing and are expendable, therefore worthless.
So my response remains the same.

And here's the thing...the only thing that separates studio musicians from concert performers is the venue and level of skill. Neither of those is INTRINSIC to the performer himself at all!

cobaltstarfire

05-16-2008, 04:41 AM

Different musicians playing classical music are not expendable. Every musician has a different sound, and temperament to how they play. It's not like every trumpet player plays/sounds exactly the same, or every cello, or flute player.

When someone plays music, sure they're doing what the sheet music is telling them, and what the conductor is telling them (one reason some conductors are considered so great, is in how they interpret the music further).

Every musician is going to bring something different to the table, one guy playing a solo in a piece might bring something completely different from the next guy playing the exact same solo. Even in a non solo situation, there's going to be differences in articulation and sound from one muscician to the next.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 04:49 AM

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 04:53 AM

I doubt many would disagree if i replaced Horowitz with Gould.
And you would be wrong. DEAD wrong.

The only thing differing in Horowitz's and Kempff's versions of the 3rd Movement of the Moonlight Sontata is "interpretation." All Kempff does is play it at a brisk pace, mp, while Horowitz actually subtlety changes the rhythm of the introductory chords. That's does absolutely no justice to the recordings at all, but it's still notable that this is the only thing differing in the recordings. And I'm sure the differences of all instantiations of specific pieces are too, subtle in their differences.

With such a slight deviation from the way Beethoven probably played it himself (which, if people stuck to his rightful interpretation, would eradicate any lucrative potential of becoming a classical pianist) how does a difference in interpretation account for 230498 recordings of the same piece, and how in the world is that justifiable.
I'm going to go back to my "music is expression" statement. Performers express themselves through their interpretation. Thus, there could potentially be as many interpretations of a piece as there are people in the world, if not more. Even if Beethoven had a certain phrasing and timing for every single note in mind (which like Sil said is unlikely), he is dead and gone now, and other people are free to arrange and interpret his music as they like.

The difference between our ideology is you think of the difference that's such a primary consequence interpretation as divine right- i think of it as cardinal sin.
Again, you're free to think what you want, but you're only hurting yourself by limiting yourself to such a narrow mindset.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 04:58 AM

I'm going to go back to my "music is expression" statement. Performers express themselves through their interpretation. Thus, there could potentially be as many interpretations of a piece as there are people in the world, if not more. Even if Beethoven had a certain phrasing and timing for every single note in mind (which like Sil said is unlikely), he is dead and gone now, and other people are free to arrange and interpret his music as they like.

I mean yeah, but that's like saying go ahead and sell mom's most precious belongings so you can buy expensive clothes because she's dead. You think the living state of a person dictates what's right or wrong? The music is still and will always be intellectually Beethoven's.

Again, you're free to think what you want, but you're only hurting yourself by limiting yourself to such a narrow mindset.
You know what you're saying right here? You're saying that because I don't take it up the butt, the spectrum of my sexual arousal is limited.

Just so you know.

Sil

05-16-2008, 05:03 AM

The crazy thing about so many modern composers is that they're synonymous with their instruments. Yngwie Malmsteen's music wouldn't interpretable by anyone else simple because of every subtlety and every nuance that's ingrained into his music. Because his music, at the same time, is so characteristic of him.

I think this is a good argument for why performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all.

You might think performers are a dime a dozen, but let me tell you this: so are composers. For every Mozart or Beethoven there were hundreds if not thousands of others, many of them more skilled than those guys, but they just never made it out of their generation. And in all likelihood it was because their music was interpreted poorly, or maybe not performed at all.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 05:04 AM

I mean yeah, but that's like saying go ahead and sell mom's most precious belongings so you can buy expensive clothes because she's dead.
She'd probably prefer if I sold them actually, although perhaps not necessarily to buy unneeded fancy clothes. But that's analogous to someone having a poor interpretation of Beethoven's music, which I guess opens up an entirely different debate...

You know what you're saying right here? You're saying that because I don't take it up the butt, the spectrum of my sexual arousal is limited.

Just so you know.
Technically that's true. But now we're talking about a very different form of expression... :P

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:07 AM

I think this is a good argument for why performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all.

That's actually the opposite aim of my paragraph. The BEST interpretation is that of the composer's, because how could anyone know what he wanted to express more than himself?

You might think performers are a dime a dozen, but let me tell you this: so are composers. For every Mozart or Beethoven there were hundreds if not thousands, many of them more skilled than those guys, but they just never made it out of their generation. And in all likelihood it was because their music was interpreted poorly, or maybe not performed at all.
There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

cobaltstarfire

05-16-2008, 05:09 AM

The difference between our ideology is you think of the difference that's such a primary consequence interpretation as divine right- i think of it as cardinal sin.

Well gee I guess everyone should stop playing music, because they're doing some sort of "cardinal sin" by having different tones and articulations, might as well get robots to play the music, only to realize how dead music sounds when it's played exactly perfectly.

Why are you even bothering with this argument, you're not going to change how anyone feels about music and how it is done any more than someone is going to change your opinion.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:11 AM

Well gee I guess everyone should stop playing music, because they're doing some sort of "cardinal sin" by having different tones and articulations, might as well get robots to play the music, only to realize how dead music sounds when it's played exactly perfectly.

Why are you even bothering with this argument, you're not going to change how anyone feels about music and how it is done any more than someone is going to change your opinion.

.

Click that.

And welcome to the debate.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:16 AM

Yet in literally the previous sentence you say this:

Ok, let me lighten up my language a bit. I think they're amazing, great performers. Basically, Beethoven was fully capable of and did play his pieces publicly. Art's nothing if it isn't appreciated right? Beethoven was able to both create his art and get it publicly recognized. What would happen if there were no classical composers? Then what would Horowitz do?

I'm not sure what symbiotic relationship you speak of, because the dependency seems very one-sided to me.

Yes, under a very weak premise involving "sheeple." But just to humor you, I'll say that popular classical performers have their own share of mindless fans as well.

The premise is anything but weak. It was well supported.

You're free to think this, but realize that this is a very, *very* narrow-minded concept of music. I'm going to quote something you yourself said in the very first post:

Quite frankly, that hits the nail on the head: music is just expression through sound. While you might not believe me right now, trust me when I say there are ways to do this without any sort of pitch.

You're telling me that without clearly defined pitches, you can just use any sort of noise to create a piece that has the depth of a song like "Corridors of Time."

I honestly don't listen to music lyrics...the music itself is catchy enough to warrant my attention.

Awesome!

And are you seriously using the number of chords as the qualification for music? Do you know how many famous classical pieces contain 4 chords or less? The whole GENRE of blues is based on three chords, and there are plenty blues pieces without lyrics.

No, lol. Everything about pop punk as an art form is amateur, stagnant, and banal. That extends into the lyrical content, four note melodies, the trite chord progression played with the exact same rhythm and dynamic, the pop-punk enunciation of vowels, ETC. It's ALL that, and THEN some that makes pop punk a terrible genre.

I'm not using the number of chords to base shit.

Blues is one of the most killer genres ever, but the great blues chord progressions are anything but three in number.

And here's the thing...the only thing that separates studio musicians from concert performers is the venue and level of skill. Neither of those is INTRINSIC to the performer himself at all!
That's not true. The nature of being a studio musician is that jobs are hard to find because the first thing that you have to come to terms with as a studio musician, is that you're dispensable and an actor in that your entire part's been written, down to the scene where you have to flick your ears when you're angry because that's just one of your idiosyncrasies. Maybe you can ad-lib if you're lucky.

Classical musicians in orchestras stay with the orchestras for a very long time, and famous classical pianists are mini celebrities. Horowitz may have been a humble man. But his undeterrable pursuance of classical music shows that through what he did, he found a something of worth.

The self images are completely different.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 05:22 AM

That's actually the opposite aim of my paragraph. The BEST interpretation is that of the composer's, because how could anyone know what he wanted to express more than himself?
And yet even his own interpretation varies slightly between each performance, perhaps because his mood has changed, or maybe because he just wants to try something different. If even the composer can interpret his own piece various ways, why is it such a crime for another person to do the same?

Another thing to remember is that it's possible for a composer to be concerned only with the melody and harmony without caring about dynamics or phrasing, perhaps because he doesn't really care, or is a bad composer, or didn't have the technological capabilities at the time (for example, Bach harpsichord pieces have no dynamics). It's then up to the performer to decide what interpretation brings out the composer's musical ideas best. Then again, you may very well be of the school of thought that playing Bach on piano is blasphemous, in which case I'll just let you think that and move on.

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.
But you can't, because none of those "worthless" performers played it.

cobaltstarfire

05-16-2008, 05:24 AM

I'm not clicking on anything nor joining a "debate" because this is an exersize in futility, and you making a bunch of annoying double posts with a rude flair to your typing style.

Shadow Wolf

05-16-2008, 05:32 AM

You know what you're saying right here? You're saying that because I don't take it up the butt, the spectrum of my sexual arousal is limited.

Just so you know.

http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-I_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg

It's almost locktime, children! Gather round, and we'll count the minutes together!

Sil

05-16-2008, 05:38 AM

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

This is ultimately where your argument loses credibility. You are putting classical music on the pedestal and saying the original composers' intent is ultimately the best. I'm a composer and I don't think my own interpretation of my own music is necessarily best. Why would anyone else think any differently? Beethoven's and Mozart's music survived because of their interpretations by performers. Heck, Mozart and Beethoven didn't even get a chance to interpret their final, and arguably "best" works (they were too dead.)

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:42 AM

I'm a composer and I don't think my own interpretation of my own music is necessarily best. Why would anyone else think any differently?
This doesn't say anything to me because I have no idea how skilled you are.

And I doubt your compositions carry the depth that someone like Yasunori Mitsuda's, does.

Just click that link. Every question you've fired off me has already been answered in there and I don't want to waste energy.

Sil

05-16-2008, 05:43 AM

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this directly.

Though I have no proof that more skilled composers might have existed, I am simply extrapolating this from the notion that even today the more "skilled" composers go largely unnoticed as well, even in the wide world of academia or the concert hall.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:44 AM

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this directly.

Though I have no proof that more skilled composers might have existed, I am simply extrapolating this from the notion that even today the more "skilled" composers go largely unnoticed as well, even in the wide world of academia or the concert hall.
No worries. And that's what scouring YouTube is for- everyone gets their 15 minutes o fame.

bustatunez

05-16-2008, 05:45 AM

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer.

I personally agree, but, please stop talking. :D

Wintermute

05-16-2008, 05:46 AM

...sounds like SOMEONE just flunked out of music school.

I personally agree, but, please stop talking. :D

...and what he said too.

Sil

05-16-2008, 05:46 AM

And I doubt your compositions carry the depth that someone like Yasunori Mitsuda's, does.

OUCH! That's a long shot. Mitsuda does write some nice music, but what do you mean by "depth?" I remember discussing long ago how he has a knack for the Irish instrumentation and catchy melodies, but no talent at all writing for full orchestra as per the Xenosaga orchestrations (and I say this as someone who's studied orchestration for many, many years.) We actually have very different styles: him being a game composer and me being unable to decide if I'm a Neo-Romantic or a James Horner-wannabe.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:47 AM

OUCH! That's a long shot. Mitsuda does write some nice music, but what do you mean by "depth?" I remember discussing long ago how he has a knack for the Irish instrumentation and catchy melodies, but no talent at all writing for full orchestra as per the Xenosaga orchestrations (and I say this as someone who's studied orchestration for many, many years.) We actually have very different styles: him being a game composer and me being unable to decide if I'm a Neo-Romantic or a James Horner-wannabe.

It's all in that [>]

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 05:52 AM

And yet even his own interpretation varies slightly between each performance, perhaps because his mood has changed, or maybe because he just wants to try something different. If even the composer can interpret his own piece various ways, why is it such a crime for another person to do the same?
Just by the virtue that HE'S the composer, lol. That's no different than saying, "Hey Harry we're best friends, you can screw your wife, why can't I?"

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it.

Passing the test signifies an understanding of the what, an understanding that barely grazes the surface in relation to an understanding of the why. When you do have that deeper understanding, your knowledge will be marred by two things. Firstly, the fact that it was acquired through a group effort diminishes the overall depth of your understanding. Secondly, the fact that it was artificially acquired implies that your musical intuition has shortcomings because your sense of musical aesthetics is incongruent with conventional/institutional music theory.

Inventing the why still and always will carry a fuller and more profound connotation than an understanding of the why because comparatively, inventing something entails numerous things mere understanding does not. For example, having the capacity to invent something like calculus speaks volumes about Newton's mathematical and analytical genius.

SO.. say I go to a Beethoven concert and even if I was able to understand what Beethoven wanted to achieve with that specific day's performance of Fur Elise.

1. Just by virtue of not being Beethoven I can't think exactly like him
i) I can't replicate Fur Elise dynamically because my interpretation, although congruent with that single performance of it, is defined by that single performance
2. Deviating from i) would be wrong because of 1.

Outlined here

Another thing to remember is that it's possible for a composer to be concerned only with the melody and harmony without caring about dynamics or phrasing, perhaps because he doesn't really care, or is a bad composer

Yep, that's why people don't listen to him or her, lol.

or didn't have the technological capabilities at the time (for example, Bach harpsichord pieces have no dynamics). It's then up to the performer to decide what interpretation brings out the composer's musical ideas best.
How can a performer's understanding of the depth of a song be fuller than that of the composer's?

But you can't, because none of those "worthless" performers played it.
I know. I was just trying to get him to admit that it was an overblown statement.

Sil

05-16-2008, 06:02 AM

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it.

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying.

But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all. What if tomorrow we found out Beethoven's Fur Elise was ripped off another composer? What if it was originally meant to be played Allegro con fuoco? If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do. But no, the composer understands his or her music will ultimately be left up to interpretation, so that's how we should understand it too.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 06:03 AM

Ok, let me lighten up my language a bit. I think they're amazing, great performers. Basically, Beethoven was fully capable of and did play his pieces publicly. Art's nothing if it isn't appreciated right? Beethoven was able to both create his art and get it publicly recognized. What would happen if there were no classical composers? Then what would Horowitz do?

I'm not sure what symbiotic relationship you speak of, because the dependency seems very one-sided to me.
Let's turn that around: what would happen if there were no performers? Then what would composers who couldn't perform do? Like Sil said, they're forgotten.

You're telling me that without clearly defined pitches, you can just use any sort of noise to create a piece that has the depth of a song like "Corridors of Time."
I didn't say ANYTHING about depth, but since you asked, then yes, I'm sure there are percussion pieces that have just as much depth as anything Mitsuda ever wrote. You might not LIKE it personally, but it's music all the same.

No, lol. Everything about pop punk as an art form is amateur, stagnant, and banal. That extends into the lyrical content, four note melodies, the trite chord progression played with the exact same rhythm and dynamic, the pop-punk enunciation of vowels, ETC. It's ALL that, and THEN some that makes pop punk a terrible genre.
I'm not even going to touch this. You're digging your own hole here.

Blues is one of the most killer genres ever, but the great blues chord progressions are anything but three in number.
Yeah, but I said "based on."

That's not true. The nature of being a studio musician is that jobs are hard to find because the first thing that you have to come to terms with as a studio musician, is that you're dispensable and an actor in that your entire part's been written, down to the scene where you have to flick your ears when you're angry because that's just one of your idiosyncrasies. Maybe you can ad-lib if you're lucky.

Classical musicians in orchestras stay with the orchestras for a very long time, and famous classical pianists are mini celebrities. Horowitz may have been a humble man. But his undeterrable pursuance of classical music shows that through what he did, he found a something of worth.

The self images are completely different.
Why are you making this distinction? I thought your argument was that performers as a whole are expendable? I'm getting very mixed messages here...it sounds like a lot of the time you're implying that you respect studio musicians more because they "know their role," but then you praise concert pianist like Horowitz.

I think we're making some progress here. I'm not so interested in changing your mind anymore (although it would be to your own benefit) as much as I am interested in sorting out your main ideas, and I think I'm almost there. Which is good because it's almost time for bed. :P

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 06:11 AM

Let's turn that around: what would happen if there were no performers? Then what would composers who couldn't perform do? Like Sil said, they're forgotten.
Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself.

I didn't say ANYTHING about depth, but since you asked, then yes, I'm sure there are percussion pieces that have just as much depth as anything Mitsuda ever wrote. You might not LIKE it personally, but it's music all the same.

This doesn't even seem the slightest bit possible to me- rhythm in a singular context just doesn't have a lot of emotionally expansive potential.

Why are you making this distinction? I thought your argument was that performers as a whole are expendable? I'm getting very mixed messages here...it sounds like a lot of the time you're implying that you respect studio musicians more because they "know their role," but then you praise concert pianist like Horowitz.

Earlier in the thread there's a parallel to this. Yes performers on a whole are expendable, but this thread is specifically about Classical performers because studio musicians are aware their status as an actor before they get their job.

I think we're making actually progress here. I'm not so interested in changing your mind anymore (although it would be to your own benefit) as much as I am interested in sorting out your main ideas, and I think I'm almost there. Which is good because it's almost time for bed. :P
I really want to give this thread one more go.

Sil

05-16-2008, 06:14 AM

Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself.

Why? Just so everyone else can go fuck it up?

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 06:17 AM

Just by the virtue that HE'S the composer, lol. That's no different than saying, "Hey Harry we're best friends, you can screw your wife, why can't I?"
You and your sex analogies. :roll: Comparing performing a piece of music to having sex is completely specious. How about we take your mother/child analogy from earlier...there are bad mothers, just as there are bad composers. Just because you spawned the child doesn't mean you will treat it properly. A performer might be analogous to a babysitter...yes, you're expected to follow the parent's instructions, but most likely she will leave certain things like lunch and games up to your judgment i.e. INTERPRETATION.

How can a performer's understanding of the depth of a song be fuller than that of the composer's?
Like I said, there are many cases in which the composer didn't have that sort of depth in mind...he's only concerned with the notes, not the performance. So in this case, it's true that the performer doesn't know the composer's intention (because the composer didn't intend anything regarding that particular aspect), but they can use their own experience and skill as a performer to highlight the parts that the composer did create intentionally.

Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself.
I repeat, what would happen to composers that couldn't perform their own work? If Beethoven had no one to perform his work, he could publicize all he wanted, but with no one to perform, there would be no one to listen, and he'd still be forgotten.

This doesn't even seem the slightest bit possible to me- rhythm in a singular context just doesn't have a lot of emotionally expansive potential.
Like I said, you may not believe me. But that doesn't stop it from being a true. And the real point isn't that rhythm has tons of emotional potential, but it's there, and that's what makes it music.

Earlier in the thread there's a parallel to this. Yes performers on a whole are expendable, but this thread is specifically about Classical performers because studio musicians are aware their status as an actor before they get their job.
Yeah, the reason I asked was to get you to clarify your views on classical performers. How can you call someone like Horowitz great if he's no better than a studio musician who doesn't know his role? And why do you keep talking about actors when you've already adamantly stated that they can't be compared to musicians??

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 06:23 AM

You and your sex analogies. :roll: Comparing performing a piece of music to having sex is completely specious. How about we take your mother/child analogy from earlier...there are bad mothers, just as there are bad composers. Just because you spawned the child doesn't mean you will treat it properly.
Yes, but I am of the opinion that not just anyone can be a parent. It's a biological right, but an moral infringement when that child's life suffers because of severe maternal shortcomings. And how that translates into music.. I'm not sure if I can say it without being gunned down.

Music isn't for everyone.

Like I said, there are many cases in which the composer didn't have that sort of depth in mind...he's only concerned with the notes, not the performance. So in this case, it's true that the performer doesn't know the composer's intention (because the composer didn't intend anything regarding that particular aspect), but they can use their own experience and skill as a performer to highlight the parts that the composer did create intentionally.
Ok, I understand you here, but let's talk about the composers whose music is most commonly played by the very performers we're talking about- that'd be more relevant. You're absolutely right that a lot of composers don't take into account those finer elements, and that's what makes them amateur. If you can find someone who has a deeper understanding of "Spring" by Vivaldi than Vivaldi himself, I will shut my mouth.

Music isn't for everyone.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 06:26 AM

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying.
Simple. Because they wouldn't be smart high school kids, lol. They'd be seven year old college graduates.

But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all.

Musicianship is as unique as a snowflake- no two are the same. For someone to have their own sense of musical aesthetics which guide their composition as exactly as Beethoven's would be damn near impossible. And humans are infinitely more complex than snowflakes.

What if tomorrow we found out Beethoven's Fur Elise was ripped off another composer? What if it was originally meant to be played Allegro con fuoco? If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do. But no, the composer understands his or her music will ultimately be left up to interpretation, so that's how we should understand it too.
This is just retarded. You won't, because stealing leans more towards an extreme side of the spectrum. There would be just as little an inclination to plagarise two pieces as there would be one. If Beethoven steals music, he would've had to have stolen the dense majority of it; do you really think that could've eluded public eye with his ascension to public awareness? I don't think so.

Why? Just so everyone else can go fuck it up?
What are you talking about, no. Beethoven publicized his piece through performance because he composed it. It's not really rocket science.

Sil

05-16-2008, 06:30 AM

Like I said, there are many cases in which the composer didn't have that sort of depth in mind...he's only concerned with the notes, not the performance.

This is true. Oh, so true. Many performances of Mozart move people to tears, many do not. What was Mozart's original intention? $$$$$$$$$$

Like I said before, classical music up until the Romantic era was hardly emotional or expressive at all. If anything, it was expressing a devotion to God or a devotion to skill or a devotion to dinner parties. I'm sure one could even argue the best interpretation of a Bach fugue is one played by a computer. Write the notes and let the performer sort it out: that's the classical way (and the impressionist, and the expressionist, and the avant-garde-ist, etc.)

Shadow Wolf

05-16-2008, 06:30 AM

This doesn't say anything to me because I have no idea how skilled you are.

And I doubt your compositions carry the depth that someone like Yasunori Mitsuda's, does.

Well then it's time to back the fuck up. You're talking with Jeremy Robson (http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-I_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg), who happens to be, hands down, my favorite remixer EVER, and a damn good composer as well. Holmes knows his shit. Don't make me go all fanboy now, I tried to be nice earlier.

Sil

05-16-2008, 06:39 AM

Musicianship is as unique as a snowflake- no two are the same. For someone to have their own sense of musical aesthetics which guide their composition as exactly as Beethoven's would be damn near impossible. And humans are infinitely more complex than snowflakes.

At what point does music become so complex that the composer can finally say "This is the only way to interpret this music?" 10 notes? 100? 1000?

What if I said one of Beethoven's super-emotionally charged final quartets borrows a phrase from a Bach fugue? What if I said Vaughan Williams took a power and uplifting English anthem by Tallis and turned it into a somber and dramatic piece for strings? Aren't these guys going against your "law of ultimate interpretation?"

What are you talking about, no. Beethoven publicized his piece through performance because he composed it. It's not really rocket science.

Why make your work known if you know someone is just going to screw it up with their own un-composer-like interpretation? Why bother adding tempo markings?

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 06:46 AM

Aren't these guys going against your "law of ultimate interpretation?"
Nope! You're ignorant of, well, anything about my music philosophy really.

And if you were a bit more compliant you'd probably have read the post that I'm about to link to you, for the fourth time.

part 1

part 2

Why make your work known if you know someone is just going to screw it up with their own un-composer-like interpretation?
Because I for one, am going to protect the integrity of my pieces.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 06:56 AM

Ok, I understand you here, but let's talk about the composers whose music is most commonly played by the very performers we're talking about- that'd be more relevant. You're absolutely right that a lot of composers don't take into account those finer elements, and that's what makes them amateur. If you can find someone who has a deeper understanding of "Spring" by Vivaldi than Vivaldi himself, I will shut my mouth.
Well, I was more referring to cases like Bach where it was technologically impossible to have things like dynamics or legato, so they didn't specify anything in that regard. In that case, it's the modern performer's responsibility to do what he feels is best for the music. Unless you feel that everyone should stick to playing Bach on clavichords.

Anyway, just to clarify, are you saying that in the specific case that the composer had a specific interpretation in mind, classical performers are expendable because they should only play what the composer intended. If so, I guess I can understand such an opinion.

However, like Sil said, that would immediately disqualify countless compositions from famous composers like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. They wrote them out of need, not emotion. It was their job...they just wrote the notes, like someone would write a business letter or a software program, with nothing particularly "deep" in mind. For all you know, they couldn't have cared less about how their music was performed, as long as they got their paychecks.

Sil

05-16-2008, 06:58 AM

Nope! You're ignorant of, well, anything about my music philosophy really.

I know what you're philosophy is. You think that if a piece meant for flute is played on clarinet, it's a bad interpretation. You think meaning is the be-all and end-all of why music exists. Meaning as an ends unto itself. In other words, the meaning is the meaning. I can play an E and then you can play an E and I can say "No, that isn't what I meant at all, you got it all wrong!" You're infusing sequences of sounds with the abstract and berating others who don't conjure the same emotions and images that you did when you sequenced them. Okay, if that's what you want to think, go right ahead. I will not stop you. But PLEASE never assume you or anyone else is the ultimate authority on what OTHER people have written. Just don't be so presumptuous to think that other composers CARE how well their music is interpreted, because they only CARE as much as they're willing to put down little extra bits of info to explain just what the hell is going on when they hand the music to another person.

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 07:05 AM

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I really don't want to disrespect you man, but when you baselessly accuse me of retarded things like not being able to play flute lines on clarinets, that's all the value to me your post amounts to.

Why?

Because I'm asking you to give me a chance so you can see how I see things, but you keep dismissing it. Why you keep doing it, I don't know.

All I can say is that you're not any more dignified than however snide and arrogant you're perceiving me to be. Your analysis of me wasn't even a hit and miss. Well, it might've hit me had you been facing the other direction.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 07:14 AM

Rising Flame, I HIGHLY reccomend you read alex ross' "The Rest is Noise" before you go passing any more judgement on what is music and what isn't.

You're telling me that without clearly defined pitches, you can just use any sort of noise to create a piece that has the depth of a song like "Corridors of Time."

Once again, John Cage, also perhaps some Ligeti and Stockhausen-- great examples of composers who use NOISE. And they're not just like, average whoevers. These are the Mozarts and Beethovens of OUR time. Also, I love Yasunori Mitsuda but his music is certainly not as deep as you're making it out to be...he's one of my favorite video game composers for sure, but I wouldn't put his music on the same level as say, Reich, John Adams, John Britton, and a lot of the other composers of our time...

And for the record, music is for EVERYONE. I was a bit taken aback by that comment.

As for Sil's comments... do you really refuse to believe that composers like to hear other peoples interpretations? This isn't the first time I've heard that from a composer...

Sil

05-16-2008, 07:16 AM

xRisingForce:

Hold the bleep on there, buddy. You said that playing a flute line on clarinet is a cardinal sin.

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 07:31 AM

The conclusion I'm getting here is that the ultimate performer would be a robot programmed with the composer's interpretation.

And my response is that very often, composers (even very good and famous ones) can't or or simply don't want to provide such a specific interpretation. And that is why we need performers who will.

I'd like to get a more direct response about my bad mother analogy though...you stated that some people shouldn't be composing, but the fact is that they do. Is it still the performer's responsibility to adhere to the composer's amateur concept of interpretation?

Fratto

05-16-2008, 07:32 AM

I think you must have either missed my post from earlier, or you ignored it due to my sarcasm. Reading it could have helped you. I'm not going to sift through your numerous posts just to quote them, but you'll know what I'm referring to.

I am a classical musician. I am a studio musician. I am a jazz musician. I was, and may be again, a rock/pop/whatever musician. I don't feel any more or less replaceable when I'm playing tuba in the symphony as I do when I'm playing bass trombone in the jazz orchestra. Grouping musicians together by venue is foolish and wrong.

Beethoven was actually my specific example in my post of a composer needing performers. Beethoven could only play his own piano and solo viola pieces. He would have a hard time accompanying himself, and would therefore need a piano player (or another violist) if he ever wanted to perform accompanied solos. Symphonies! If you think his symphonies were not a huge part of vast popularity and ability to transcend generations, then you're also foolish and wrong. Now imagine little Ludwig with his viola trying to play the 5th Symphony. Awesome! Or no. He could not play trombone. He could not play bassoon. He could only play one string part at a time.

Guess what he needed and used? Performers! It's not rocket science!

You also conveniently dismissed Dhsu's orchestra program. It mentioned only the composer and none of the performers. This is how it goes all the time. No one ever goes to the symphony and sees "Conductor Joe, Trumpets Bob, George, and Frank, Clarinets Gina, Ashley, and Shannon! Oh, and that Beethoven guy wrote the song." No! You have dozens of very talented people all grouped under one heading which is usually only three letters long (e.g. DSO), while the front of the program and an entire article inside are dedicated to the composer and another paragraph (at least) about the song. You have a line with your name and instrument stapled in back. All the glory belongs to the performer, though. Hardly.

Music without words isn't real music. Pop punk isn't music because it's lyrically driven, therefore those people aren't musicians. This is ludicrous. That's like saying that the Beastie Boys are not musicians because of their rap (lyric driven) style. Then what do you think of "Transitions" in terms of music? It's incredible and instrumental. Are they more valuable during that song than they are when they're singing or rapping? Is Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan any less valuable to music because they are also singers? No to all questions. No.

The human voice is a fantastic instrument. The reason that pop music doesn't change past four chords with one rhythm and one dynamic (this is an ignorant fallacy, but for the sake of your argument we'll pretend) is because since it's vocally driven it doesn't need to. It's not necessarily lyrically driven as much as it is vocally driven. The intensity, musicality, interpretation, feeling, emotion, and soul are all in the voice of the singer and the mood of the harmonies. The voice is an incredible instrument. Learn that.

Thieves evade the public eye all the time. Also, generations forget things. The number of people that think Soft Cell was the original performer of "Tainted Love" is huge. No one even knows any other songs by Soft Cell. Their biggest hit isn't even their own. How many people know that? The song was hugely popular and remains a staple of 1980s culture. Fast forward 150 years. If anyone remembers Soft Cell, they won't remember that their only hit was a rip off of a funk/soul song. I doubt that Beethoven stole all his songs, but I like to play devil's advocate on occasion.

As for your views on music and your claims, I'd be curious to know how far removed from you are from immigration. You have a dominantly Western view of music and Eastern music probably scares you. Music outside the US and Western Europe is very rhythmic and some have no pitch at all, though the music may be downright sacred to them.

Interpretation can mean many things. If I crescendo a little on a long note to make it go somewhere even though it's not specifically written to, then that could be interpretation. Maybe a rubato somewhere that isn't marked to. You consider that a cardinal sin. Maybe you overlay sloppy electric guitar (with your embellishments) over the top of different kinds of music that doesn't specifically call for electric guitar. That's also interpretation. Other people may consider distortion and embellishments a cardinal sin. It works both ways.

Lurk moar in music.

Skrypnyk

05-16-2008, 07:43 AM

I like how the original person xRisingForce called out (Mephisto) hasn't even posted in this thread. Yet everyone else in the community is.

My apologies if someone else already pointed this out, I just wanted to post in epic thread 2008.

Sil

05-16-2008, 07:44 AM

Beethoven was actually my specific example in my post of a composer needing performers.

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

Tensei

05-16-2008, 07:47 AM

I like how I delivered my stance clearly and concisely, and you segue into a discussion with me by quoting someone else.

While this is an ancient post by this time, I have to respond.

I was actually just posting my thoughts on it and happened to agree with OA, I wouldn't even try to get into this clusterfuck of a discussion thread because that would involve me having to actually read it. But hey, thanks for the 1000 word post you dedicated to me, I'm sure someone else would be very happy with it.

Edit: 2. You have to stick to a relevant context to the song. Otherwise the remix, not as a remix but as art, is completely purposeless in that it conveys something impossible.

NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. Comprehensive reading much? Where the hell is it written you have to stick to a "RELEVANT CONTEXT" and since when does it have to "CONVEY" anything? For all I care you could turn the Bubble Bobble theme into brutal death metal ( or hillbilly, to keep it relevant :P). If it works as death metal, then fuck yeah, you're a great remixer because I sure as hell wouldn't be able to imagine that as death metal, yet you pulled it off. All this talk of purpose, context and conveying is pretentious musicologist bullshit. And I hate musicologists. It's just music, k?

xRisingForce

05-16-2008, 07:47 AM

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

And what's your thought on that?

While this is an ancient post by this time, I have to respond.

I was actually just posting my thoughts on it and happened to agree with OA, I wouldn't even try to get into this clusterfuck of a discussion thread because that would involve me having to actually read it. But hey, thanks for the 1000 word post you dedicated to me, I'm sure someone else would be very happy with it.

Pfft. You still manage to nonchalantly deliver such disrespect. How characteristic of you. I bet you didn't even read my post- you're just that above me I guess.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 07:49 AM

Monobrow

05-16-2008, 07:57 AM

-In my heavily biased opinion-

Why debate if you know your opinion is heavily biased. A bias is:

a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

So basically, from the start of this argument, you've shot yourself in the proverbial foot.

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer. None of the known performers do any composition whatsoever, and if they do, the underlying reason for their fame speaks volumes anyway.

This is already a flawed argument. You're jumping to conclusions. Let's work some logic into this argument okay?

1. Music would not be made without a composer, and yet we need a performer to perform the piece. They go hand in hand. Without a composer, we would not have music, and yet, without a performer no one would be able to hear the music the composer has made.

Many composers are also performers, many performers are also composers.

Technical mastery is impressive, and especially so when carried out flawlessly, but anything that can be acquired through "monkey see, monkey do" should lose its sheen. The secret to technique lies in practice, carrying an oxymoronic connotation of sorts due to the rather simplistic nature of practice and the obvious relevance of its merits. The merits alone point toward the explanation behind practice's existence.

Didactically speaking, seminal evidence seems to explicates the fact that your repudiation of entropy supports my theory of space-time synthesis, of this I am irrefutably confident.

Strictly speaking in the classical realm, if performers don't compose, then all they have going for them on a musician's level is this laughably esoteric concept they always fall back on in arguments: interpretation.

1. Everyone plays the pieces differently because we are all different.
2. If you don't like how someone plays, then you don't like their INTERPRETATION of the piece. It's valid to not like something because you think it doesn't stick close enough to original piece as it was intended. But there is no ultimate judge in terms of how to gauge someone's playing other than on their interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth all at the performer's discretion? Does mastery over the trivialities that even babies could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Babies don't even compose music and yet they understand the difference between these. Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate make a difference?

In other words, I ask you this. Should we set up a shrine to Beethoven and honor his name and donate to his soul? Or should we carry on with interpreting his music because we love it enough to play it over and over? I think the solution here is easy, we should get the DeLorean, go back in time and show this thread to Beethoven himself. His eyes will well up with tears of love and he will confess is love to you and only you.

Art is either completely meaningless or completely worthless which is a fact. We live in an age of eggplants and my eggplant is bigger and purple and you can say to me "Oh I don't care about how big your eggplant is because mine is more ARTISTIC... And I look at you and I think that the world has gone to shit right there.. I mean how could you begin to say something like that to me? I was here first, with my eggplant which is bigger and more skilled and older... And yet THERE is your eggplant on the pedestal and all I can do is watch. What's worse, your eggplant is basically cloned from the same stock as my eggplant but it is NOT INHERENTLY better because it's has come from my eggplant's ribcage. I can't fathom how.

Art's been tainted by things such as MTV playing things like Soft Cell... It's become this strange easy-going mass of pseudo destruction... A three chord song passes of as a Timbaland composition that can top the charts, as if it were an Amadeus, or a Mozart... And you can have a confrontation with Daos in a museum in mother Russia that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality... THERE IS NO OTHER REALITY. I am looking at a painting and then I look in a reflection of a mirror at that same painting and I realize that only when I look at this painting, does it exist.

which is what the seller uses to argue his price of 5,000 euros. Whenever Houdini is as old as Beethoven is now, maybe we'll start seeing what's acceptable or not in the art of deception through a different lens.

I ain't no Shnabubula, but I can play a good banjo... But the banjo is not how God intended a guitar to be played. So it's inherently wrong. Inertia defines guitarism as a plague on the nation ever since the 80s... It's been snowballing out of control and now we have bands like 3 Doors Down playing four chord progressions and calling themselves good. But in truth I prefer Seal or Meatloaf to Three Doors Down, and this was before Meatloaf developed tits and was more associated with Bats. Princes is a musical genius. Frankly, I'm upset that the masses can even call what we do today as art, our interpretation is horribly whack. I mean, speaking of Prince, in the original Batman movie, the Joker (which is a horrible interpretation of the true form of the Joker, and Jack Nicholson should be shot because he ain't my number one guy) in the movie, he goes into this museum with this purple paint and screws up all the old art! I mean fuck what the hell... I didn't mind him messing up the de Gaulle... But the Mona Lisa? Fuuuuuuuck.... And that is exactly what I mean. Leonardo would be turning over in his grave if he saw that happening to his art work... And that's exactly what happens when a "performer" tries to add their own stuff to the music. Purple paint. Everyone knows that purple is ghetto, and that Leonardo was a Euginics supporting White Supremist.

You get my point?

Dhsu

05-16-2008, 07:58 AM

You crazu, Monobrow. 8)
And what's your thought on that?
I'll tell you mine: I honestly believe a composer's mind is not so inscrutable that a performer cannot comprehend his intention. Composers are human just like performers, and if they're doing their job properly, it's perfectly possible for a performer to know exactly what's going on in the mind and the heart of the composer. Many performers spend many many hours in research in order to do just that. And when that is achieved, it's just like following a recipe...like the original chef, you might use a few more milligrams of flour on one occasion, or a few less grains of sugar the next, but you'll still get a delicious cake every time.

Sil

05-16-2008, 08:04 AM

And what's your thought on that?

You are making assumptions about the composer's intent. Maybe he doesn't think his interpretation of the notes he wrote down IS the most valid. Or else, why let anyone else hear it? They're either just going to "get" it semi-right, or totally wrong.

Or is your intent as a composer that your listeners are only supposed to "get" it semi-right? That's a paradox. Because that would mean by only semi-"getting" it they "got" it completely right after all. You knew full well that would happen when you composed it. They "got" it because they didn't "get" it. :D

The only real solution is that composers don't put rules or unrealistic expectations of how well someone interprets their music beyond the performance aspect, and even then the performer can interpret dynamic markings and tempo markings to his heart's content, because that's what performers do and composers KNOW this when they put those markings to paper.

To expect someone to think a certain way about any art is just ludicrous. The mind doesn't obey your rules, man. It's like its own mind!

Tensei

05-16-2008, 08:18 AM

And what's your thought on that?

Pfft. You still manage to nonchalantly deliver such disrespect. How characteristic of you. I bet you didn't even read my post- you're just that above me I guess.

Well golly gee Sherlock, whatever gave you that idea? Notice how I didn't quote you, notice how I didn't address you in any way, shape or form, notice how I definitely did NOT ask for a complete thesis on my post.

Me not reading your posts is not a sign of me being arrogant, it's a sign of you writing TOO FUCKING MUCH. You want a discussion thread? Fine, but ensure other people are able to join the discussion by being straight to the point.

Your problem is that you're assuming that ANYONE who posts in this thread is out here to get you and ANYTHING said is directed at you. Your assumption is wrong, so stop doing that.

DrumUltimA

05-16-2008, 08:26 AM

Alright, i want to go to bed, so I guess I'll leave my final words. Yes, conceptually speaking, it is only logical that the composers original conception would be the "best" interpretation, if the term "best" is defined as "closest to the composer's original conception". And yes, I would much rather prefer to play my music myself than give it to somebody else. But I think it's important to define performer with the same regard that composer is defined. I do believe I already posted about this, but I'll go more in depth.

Part I.
The composer and performer have equally important roles in the music making process. The composer and performer can be the same person, or different people. Heifetz was a performer. Paul Lansky is a composer. Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, and Liszt were Composer-Performers.

The act of composing is the conception of sound. The act of performing is the execution of sound. Without one, the other is not possible. If this happens to occur in the same body, fantastic. I am not speaking of performers and composers as people, but rather functions.

Part II.
It isn't unreasonable for the composer to have other interpretations of their music as part of their original conception of sound. Historically speaking, composers have always written pieces for instruments with specific performers in mind. It is completely possible for a composer to not want to deal with performers. For example, Paul Lansky of computer music fame did most of his work on the computer, using that as his performer. When using a computer, you have much more control over the sound you want, and the interpretation will always be yours. But he did end up writing live music to have performed.

When a composer writes for an instrument that he or she cannot play, he or she is agreeing to an interpretation that was not originally his or hers. And it is not unheard of for a composer to work with a performer to try to get the sound that he or she was unable to write down. But especially in this day an age, when anything is possible with the right software, composers could easily refrain from having their music performed live and sequence everything to exactly how they wanted (which OverClocked Remixer Shnabubula did when he wrote his remix "Mario Likes Thorazine"--I asked him if he wanted it performed, he said no). Yet, the fact that so many modern composers do strive to hear their music performed by other people can only logically mean that the composer is looking to hear somebody else's interpretation.

So in conclusion, it can be argued that the composer's interpretation of his or her own work is the most "valid". But that doesn't at all downplay the importance of the composer to the performer--especially when they're one in the same.

PhiJayy

05-16-2008, 08:35 AM

I like how the original person xRisingForce called out (Mephisto) hasn't even posted in this thread.

hahahahah....lol. Quite funny, but very strange. Why hasn't Mephisto said a word?
Hmmmm....:?:

Wina A. Kamlongera

05-16-2008, 08:40 AM

xRisingForce, just to clear any misunderstandings...this is directed to you.

Okay...I consider myself pretty eloquent and well versed in the English language - to the point that I love adding extra "unnecessary" words to throw people off but it's getting really annoying reading when you have to take one-liners (where some are not even addressed to you) and reply with a pretty thick response.

I'm not gonna go back and find the quote (there's so much to go back through) but you don't seem to respect remixers. Have you tried remixing, or should I say rearranging? I can tell you now...I've had an easier time playing Devil May Cry 3 on 'Dante Must Die' difficulty. I'm not gonna say more on that matter because people have addressed it but I would personally feel really humbled if someone took time out of their life to redo one of my compositions in their own style.

Your comment about lyrics: listen to some instrumentals...does it feel the same without the lyrics? IMO, lyrics and music work pretty similar to paintings/pictures and colour. Pictures could do without the paint like music could do without the lyrics; but they would feel pretty 'empty' if you know what I mean. Yet, adding those colours/lyrics adds so much more. They work together and complement each other. Just like a composer and performer complement each other...I could do without someone performing a piece of mine but, damn...if someone performed my pieces, I would (a) feel really fortunate, (b) it would allow people to hear my my music elsewhere where I could not have performed it (or would not have wanted to go) and (c) it would be an interesting chance to see just how someone interprets the notes I've laid out.

Oh, have you ever sat down in a class and been told to interpret a piece in your own way? That stuff is daunting, even improvising within the context of a song already laid out. Like people said before, you should have stopped early with your arguments and we probably would have all agreed or disagreed with you.

I'm no performer but I don't know anybody who's written any kind of orchestral or pseudo-orchestral piece would not dream of having their piece performed by a real orchestra versus a computer (I know I would)...hell, I have a crazy dream where I would love to hear an orchestra (or live instruments just because it would be so moving to me personally) play my pieces while a pretty thick/pounding drum pattern is playing over/supporting them; but that's just my weird style of music.

By the way, percussion does have emotive potential...why do you think a snare line can be played in so many different ways?

Manji

05-16-2008, 11:06 AM

I don't really intend to get too involved in this argument since I've never been classically trained and don't consider myself a classical musician in any way, shape or form (I rather like classical music, but that's about it), but what I will say is this...

I write music that I think sounds good. I play this music to the people in my band. They listen. They say "Hmmm, interesting!" Then they go off and play what feels right to them. Recently, we started working on a new song. I'm still playing the same guitar lines that I wrote down... but the drumming's different, the flute parts are different, the bass is different, the keyboards are different. Does this make me angry and filled with rage because I am a composer and my vision is being ignored?

No, because it makes the song sound a thousand times better. They interpret it in their own way. This is how music evolves. If I tried to force them to do exactly what I wanted them to play it wouldn't be a natural process, and it wouldn't be half as enjoyable to play.

Probably completely off the topic of the original argument, but hey. Also, xRisingForce... to make an unfounded assumption, I think you really need to get laid.

Torzelan

05-16-2008, 01:19 PM

I like how the original person xRisingForce called out (Mephisto) hasn't even posted in this thread.
hahahahah....lol. Quite funny, but very strange. Why hasn't Mephisto said a word?
Hmmmm....:?:

MEPH.
[...]
that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

Basically he's not posting because xRisingForce "called out" a person who said he wouldn't, I guess. Why he said he wouldn't post only he knows for sure but looking at how this thread's gone it shouldn't be too hard to make a decent guess.

05-16-2008, 04:38 PM

This whole thing has gotten pretty silly, but I used to call out Brad before it was cool. ;_;

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:25 PM

I. Introduction

II. Classical Discussion
i. Clarification and Restatement of Terms

III. Videogame Discussion
i. On Correct Interpretation

IV. General Interpretation
i. On Understanding a Composer’s Intentions
ii. In a Classical Context
iii. The Validity of the Composer’s Intentions
a. Through Premise
b. Through Application

V. Thread-Related Offshoots

I. Introduction
I've slept on this, and am prepared to reapproach this topic more carefully. I'm glad that this topic is actually gaining some good momentum, and I also thank all, er, most of the people who've posted in this thread for providing me with how other people see things.

My appreciation for music started as a listener, moved up to performance, and has ultimately graduated to composition. I want to address how this is a remixing site, and because remixing has its roots in interpretation, my opinions have been met with, suffice to say, fierce opposition. My mind has been opened a bit by the words of some. We’ve accomplished the point of this thread (an exchange of ideas), and some persuasion has come as a consequence of deep discussion. The points that I will now present are purely objective because they can be thoroughly argued without the inclusion of bias, so now I ask that you all, in turn, will seriously consider the veracity of my arguments through removing your bias just like Dhsu and Sil have commendably done.

Now it's time to offer my opinion. And yes, the content in this septuple post will be massive, because I am attempting to collectively respond to 30-33 pages of discussion. In case it wasn't clear, I am fully aware that its breaking the rules. I cannot get this kind of message across incrementally.

II. Classical Discussion

Ok, I understand you here, but let's talk about the composers whose music is most commonly played by the very performers we're talking about- that'd be more relevant.

- Dhsu, I wish you hadn't edited your post because I really wanted to quote you here.

Everything I’m writing in here is geared towards the assessment of the conventions which characterize the classical realm.

i. Clarification and Restatement of Terms
I've managed in finding two overbearing misconceptions regarding my argument here (just proof that I should be far more specific in regard to the connotations of my terms); what's difficult in pinpointing them is that one is nested in the other. I've tried my best in stringing together all the relevant quotes.

Here's the primary misconception (followed by examples):

The composer and performer have equally important roles in the music making process. The composer and performer can be the same person, or different people. Heifetz was a performer. Paul Lansky is a composer. Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, and Liszt were Composer-Performers.

The act of composing is the conception of sound. The act of performing is the execution of sound. Without one, the other is not possible. I am not speaking of performers and composers as people, but rather functions. Whereas a composer may base a composition off of a feeling, a landscape, an experience, etc. it is the responsibility of the performer to accurately convey that feeling, landscape, experience, etc. to the best of their ability.

A composer is no more "god-given" than a performer, and vice versa.

Also, it's odd that you seem so eager to put composers on a level higher than performers when many performers are composers and vice versa. Would you say that their worth goes up or down depending on what they're doing at the moment?

Performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all.

Let's turn that around: what would happen if there were no performers? Then what would composers who couldn't perform do? Like Sil said, they're forgotten.

Beethoven was actually my specific example in my post of a composer needing performers. Beethoven could only play his own piano and solo viola pieces. He would have a hard time accompanying himself, and would therefore need a piano player (or another violist) if he ever wanted to perform accompanied solos. Symphonies! If you think his symphonies were not a huge part of vast popularity and ability to transcend generations, then you're also foolish and wrong. Now imagine little Ludwig with his viola trying to play the 5th Symphony. Awesome! Or no. He could not play trombone. He could not play bassoon. He could only play one string part at a time.

Guess what he needed and used? Performers! It's not rocket science!

But that doesn't at all downplay the importance of the composer to the performer--especially when they're one in the same.

…

The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity. You might as well say that the sound engineer is just as important in the music making process, because in modern times, many if not most artists who record rely on a sound engineer to commit their audio to mp3. Is recording a piece just as important in the “music making” process?

DrumUltimA, you've put this into perfect perspective. The reason that so many people misunderstand this thread is because I don’t like saying “composer-performer.” The reason is, for me, composition entails performance. The naturality seems so self-evident. That’s why I think the dependency of a composer to performer relationship is not equally symbiotic, it’s way more one sided.

One of my composer friends at school, upon asking him what instrument he plays, told he me he didn't. "I took piano lessons for a little while, but I didn't get very far. My teacher told me that she liked my improvisations and I should keep going with that." And surprise, I LOVE his work.

Conceptualization of pitch is currently instrumentally dependent. If you literally play nothing, every midi programmer uses what’s known as a piano roll, so the way you conceptualize intervals and chords will be very fundamentally pianistic. He might as well play piano. What he listens to also constitutes a large part of his musical aesthetics, and whatever he likes is extremely instrumentally related. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable (in fact, elementary); you can’t notate bends on all stringed instruments (i.e. violin); every instrument has very inherently exclusive characteristics. What am I saying? He indirectly plays an instrument, and it’s stupid that he doesn’t pursue it further.

Here's the nested one:

Yeah, the reason I asked was to get you to clarify your views on classical performers. How can you call someone like Horowitz great if he's no better than a studio musician who doesn't know his role? And why do you keep talking about actors when you've already adamantly stated that they can't be compared to musicians??

Hollywood actors. I've stated my opinion on (and, this is many and not all) Hollywood actors. Those Hollywood actors that I do actually like (and for good measure, those who you all probably like as well), those are the ones who I view as Horowitzes, so to speak.

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:26 PM

III. Videogame Discussion
Given the subject matter of this thread, addressing this topic is to digress but because so many people are bringing it up..

i. On Correct Interpretation

NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. Comprehensive reading much? Where the hell is it written you have to stick to a "RELEVANT CONTEXT" and since when does it have to "CONVEY" anything? Fuck yeah… I hate musicologists.

Whew. More seriously though,

As far as remixing goes, my belief is this: Anything and everything is fair game. You're interpreting, but not with any sort of responsibility. The video game musicians didn't write you music for you to perform, they already wrote the music and that process is done. This stage is post-performance.

You can have an eevee, but evolve it the way you like :D

This is a cool analogy. What I’m saying is that it’s retarded to evolve it into a Jolteon when your battle with Erika’s coming up. Or more appropriately in the vein of aimless remixing (Tensai), that’s like evolving your Eevee into a Flareon when the next badge lies in Cinnabar City (another thing to be noted is that the Charmander route is not just difficult in itself, but is no holds barred the most difficult out of the Squirtle and Bulbasaur route. This is Pokémon’s subtle and cleverly implemented “Choose Your Difficulty” option). This is especially relevant here in that defeating Blaine is a necessary process, much like having how having aim and direction is a necessary process in good remixing that must be taken in achieving the ultimate goal of the game: becoming the Kanto region Pokémon champion. Really, I should be thanking you for making such a great analogy.

I'm not gonna go back and find the quote (there's so much to go back through) but you don't seem to respect remixers. Have you tried remixing, or should I say rearranging? I can tell you now...I've had an easier time playing Devil May Cry 3 on 'Dante Must Die' difficulty. I'm not gonna say more on that matter because people have addressed it but I would personally feel really humbled if someone took time out of their life to redo one of my compositions in their own style.

But there is an instinctive 'what if' factor in the human mind, a desire to take the road less travelled and see what would happen if we press button B instead of button A. That desire is what leads to interpretations of other people's work, remixes, etc. For example, I've been grinding away on a pounding industrial remix of the Zanarkand theme from Final Fantasy X for a long time now. Originally, that song was a gorgeous piano solo. I'm fully aware of what it was supposed to invoke: Sadness, loss, the end of a journey. It did all those things beautifully. I want to see if I can get it to convey power, determination, even anger. Why? Because it's a challenge. To change that song and cause it to invoke those emotions would be such a drastic change that I simply want to see what happens if I try. There's no possible way NOT to leave room for interpretation and modification of a song.

In no way did I belittle or am I belittling the double edged sword of curiosity.

Luna Umegaki is in my humble opinion one of the greatest videogame composers of all time. Three of her songs, "Holy Land," "Esperanto," and "Freesia," are all entirely based off of a single, developed idea. Each incarnation of the melody is only affected subtly, and the chord progression remains unchanged. The cool thing is, even with this consistency what each song represents is very different from the next.

"Holy Land" is a lament on the oppressive and persecutory nature of the government, "Esperanto" is an embodiment of a hero's indomitable determination, and "Freesia" is about the death of a friend, a hero, and loved one. The cool thing about this is that every piece is driven by the same feeling of sadness and oppression extremely specific to Rockman Zero, but the difference in the songs is reflective of how that single emotion could lead and did lead to different consequences. That shows tremendous adeptness as a composer on Umegaki's part.

My point is that they're all similarly linked through expressing derivative expressions of that initial expression, and if you can work in a context like that, interpretation is extremely appropriate. You can do this through genre. Think about it: what is a genre in a musical context? It’s a completely different way of expressing certain emotions, and exclusive emotions. The derivation of emotion/expression can lead to a circumstance where a certain genre would express those ideas/emotions better. That’s the catalyst behind the advent of videogame music arranging.

The drive behind your arrangement however, seems to be aimless and more a satisfaction of uninspired curiosity than anything else. If your drive is aimless, the resulting piece is going to be as such. I ask you: what is art without expression? You seem to know well what To Zanarkand is about, and it's extremely relevant when it does play, because you can view the song's message through the eyes of every party member and the resultant understanding would make perfect sense. It's about the intense adversity the group had to surmount to that point. It's about Tidus's state of mind as he has to digest the huge sacrifice required to get the final aeon. These are feelings of trying to maintain sanity when the current atmosphere is dominated by anxiety and unrest. To Zanarkand is about that, and more specifically, the success in finally achieving a mental state of calmness as everyone is gathered around the crackling fire, silently meditating upon the unearthly trials of tomorrow. The overbearing tone here is sadness. It's not an emotion metal really expresses well. Haven't you heard the Black Mages version? This is not to say it wouldn’t work in a metal context. Without direction, rearranging will not work in any context.

Corridors of Time is much about sadness also, but it's not from any observable character's point of view. It's written from an anonymous third person perspective, and what's sad is his realization of the ignorance and infantile mentality that so summarizes the mentality of Zeal's inhabitants. The older citizens of Zeal think like teenagers. They have that same self-entitlement mentality; they believe that they deserve to be in Zeal when the state of things is completely due to circumstance and they hadn’t the slightest hand in it. They cast down those that live on the surface, suffering from a wintery holocaust. Those who have can't appreciate like those who haven't, but the way they say the most childishly arrogant things so nonchalantly is both disturbing and upsetting. And all that, believe it or not, is expressed within the Corridors of Time. What if you gave Corridors of Time a reggae mix? Would that relaxed, chill feeling so characteristic of it be at all congruent?

I know what you're philosophy is. You think that if a piece meant for flute is played on clarinet, it's a bad interpretation. You think meaning is the be-all and end-all of why music exists. Meaning as an ends unto itself. In other words, the meaning is the meaning. I can play an E and then you can play an E and I can say "No, that isn't what I meant at all, you got it all wrong!" You're infusing sequences of sounds with the abstract and berating others who don't conjure the same emotions and images that you did when you sequenced them.

Where are you sourcing this garbage from???

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:27 PM

IV. General Interpretation
Before I start, I’d like to present an idea. Room for interpretation is because of a lack of vision or because of specific intent. They are fundamentally different. Artistic shortcomings constitute the former and artistic intention the latter.

Take George Lucas for instance. The very creation of Star Wars: Episode I lacked vision. In designing the Naboo Starfighter, Lucas sat down very closely with the lead airship designer to run by a conceptualization of it, not a realization of it. He then has the designer run multiple designs by him until it struck a chord in him. Both of these co-operantly work towards the minimization of interpretation. This is the very way Mitsuda wrote music for Kato in Chrono Cross.

This is precisely why bands form: artistic shortcomings because all its members have singular instrumental fluency. If Jimmy Page could sing exceptionally well and write lyrics, he would have absolutely no need for Robert Plant. Yngwie, regardless of whether you like his music or not, delivers an extremely personal vision in that composition of every instrument is done by his truly. Why is this? Because of something he blatantly lets people know: he is a man of incredible vision.

I write music that I think sounds good. I play this music to the people in my band. They listen. They say "Hmmm, interesting!" Then they go off and play what feels right to them. Recently, we started working on a new song. I'm still playing the same guitar lines that I wrote down... but the drumming's different, the flute parts are different, the bass is different, the keyboards are different.

This is exactly what I'm talking about- you are only fluent in one instrument.

Peter Jackson, like many directors, allows room for interpretation through specific intent. Part of good cinematography is letting the actor shine through because people, essentially, are characterized by exclusive personality. He minimizes the occurrence of incongruent (to his vision) interpretation through a process commonly known as personal hiring.

The creation of a game like Super Mario is 99.9% if not 100% vision because the simplicity of the game’s construction allows Miyamoto to feasibly oversee all decisions. The reason he has to hire workers is, obviously, the sheer scale of videogame creation. By that very reason are bigger games far less personal, but rather a collective vision by circumstance of human limitation. In the creation of an rpg like Final Fantasy X, a director, plot author, composer, battle system developer, artist, and their respective subordinates must all work co-operantly. What’s important to take from this is although unfeasible, in theory the most personal game would come from a single person who’s well versed in fictional literature, cinematography, exciting interactivity, and music.

When I got to the part of the
game where Moonsong was playing, I was totally blown away by the level of
atmosphere I was faced with. I suppose this would happen when every aspect
of the game is coming from the same mind.

That's what I'm talking about.

The conclusion I'm getting here is that the ultimate performer would be a robot programmed with the composer's interpretation. Very often, composers (even very good and famous ones) can't or or simply don't want to provide such a specific interpretation. And that is why we need performers who will.

Whatever composers you’re referring to are extremely lacking in vision. This is not rocket science: the ultimate performer is the composer (and this can be realized in a live-setting through backing tracks recorded by the composer).

i. On Understanding a Composer’s Intentions
There are two battling viewpoints in this thread.

One is Sil’s:

The only real solution is that composers don't put rules or unrealistic expectations of how well someone interprets their music beyond the performance aspect, and even then the performer can interpret dynamic markings and tempo markings to his heart's content, because that's what performers do and composers KNOW this when they put those markings to paper.

and the other is ProphetofMephisto’s:

as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

I’m of the latter persuasion.

“There are times when I hear other music, but I mostly get inspired when I see things -- paintings or other things. When I see things, music just pops into my head. When I'm scoring a game, once I actually see it, that's when things come into my head. If there's nothing to see, I have a hard time.” – Yasunori Mitsuda

As a musician, what bothers me is the notion that music as an expressive outlet is limited. Take for instance Star Wars. George Lucas created Bespin, what is essentially a city in the clouds. Being associated with the sky, there's a certain surreal, elated feeling you get from it that any existing city in the world can't provide. Everything about it from its unique architecture to its culture is a pure, Lucas brainchild. He has basically invented a new emotion (along with the writer of Chrono Trigger inventing Zeal, and other historical incarnations of the sky-arcadia), through inventing a completely new world. Williams, while a fine composer, writes to augment every thematic niche in Star Wars, and while he too may express a new emotion not yet done through song by writing a theme for Bespin, he has to use Lucas's cinematic context as a primary fundament and footstool.

What this translates to is music having an overall less creative capacity than other arts because playing off of abstract contexts entails levels of dependency on mediums which these expressions are feasible. Literature, cinematography, videogames, or really any art that entails a level of visualization as necessary in its appreciation is easily more adept in expressing the fictional. Why is this? Because words and pictures carry far more explicit connotations than what 12, ambiguous tones could ever hope to achieve.

If Williams was independent of Star Wars and was trying to write a song that conveyed the above-outlined emotion of witnessing a floating city, he would have to visualize it first since the expression is intrinsically visual. He could not have done this if he was blind. This means the full potential of music cannot be realized exclusively auditory; there’s a visual aspect as well.

In this very vein, playing a game is, in most cases fundamental towards the well-understanding of its respective music; the contextual analysis of when pieces are played and why. Unlike you said earlier, this isn’t arrogant at all Sil; in fact, it’s in most cases the only sensible way to approach comprehension.

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:28 PM

On a related note:

It seems by what you're saying that you've completely closed your mind to any interpretation of another person's work whatsoever. Placing a boundary like that both on your ideas and your musicianship will keep you from an incredibly rich world of differing viewpoints and interpretations. It's not wrong to hold a different view, to want something different, to try to invoke DIFFERENT emotions. If composers throughout history hadn't tried to invoke new, different, and even controversial emotions, who knows what music would be today. Try to maintain an open mind.

You're using "different" very generically. You have to specify a context, because well, yeah, of course being different isn't bad. I'd much rather be of a world characteristic of identity rather than uniformity, but I want extremes of neither, you know? I don't want identity to the point of irrationality, where modifying works is seen as proper social decorum.

I will reiterate what I’ve stated above: What this translates to is music having an overall less creative capacity than other arts because playing off of abstract contexts entails a certain level of dependency on mediums through which these emotions are feasibly expressible. Music plays off of things already known to man. What accounts for difference in music is that you can take 100 composers, have them all write a song about a simple emotion like anger, and get 100 different pieces. They express the same thing differently, but music by nature cannot create new emotion; that's actually one of its undeniable drawbacks. Perhaps not grammatically, but if anything I want you to know how musically open minded I am. I give everything a chance.

ii. In a Classical Context

Interpretation can mean many things. If I crescendo a little on a long note to make it go somewhere even though it's not specifically written to, then that could be interpretation. Maybe a rubato somewhere that isn't marked to. You consider that a cardinal sin. Maybe you overlay sloppy electric guitar (with your embellishments) over the top of different kinds of music that doesn't specifically call for electric guitar. That's also interpretation. Other people may consider distortion and embellishments a cardinal sin. It works both ways.

Well, I was more referring to cases like Bach where it was technologically impossible to have things like dynamics or legato, so they didn't specify anything in that regard. In that case, it's the modern performer's responsibility to do what he feels is best for the music. Unless you feel that everyone should stick to playing Bach on clavichords.

Fratto, the validity of your argument begins and ends with classical context. I’m now aware of the fact that the harpsichord was dynamically singular, and whether Bach left out dynamic markings in harpsichord pieces out of intention or limitation is ambiguous, but I lean a bit more towards the latter. I’m also aware that Bach intentionally left out tempo markings in his Inventions because it was in the spirit of baroque, and that the magnitude of dynamics and musical markings is, funnily enough, ambiguous. Like the relationship states, the lack of a specific intent gives equal validity to all interpretations, so long as they remain within the general framework (the notes, etc.). This logically allows Horowitz’s interpretation of Beethoven to be valid; however it is not any more valid than Gould’s. I have changed my opinion on classical performers. A relevant example within the context of this website: the limiting nature of SNES music. I’d be really excited to hear the composers’ performances of great 80s and 90s videogame music.

Anyway, just to clarify, are you saying that in the specific case that the composer had a specific interpretation in mind, classical performers are expendable because they should only play what the composer intended. If so, I guess I can understand such an opinion.

If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do.

Note: Because this is a very modern practice, it is inapplicable to classical music and does digress from the explicitness of this thread, but while we’re on such a broad topic I might as well clarify.

I want to make the point that the more explicit the intentions, the less feasible it is to transcribe such vision to sheet music. Classical music relies heavily on sheets, so yes, I am wrong because the composers could not transfer their direct intent other than through concert. So classically, yes, this is quite an unfeasible idea, but with the advent of midi and ultimately, programs like Reason, you can control down to the hundredth-place value the velocity of every note, the degree of rubato of every passage, the amount of decibel increase in every crescendo, the amount of decibel increase rather than use vague, historic dynamic markings, and so forth and so on. Such practice is extremely feasible and by virtue of, in practice.

All musicians need and utilize creativity, whether you compose or perform. Contrary to a statement I read earlier, interpretation is not systematically analyzing where you place rubato, dynamics, articulation, etc.

No, no, no. The entire point of that post was me debunking that interpretation is something magical by virtue of unobservability, through the logic that what you hear sounds that way for very real reasons. And that does away with the rest of your argument, since in essence, I agree.

In conclusion:

So in conclusion, it can be argued that the composer's interpretation of his or her own work is the most "valid".

iii. The Validity of the Composer’s Intentions
a. Through Premise

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying.

But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all.

A composer is trying to give you a window into their world, to let you in for a moment and allow you to share the awesome power of their feelings. In my untrained mind, that's where the greatest difficulty for a composer comes from, trying to let people into your heart and mind through that music.

The probability of anonymous invention inversely relates to the amount of personality in the invention. Art, like Shadow Wolf says, is the ultimate glimpse into a person’s mind- the chance that someone else would have the exact same musical aesthetics as another is less probable than the existence of identical snowflakes, and you know what they say about snowflakes. I’m not sure but I think I read somewhere that the human mind is far more complex than a snowflake.

Of course, this relationship also gives credence to the virtue of anonymous-invention regarding simplistic three chord songs. And in this sense, you’re right, the sandwich doesn’t display inherencies exclusively characteristic of the Earl of Sandwich- he just happened to be the first to invent it. The less a composer knows how to express himself, which leads to simpler songs, the better chance that someone else can use the melodic and harmonic elements of that composer’s song in creating a far more expressive piece. However, the inverse is more relevant to my argument; the more a composer knows how to express himself leads to far more personal songs with inextricably personal elements in the song’s melody and harmony, which decreases the possibility of anonymous invention and any virtues of anonymous invention’s utility to the point of nonexistence.

Why do you think in a book to movie or manga to anime adaptation, the book is almost invariably better? The answer isn’t rocket science; the composer holds a far better interpretation in representing what he/she wanted to express. Of course one could (and in this day and age, would) argue that the nature of cinematography doesn’t entail as-profound character development and there are time constraints, blah blah blah etc. [insert useless jargon here]- the composer holds a far better interpretation in representing what he/she wanted to express.

A good example of correct interpretation is that when we all visualize Hogwarts, the important thing is that we’re all visualizing castles. The visualization of a beach would be completely wrong, and make a significant remark on the level of your literacy. The thing with interpretation is it’s much easier to make this mistake because of the very inexplicit and ambiguous nature of 12 tones as opposed to reading “Castle.” To make an interesting point, it’s through this very explicit nature of words that songs which are lyrically based lose musical credibility, because the usage of words extends beyond a mere crutch in conveying the expression; it uses it as a fundament.

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:28 PM

On a related note:

Thieves evade the public eye all the time. Also, generations forget things. The number of people that think Soft Cell was the original performer of "Tainted Love" is huge. No one even knows any other songs by Soft Cell. Their biggest hit isn't even their own. How many people know that? The song was hugely popular and remains a staple of 1980s culture. Fast forward 150 years. If anyone remembers Soft Cell, they won't remember that their only hit was a rip off of a funk/soul song. I doubt that Beethoven stole all his songs, but I like to play devil's advocate on occasion.

Your premise loses all significance in that the fact-of-the-matter is, you are aware that Soft Cell didn’t write “Tainted Love.”

b. Through Application

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

I honestly believe a composer's mind is not so inscrutable that a performer cannot comprehend his intention. Composers are human just like performers, and if they're doing their job properly, it's perfectly possible for a performer to know exactly what's going on in the mind and the heart of the composer. Many performers spend many many hours in research in order to do just that. And when that is achieved, it's just like following a recipe...like the original chef, you might use a few more milligrams of flour on one occasion, or a few less grains of sugar the next, but you'll still get a delicious cake every time.

You’re half right Sil, and this is a great way of putting it. Let’s say the intention was meant to draw a sphere (the diameter is irrelevant here, although it certainly translates to my point as well). Different people would, by virtue of individuality, fill the sphere with a different color. If the sphere was meant to be a very specific shade of navy blue, we would only be able to approximate the saturation and luminosity of it. So yeah, I don’t believe that the composer’s mind is inscrutable to the point where we couldn’t even visualize the circle- then any potential for artistic appreciation would be nonexistent. I’m saying we can understand the tip of the iceberg (the circle) through listening, and through methods similar to understanding videogame music, maybe even close to the shade. But we can’t grasp the shade completely; even the grasping of a similar shade isn’t intrinsic in us, but acquired through the fruits of our labor. And that in and of itself connotates a ton of artificiality.

In application, take for instance a song about the serenity of walking along a coastline at sunset. Person x is a well developed musician and grasps the beach but misses the sunset, but what makes his beach serene is that he spent his honeymoon there, so in all of his performances, emotions derived from his wife carry the performance, not the inherent serenity that a beach and sunset exude in combination. Person y is a well developed musician too, but for him the beach is synonymous with death, because the first time he went there, his 13 year old son was wearing jewelry, swam too far in, and was killed by a shark. To make this more feasible, let’s say Person y listened to this song not too long after his son’s death. A mental block prevented him from going to the beach because he doesn’t see any worth in it, and he’s stupefied at the supposition that people can see beauty in it. In this subconscious equating of two things, he doesn’t even think of a beach when he hears the song, but rather his wife because he equates serenity with that. However, mere serenity is not what drives this song, and in missing the point, he has a fundamentally incorrect and ultimately incomplete grasp on the song. Serenity is the circle. The beach and sunset are the shade.

Blaming a situation on the side-effects of a condition rather than the condition itself is a very subtle fallacy that people commit every day. The veracity of analyzing such a situation and coming to the conclusion that a side-effect was the primary cause is deceptive, because it appears to be perfectly correct. This is relevant to the interpretation as well.

Take for instance, the death metal musicians who respect Yngwie so immensely. It is unarguable that he is a technical freak- and this is exactly where and precisely why they are short-sighted. His blisteringly quick licks are purely a consequence and entailment of the musical aesthetics that fundamentally drive his desire to play fast, because what Yngwie aims to express can only be realizable as such. That is to say, the speed is definitely not in the vein of self-servitude that so defines death metal musicality. That is a skin-deep interpretation of Yngwie’s speed.

All this goes into making the statement: a single circle to two different people means two different things; a beach to two people means two different things; and an expression to two people means two different things is reflective of OCReMix’s subjective type of interpretation.

The very reason why you all enjoy your own interpretations more is because it reflects you, but that’s not true appreciation. The compositions are about the artists, and true appreciation is within the nature of the connection: how we can connect with them because we connect with what they are expressing, not morphing the meaning of their work to suit us. That is extremely arrogant. Understanding the circle is the easy part. Understanding the color is what makes a good interpreter, and essentially, part of what makes a good composer.

DrumUltimA, in this sense, it’s not that music isn’t for everyone, it’s that it isn’t understood correctly by everyone.

As for me, I’m all about interpretation; correct interpretation. I’m not so pretentious in slapping my own emotion to the piece and arguing that I’m correct, because correct interpretation of a piece is NOT relative to us, but objective in the case of specific intent.

This is why the most valid interpretation of a work is by its composer; fictional literature has its roots in spoken word; music has its roots in performance. Why our culture prefers books and mp3s is because they are more accessible and modern technology can make for longer books and deceptively talented artists. The appeal of modern live performance doesn’t even have its roots in music anymore; the appeal is almost entirely visual and social. That’s at least true for rock, but then again rock is characterized by deviating from classical convention. Leave it to the orchestra to provide the live musical experience in the vein of spoken word orators.

I'd like to get a more direct response about my bad mother analogy though...you stated that some people shouldn't be composing, but the fact is that they do. Is it still the performer's responsibility to adhere to the composer's amateur concept of interpretation?

And for the record, music is for EVERYONE. I was a bit taken aback by that comment.

Dhsu, absolutely not! And this is where you’re right! It’s not that music isn’t meant for everyone, it’s that some are better, some are worse. In such a day and age where the fallacious “You can do anything through hard work” mentality is so promoted, there exists a tremendously large amount of people who plague the industries of their disciplines because they are extremely inept. It’s an utterly sad realization that many aren’t adept at what they’re best at. Best and quality are adjectives exclusive of each other.

On a related note, I also believe that not everyone is suited to be a parent. Childbirth is biologically intrinsic within the human race, but there are many infertile women who ache to bear children so badly, and fertile women who donate their children to foster homes, who neglect their children, who sexually assault their children, who have massive shortcomings in being a good parent. The numerous mentally ill children of the world are indicative of that.

Besides. If the composition is so crappy what incentive would there be to play it? This is a ridiculous argument.

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:29 PM

Direct response to analogy:

How about we take your mother/child analogy from earlier...there are bad mothers, just as there are bad composers. Just because you spawned the child doesn't mean you will treat it properly. A performer might be analogous to a babysitter...yes, you're expected to follow the parent's instructions, but most likely she will leave certain things like lunch and games up to your judgment i.e. INTERPRETATION.

This is an alright analogy, but any similarity is skin-deep. You're essentially changing a piece through interpretation, where trivialities like when to give the child lunch, what to give, when/if to play what games is inconsequential to how the child is going to turn out in even the smallest degree, because the essence of babysitting is temporary oversight. Also, the fact that bad babysitting (i.e. spoiling the kid) is unarguably bad makes this analogy uncomparable to music in that the base of your pro-interpretation argument is that it is void of restriction. Childbirth is a double-edged sword in that the biology of a child is absolutely uncontrollable; it’s quite different with composition.

You are making assumptions about the composer's intent. Maybe he doesn't think his interpretation of the notes he wrote down IS the most valid.

What kind of good composer thinks like this???

But PLEASE never assume you or anyone else is the ultimate authority on what OTHER people have written. Just don't be so presumptuous to think that other composers CARE how well their music is interpreted, because they only CARE as much as they're willing to put down little extra bits of info to explain just what the hell is going on when they hand the music to another person.
[/quote]
*Ahem*, the composer maybe??? And yes, my opinions are more valid than yours by virtue of trying to understand the song like the composer, and that I understand the simple facts outlined above and use them to guide my understanding.

V. Thread-Related Offshoots

I am a classical musician. I am a studio musician. I am a jazz musician. I was, and may be again, a rock/pop/whatever musician. I don't feel any more or less replaceable when I'm playing tuba in the symphony as I do when I'm playing bass trombone in the jazz orchestra. Grouping musicians together by venue is foolish and wrong.

If you incorrectly assumed, I agree with you. The reason why I too don’t like using the word “genre” is because genres are an inherently complimentary set of defining limitations (characteristics). The definition is sculpted by a certain set of characteristics, characteristics that also happen to constrict freedom by a distinct inability to venture outside the criterion that constitutes the essence of that genre. Referring to a music or musicians by genre is essentially stereotyping.

Music without words isn't real music. Pop punk isn't music because it's lyrically driven, therefore those people aren't musicians. This is ludicrous. That's like saying that the Beastie Boys are not musicians because of their rap (lyric driven) style. Then what do you think of "Transitions" in terms of music? It's incredible and instrumental. Are they more valuable during that song than they are when they're singing or rapping? Is Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan any less valuable to music because they are also singers? No to all questions. No.

The human voice is a fantastic instrument. The reason that pop music doesn't change past four chords with one rhythm and one dynamic (this is an ignorant fallacy, but for the sake of your argument we'll pretend) is because since it's vocally driven it doesn't need to. It's not necessarily lyrically driven as much as it is vocally driven. The intensity, musicality, interpretation, feeling, emotion, and soul are all in the voice of the singer and the mood of the harmonies. The voice is an incredible instrument. Learn that.

You have seriously misperceived the essence of my argument; your arguments share an extremely vague denominator. What you argue is only a half-truth. Take into the account the following polysyllogism:

The Misnomer of Modern Music
1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Arts’ fundamental disciplines are different solely in the inherently exclusive mediums through which self-expression is realized.

3. Music is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through pitch and rhythm (2).

4. Literature is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through words (2).

5. Expression realized through words is literature by inherency and not music (3 + 4).

6. Lyrics are a direct derivative of literature.

7. Because lyrics are a derivative of literature, they are uninherently musical (5 + 6).

8. A song is a piece of music.

9. If a song’s expression is built on lyrics, it is inherently unmusical (7 + 8).

Conclusion: If song is inherently unmusical then it is not music, because the presupposition that a song can be built on lyrics is fallacious.

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 07:30 PM

Your comment about lyrics: listen to some instrumentals...does it feel the same without the lyrics? IMO, lyrics and music work pretty similar to paintings/pictures and colour. Pictures could do without the paint like music could do without the lyrics; but they would feel pretty 'empty' if you know what I mean. Yet, adding those colours/lyrics adds so much more. They work together and complement each other.

This is wrong. A melody is ambiguous without chordal context, so a melody would be like the outline of a picture, not lyrics. The colors which fill the outlines are the chords/harmony. I present my point of view:

The Augmentative Role of Lyrics
1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Arts’ fundamental disciplines are different solely in the inherently exclusive mediums through which self-expression can be realized.

3. Music is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through pitch and rhythm (2).

4. Literature is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through words (2).

5. Expression realized through words is literature by inherency and not music (3 + 4).

6. Lyrics are a derivative of literature.

7. Because lyrics are a derivative of literature, they are uninherently musical (5 + 6).

9. A song is a piece of music.

10. If a song’s expression is built on pitch and rhythm it is inherently musical (7 + 8).

11. "Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.” – G. H. Lewes (On Emergence and applicable to chemical reactions)

12. If the nature of x is unemergent and x is inherently y, augmenting x through z does not affect x’s inherency in the case that z shares properties of y because x’s inherent congruency is preserved.

13. A song is unimergent by nature.

14. If a song is inherently musical, in the application of lyrics do lyrics take on the inherently musical property of pitch, and can a song thusly retain its musically congruent nature (12 + 13).

Conclusion: Since the resultants of music (songs) are unemergent, if it is inherently musical, augmentation through lyrics does not affect its musical inherency (11 + 14).

There’s a definite way to use lyrics- it’s just that most of the world is completely ignorant of it. If you want my stance on how to use lyrics, this is neither the time nor place but I will post defense on what constitutes good lyrics.

As for your views on music and your claims, I'd be curious to know how far removed from you are from immigration. You have a dominantly Western view of music and Eastern music probably scares you. Music outside the US and Western Europe is very rhythmic and some have no pitch at all, though the music may be downright sacred to them.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! I’M 100% KOREAN! Can anyone say WRONG???

And that’s what you get for trying to prejudge me. I think roughly 5,000/7,000 of the songs in my library originated in Asia, 7,000 songs by 281 very diverse artists.

It’s a shame you didn’t read my awesome paragraph because it would’ve affected you on a level tremendous significance.

I read it; I didn’t value it.

Lurk moar in music.

Lurk more in logic.

The fact of the matter is that people who love music all love it for different reasons.

The Correlation Between Emotional Spectrum and Musical Taste
1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Music is an art, so music is a form of self-expression.

4 A song is a piece of music, so a song is a form of self-expression.

5. If one likes a song, one finds worth in the song’s expression.

6. People naturally have predilections toward songs that express what emotions they value.

7. Broadening the spectrum of my emotions will increase the amount of emotions I value.

Conclusion: Broadening my emotional spectrum will increase the amount of songs that I value (5 + 6 + 7).

Logically, people love different music because for many reasons that I won’t list here, they value different emotions and expressions. You should like a song because you like what it expresses, nothing else.

By the way, percussion does have emotive potential...why do you think a snare line can be played in so many different ways?

Read a bit more carefully. It’s not the emotive potential in itself I’m downplaying, rather the degree of expressibility.

-Close-

Tensei

05-20-2008, 07:42 PM

Or more appropriately in the vein of aimless remixing (Tensai)

K.

1. You make fucking pokemon analogies.
2. You misspell my nick. Twice.
3. You know shit about my remixes yet you talk shit about me.
4. YOU MAKE FUCKING POKEMON ANALOGIES.
5. You're breaking the rules x7 by posting 7 times in a row.
6. You're a retard for assuming anyone is going to read what you just wrote.
7. I make fucking awesome remixes, just because they're not 'Sloppy guitar noodling over someone elses backing track' like you like to do doesn't make them aimless. People like them, thus they have a purpose.
8. YOU MAKE FUCKING. POKEMON. ANALOGIES. HOW OLD ARE YOU EVEN?!

Manji

05-20-2008, 07:47 PM

:\ You have no vision, bro.

Allow me to call bullshit on this one aspect of your stupidly-long posts.

From what I can tell, you're not in a band- you just do solo guitar stuff. As such, you obviously have absolutely no understanding of how a band actually works. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing to classical music, which is why I was hesitant to bring it up here in the first place; it's very rare to have a band where one person composes all the music and tells everybody else in the band to play it EXACTLY as it's been written. You know why? Because in modern music that leads to lifeless, boring tripe with no personal flare from the other musicians. The process of creating music with a band should be a fluid, natural act, whether built from improvisation between people with similar mindsets or triggered by a single composer with a vision.

I like to think I do have a vision; my idea for the song I write is communicated through the guitar lines and through the 'feeling' I have in my head for that song. I'll communicate that feeling to the people in my band (maybe I should have mentioned that in the original post) by saying "Okay, this song is about so-and-so, and it should ideally evoke a feeling of this, that and the other..." or something along those lines.

They then go and do what they do best- take those ideas, along with the suggested parts I've given them, and make something infinitely more awesome.

That's the way we do it, and I think it works much better than whatever other route you're suggesting; sorry, I can't tell exactly what you're suggesting, because I can't decipher what the fuck you mean from the maze of unnecessary words you're using.

On that note: saying "The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity" categorically proves that you have no penis.

And I'm done.

po!

05-20-2008, 08:33 PM

wow this has become quite the thread. i only read a small part of it, and i was gonna say something but now i don't even know what to say. this has become an argument about nothing and everything

xRisingForce, you seem pretty adamant about forcing your opinions on others, and wildly arguing with anybody who disagrees with you. I know you think you are correct, but so does everybody else, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has changed their opinion. and of course we are talking about art and opinions, so there is no "correct" anyways

this kind of classic internet argument never gets anywhere. and if you all realize that, you could save a lot of time and typing posts when you find yourself repeating the same argument over and over in response to someone else's repeated argument

so that's what i've learned on teh intarwebs... make your point ONCE, then let it go. it'll make your life a lot easier.

with that, i'll make my point in response to the following quote, and you won't see me repeat this argument ad nauseam

Dude, it's freakin' logical. The need for self-expression gave birth to art, pitch and rhythm gave birth to music, and composition, as well as listening, is how we utilize music. Music is, on the most basic level, pitch-driven. What value does a piece carry if the foundation of it is lyrical? Literature has absolutely no similar qualities with pitch! In lyrics' construction (making literature vocal and assigning respective notes) you can see that the purpose of lyrics is to augment music. Music however, does not exist to augment pitch.

you're forgetting something very important, and that's rhythm... a lot of music is rhythm driven

when the europeans went to africa, they discovered that the africans' music was pretty much all drums and rhythm. they thought it was "primitive" music and that they were so much more musically advanced since they had harmony

fast forward to today, where this african concept of rhythm has become ubiquitous through black music having such a large influence in the modern music world. it's all about da rhythm... you don't see people dancing in the club cuz of pitch/harmony or lyrics

jazz, hip hop, house, trance, 2-step, eurodance... all that stuff is rhythm based. it's DA PHAT BEATS... RHYTHM

05-20-2008, 08:40 PM

cobaltstarfire

05-20-2008, 08:55 PM

You should like a song because you like what it expresses, nothing else.

Actually, no I'll like a song for whatever the hell reason I want to, not because you told me why I should like it.

Also, neat midi OA. :D

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 08:58 PM

Peter, don't take this the wrong way, but your arrogance-to-skill ratio is completely unbalanced. I can't believe I read through a septuple-post, but I did, and through your narcissism and blatantly rampant hubris, I could find little actual substance to your posts.

To quote Frank Zappa, "Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar".

I wrote this over the weekend as a musical challenge to your Id. It's formatted in midi so you or anyone else can take the music and learn/perform it should you so choose.

You seem like you desperately have something to prove.

Well, here is your chance. I'm calling you out.

http://oceansend.com/5502/ocr/original/PIANO.MID
Frank Zappa's a good guy to quote. I thank you for actually reading it, but there's a lot of substance in there, a lot less verbiage than the usual.

In regards to the song- what do you want me to do with it, if anything it all? Do you want me to respond with one of my own compositions?

Kanthos

05-20-2008, 08:58 PM

I have a very closed-minded view of music and refuse to accept that any other view, let alone one more broad, could possibly be right.

The only thing I can say about this thread is that I'm glad you're not arguing religion.

DarkeSword

05-20-2008, 09:03 PM

xRisingForce, I'm going to tell you again: stop double-, triple-, septuple posting. It's against the rules. If what you have to say won't fit in one post, well then you're saying too much and not promoting discussion. Learn to use some brevity in your arguments.

05-20-2008, 09:06 PM

In regards to the song- what do you want me to do with it, if anything it all? Do you want me to respond with one of my own compositions?

I wouldn't want you to do anything with my song itself, to be honest. Anyone performing it but me would not even know where to begin to match my passion and emotional involvement, and would simply end up falling short. /darkesworde

I want you to write a response to it. I don't know what you have planned for the next week, but I wrote mine in about 6 hours. So I think you having a superior piece by Friday 12:01 is perfectly reasonable.

Dhsu

05-20-2008, 09:08 PM

The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity. You might as well say that the sound engineer is just as important in the music making process, because in modern times, many if not most artists who record rely on a sound engineer to commit their audio to mp3. Is recording a piece just as important in the “music making” process?
Audio engineers are in fact paid more than many composers.

DrumUltimA, you've put this into perfect perspective. The reason that so many people misunderstand this thread is because I don’t like saying “composer-performer.” The reason is, for me, composition entails performance. The naturality seems so self-evident. That’s why I think the dependency of a composer to performer relationship is not equally symbiotic, it’s way more one sided.
I think this is the major flaw in your reasoning: just because something is "natural" or "self-evident" to you does NOT mean it is true! There are hundreds upon hundreds of composers like DarkeSword who have no performance skills at all. That would be like expecting all directors to be A-list actors as well.

Before I start, I’d like to present an idea. Room for interpretation is because of a lack of vision or because of specific intent. They are fundamentally different. Artistic shortcomings constitute the former and artistic intention the latter.

Take George Lucas for instance. The very creation of Star Wars: Episode I lacked vision. In designing the Naboo Starfighter, Lucas sat down very closely with the lead airship designer to run by a conceptualization of it, not a realization of it. He then has the designer run multiple designs by him until it struck a chord in him. Both of these co-operantly work towards the minimization of interpretation. This is the very way Mitsuda wrote music for Kato in Chrono Cross.

This is precisely why bands form: artistic shortcomings because all its members have singular instrumental fluency. If Jimmy Page could sing exceptionally well and write lyrics, he would have absolutely no need for Robert Plant. Yngwie, regardless of whether you like his music or not, delivers an extremely personal vision in that composition of every instrument is done by his truly. Why is this? Because of something he blatantly lets people know: he is a man of incredible vision.

Peter Jackson, like many directors, allows room for interpretation through specific intent. Part of good cinematography is letting the actor shine through because people, essentially, are characterized by exclusive personality. He minimizes the occurrence of incongruent (to his vision) interpretation through a process commonly known as personal hiring.

The creation of a game like Super Mario is 99.9% if not 100% vision because the simplicity of the game’s construction allows Miyamoto to feasibly oversee all decisions. The reason he has to hire workers is, obviously, the sheer scale of videogame creation. By that very reason are bigger games far less personal, but rather a collective vision by circumstance of human limitation. In the creation of an rpg like Final Fantasy X, a director, plot author, composer, battle system developer, artist, and their respective subordinates must all work co-operantly. What’s important to take from this is although unfeasible, in theory the most personal game would come from a single person who’s well versed in fictional literature, cinematography, exciting interactivity, and music.

Whatever composers you’re referring to are extremely lacking in vision. This is not rocket science: the ultimate performer is the composer (and this can be realized in a live-setting through backing tracks recorded by the composer).
I was actually referring to greats such Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.

I think this point is going to get you a lot of controversy. I don't see it so much a lack of vision as a lack of need...it's not the composer's job to tell someone how to play a piano, because the performer already knows through experience and practice what to do.

There is a time and place for compositions that are detailed to the point at which every note and velocity is meticulously crafted, but more often than not it would just be a waste of time. Not everyone is imagining cities in clouds when they compose...sometimes it's just anger, or happiness, in all its ambiguous complexity. If you want to call that lack of vision, I won't stop you, but here's an idea that may seem revolutionary: maybe sometime, someplace, a little less focus is not such a bad thing. Maybe the composer's vision is a lack of a vision.

If Williams was independent of Star Wars and was trying to write a song that conveyed the above-outlined emotion of witnessing a floating city, he would have to visualize it first since the expression is intrinsically visual. He could not have done this if he was blind. This means the full potential of music cannot be realized exclusively auditory; there’s a visual aspect as well.
There were and are blind composers. And Beethoven was freakin' DEAF!

No, no, no. The entire point of that post was me debunking that interpretation is something magical by virtue of unobservability, through the logic that what you hear sounds that way for very real reasons.
Actually the same reasoning you use to claim that a composer's interpretation is unique can be applied to performers as well, since like you say every person is unique.

What's more confusing to me is this blatant double standard that keeps coming up. You feel differences between two interpretations are mundane and insignificant when coming from a performer, yet mysterious and sacred when produced by the composer. Let's just pretend for a moment that a certain piece was composed by 10 different performers. Could you see how each person's unique interpretation would be valuable and worthwhile? Performers, just as composers, put their soul into a piece, and it's ignorant to belittle their differences.

You’re half right Sil, and this is a great way of putting it. Let’s say the intention was meant to draw a sphere (the diameter is irrelevant here, although it certainly translates to my point as well). Different people would, by virtue of individuality, fill the sphere with a different color. If the sphere was meant to be a very specific shade of navy blue, we would only be able to approximate the saturation and luminosity of it. So yeah, I don’t believe that the composer’s mind is inscrutable to the point where we couldn’t even visualize the circle- then any potential for artistic appreciation would be nonexistent. I’m saying we can understand the tip of the iceberg (the circle) through listening, and through methods similar to understanding videogame music, maybe even close to the shade. But we can’t grasp the shade completely; even the grasping of a similar shade isn’t intrinsic in us, but acquired through the fruits of our labor. And that in and of itself connotates a ton of artificiality.

In application, take for instance a song about the serenity of walking along a coastline at sunset. Person x is a well developed musician and grasps the beach but misses the sunset, but what makes his beach serene is that he spent his honeymoon there, so in all of his performances, emotions derived from his wife carry the performance, not the inherent serenity that a beach and sunset exude in combination. Person y is a well developed musician too, but for him the beach is synonymous with death, because the first time he went there, his 13 year old son was wearing jewelry, swam too far in, and was killed by a shark. To make this more feasible, let’s say Person y listened to this song not too long after his son’s death. A mental block prevented him from going to the beach because he doesn’t see any worth in it, and he’s stupefied at the supposition that people can see beauty in it. In this subconscious equating of two things, he doesn’t even think of a beach when he hears the song, but rather his wife because he equates serenity with that. However, mere serenity is not what drives this song, and in missing the point, he has a fundamentally incorrect and ultimately incomplete grasp on the song. Serenity is the circle. The beach and sunset are the shade.
Equipped with the appropriate knowledge of the beach and sunset, a performer could recreate the shade as well. I repeat that the mind of a composer isn't so inscrutable that nobody else could possibly comprehend it. Even if such a comprehension is artificially obtained, I believe a performer can be so in synch with the mind, will, and emotions of a composer to the point that he can play a piece exactly as the composer would (or even better, in the likely case that he is more skilled at performance than the composer), just as a good actor knows perfectly the intentions of a good director.

Take for instance, the death metal musicians who respect Yngwie so immensely. It is unarguable that he is a technical freak- and this is exactly where and precisely why they are short-sighted. His blisteringly quick licks are purely a consequence and entailment of the musical aesthetics that fundamentally drive his desire to play fast, because what Yngwie aims to express can only be realizable as such. That is to say, the speed is definitely not in the vein of self-servitude that so defines death metal musicality. That is a skin-deep interpretation of Yngwie’s speed.
And right after you say no one can know a composer's intentions, here you are interpreting Yngwie's intentions...

Dhsu, absolutely not! And this is where you’re right! It’s not that music isn’t meant for everyone, it’s that some are better, some are worse. In such a day and age where the fallacious “You can do anything through hard work” mentality is so promoted, there exists a tremendously large amount of people who plague the industries of their disciplines because they are extremely inept. It’s an utterly sad realization that many aren’t adept at what they’re best at. Best and quality are adjectives exclusive of each other.

On a related note, I also believe that not everyone is suited to be a parent. Childbirth is biologically intrinsic within the human race, but there are many infertile women who ache to bear children so badly, and fertile women who donate their children to foster homes, who neglect their children, who sexually assault their children, who have massive shortcomings in being a good parent. The numerous mentally ill children of the world are indicative of that.

Besides. If the composition is so crappy what incentive would there be to play it? This is a ridiculous argument.
That is entirely beside the point! The point is that you have been very clear in asserting that the composer's intention is the only correct one, and yet here you have admitted that some composers are better and some are worse, even to the point that some shouldn't even be composing. So where do you draw the line? At which point should a performer follow the composer note for note, dynamic for dynamic, and at which point should he start questioning the composer's musical credibility?

For the record, I think the belief that some people shouldn't compose is ludicrous. Music is expression, and everyone has a right to express themselves. Unlike a child, a composition has no feelings or needs, and can be ignored with impunity.

6. Lyrics are a direct derivative of literature.
Derivation is not equality.

Lurk more in logic.
I say this as a friend: you would do well to do the same.

DrumUltimA

05-20-2008, 09:14 PM

Wait... is your name Peter? You wouldn't happen to be named Peter Kwon, would you?

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 09:25 PM

Wait... is your name Peter? You wouldn't happen to be named Peter Kwon, would you?

Can't say that I am. Who's he?

DrumUltimA

05-20-2008, 09:30 PM

damn! some kid who goes to my school, kinda looked like you. That would've been nuts.

DarkeSword

05-20-2008, 09:48 PM

There are hundreds upon hundreds of composers like DarkeSword who have no performance skills at all

Pretty much true.

xRisingForce

05-20-2008, 09:50 PM

damn! some kid who goes to my school, kinda looked like you. That would've been nuts.

Haha yeah, that would've been. They say we all look alike. *Shrug*

P.S.: I'm extremely impressed/blown away by your Moonsong arrangement. Your mom's violin lines are as clear as Perlman's.

DrumUltimA

05-20-2008, 11:23 PM

Haha yeah, that would've been. They say we all look alike. *Shrug*

P.S.: I'm extremely impressed/blown away by your Moonsong arrangement. Your mom's violin lines are as clear as Perlman's.

Thanks! I'll pass on the compliment :D

Sil

05-21-2008, 12:41 AM

You are making assumptions about the composer's intent. Maybe he doesn't think his interpretation of the notes he wrote down IS the most valid. Or else, why let anyone else hear it? They're either just going to "get" it semi-right, or totally wrong.

What kind of good composer thinks like this???

Well, since you're so keen on using examples, take the Warsaw Philharmonic under the direction of Anthony Inglis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Inglis)

He said in this interview: (http://www.jameswong.com/ykproject/extra_inglis.html)

"I get no musical guidance from Kanno or any of the Japanese composers I have worked with."

You might find it hard to believe, but like I've said, interpretation is only as important as how ever many dynamic markings the composer is willing to put down. I myself will trust the performers, or who I like to call, "the final authorities on interpretation."

cobaltstarfire

05-21-2008, 01:14 AM

Oooh, he got to work with Yoko Kanno a few times too. He's a lucky fellow that has worked on some really amzing scores.

Yet again, the orchestra and chorus loved the music. There is no doubt that Yoko Kanno is an extremely talented composer. However, I get no musical guidance from Kanno or any of the Japanese composers I have worked with . It is entirely left up to me, which is fortunate considering that most of their English isn't very good. Of course I have musical annotation but I am still given a lot of freedom.

Sil

05-21-2008, 02:56 AM

Well, he worked with Kanno insofar as to receive scores from her and then was given every opportunity to be totally interpretive of her music.

Another quote from Inglis: "To be perfectly honest I have never had a composer tell me that my tempi are wrong either, which I have always thought to be pretty amazing."

...shows complete faith in the performer/conductor. Composers aren't as stuck up about their works as one might think. It seems to be that when it comes to OTHER people's work (dead people's work) that people get irritated over "wrong interpretations" as if there ever was such a thing. It's a stereotype to think that classical music isn't congenial at all.

cobaltstarfire

05-21-2008, 03:29 AM

Yeah, I realize I probably worded that poorly, but meh. Getting to conduct for stuff she wrote, and having had a hand in the way it sounds, is pretty cool.

I agree with him that she is an incredibly talented composer, and knowing the Macross Plus music, he, and the orchestra did great in conducting/performing it.

Dhsu

05-21-2008, 05:25 AM

Yeah, if you say a person like Kanno has "no vision" I will personally drive over to your house and slap you with a large trout.

dPaladin

05-21-2008, 05:44 AM

What the hell is this thread even about?

I mean, I think that the composers are more important than the performers simply because there are so many skilled performers and so few revolutionary composers, but I'd never go as far as saying that the composers are more or less talented than the performers.

We're probably not even talking about that anymore. I didn't read the 7x post and I'm never going to, so can someone catch me up in a single post?

Dhsu

05-21-2008, 05:54 AM

I mean, I think that the composers are more important than the performers simply because there are so many skilled performers and so few revolutionary composers
That's pretty much exactly what RisingForce is saying.

But honestly I think there are just as many skilled composers and just as few revolutionary performers.

DrumUltimA

05-21-2008, 06:02 AM

actually i don't even know what we're talking about anymore, that's why I stopped :D

dPaladin

05-21-2008, 06:05 AM

Revolutionary performers? Hm, how do you mean? If they pioneered some new technique but have no way to use it, then what? Then they'd have no use for it until a composer or arranger (possibly the performer in a composing role) gave them an outlet for it.

Oh wait, that means the relationship between composer and performer is symbiotic and neither one can accurately be considered superior. Thread over!

Sil

05-21-2008, 06:38 AM

What the hell is this thread even about?

Didn't you read it? It's quite simple. To quote xRisingForce:

The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity.

xRisingForce, from now on talk like you would if you were in talking in person, face to face. That means no essays, straight to the point, as if you only had 5 seconds to get your ideas across. If you can't, then you need more time to sort out your thoughts before you press submit.

Fratto

05-21-2008, 11:10 AM

Fratto, the validity of your argument begins and ends with classical context.How so? How is you laying overdriven guitar over someone else's non-guitar track any different than someone rocking out on an oboe during a Metallica track? Are you really going to say that arrangement and specific instrumentation are strictly classical ideas? This thought process is fallacious.

This is wrong. A melody is ambiguous without chordal context

This is wrong. It's like saying that a minor scale is ambiguous without chordal context. It's still minor. Melodies almost always imply a mode. Saying that a melody alone is ambiguous is a fallacious statement.

The Augmentative Role of Lyrics
1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Arts’ fundamental disciplines are different solely in the inherently exclusive mediums through which self-expression can be realized.

3. Music is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through pitch and rhythm (2).

4. Literature is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through words (2).

5. Expression realized through words is literature by inherency and not music (3 + 4).

6. Lyrics are a derivative of literature.

7. Because lyrics are a derivative of literature, they are uninherently musical (5 + 6).

9. A song is a piece of music.

10. If a song’s expression is built on pitch and rhythm it is inherently musical (7 + 8).

11. "Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.” – G. H. Lewes (On Emergence and applicable to chemical reactions)

12. If the nature of x is unemergent and x is inherently y, augmenting x through z does not affect x’s inherency in the case that z shares properties of y because x’s inherent congruency is preserved.

13. A song is unimergent by nature.

14. If a song is inherently musical, in the application of lyrics do lyrics take on the inherently musical property of pitch, and can a song thusly retain its musically congruent nature (12 + 13).

Conclusion: Since the resultants of music (songs) are unemergent, if it is inherently musical, augmentation through lyrics does not affect its musical inherency (11 + 14).The aim and purpose of art is not necessarily self expression. It has already been pointed out to you that composers also score for a living. This doesn't exclude self-expression, but nullifies point (1).

Art is not exclusive. Music and literature are not exclusive. Opera, poetry, musical theater, cinema, etc. all contain undeniable elements of both.

So if points 1-4 are all wrong, then your conclusion (and the entirety of 'The Misnomer of Modern Music') can only be described as fallacious.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! I’M 100% KOREAN! Can anyone say WRONG???

And that’s what you get for trying to prejudge me. I think roughly 5,000/7,000 of the songs in my library originated in Asia, 7,000 songs by 281 very diverse artists.I did not prejudge you. Your views and thoughts on music, as expressed by you in this thread, are overtly Western European and have little to no Eastern or African influence. I know you're Asian. You link to your Facebook and you post videos of yourself. You're clearly Asian. I asked what the first generation of your family to come to the States was. You're very removed from Eastern music. I'm not saying that the bands are not from Asia. I'm saying they are probably extremely Westernized. The amount of Western music coming from the East is huge. Actual Eastern music is a failure according to your own posts. If you actually listen to, enjoy, and value actual Asian music, then you need to restate just about everything you have posted on this forum because everything you've expressed about your views on music would then be fallacious.

The Correlation Between Emotional Spectrum and Musical Taste
1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Music is an art, so music is a form of self-expression.

4 A song is a piece of music, so a song is a form of self-expression.

5. If one likes a song, one finds worth in the song’s expression.

6. People naturally have predilections toward songs that express what emotions they value.

7. Broadening the spectrum of my emotions will increase the amount of emotions I value.

Conclusion: Broadening my emotional spectrum will increase the amount of songs that I value (5 + 6 + 7).

Logically, people love different music because for many reasons that I won’t list here, they value different emotions and expressions. You should like a song because you like what it expresses, nothing else.Musical taste is not logical. I know that making logical flow charts is great and fun, plus you get to use big words in the overly long titles, but it doesn't make your flow charts any less fallacious..

Your premise loses all significance in that the fact-of-the-matter is, you are aware that Soft Cell didn’t write “Tainted Love.”

But will my great great grandchildren know? Fallacious.

Take for instance, the death metal musicians who respect Yngwie so immensely. It is unarguable that he is a technical freak- and this is exactly where and precisely why they are short-sighted. His blisteringly quick licks are purely a consequence and entailment of the musical aesthetics that fundamentally drive his desire to play fast, because what Yngwie aims to express can only be realizable as such. That is to say, the speed is definitely not in the vein of self-servitude that so defines death metal musicality. That is a skin-deep interpretation of Yngwie’s speed.Since you are not Yngwie or any of the other "self-serving" metal musicians, it is fairly arrogant and fallacious of you to slap your own feeling and thought upon their performances and desires.

The appeal of modern live performance doesn’t even have its roots in music anymore; the appeal is almost entirely visual and social. That’s at least true for rock, but then again rock is characterized by deviating from classical convention. Leave it to the orchestra to provide the live musical experience in the vein of spoken word orators.Rock music is not deviation from classical convention. Rock is an extension of jazz and blues, which are more an extension of African music (with a Western harmonics) than anything else. It's a subtle fallacy that rock is the opposite of classical.

This is precisely why bands form: artistic shortcomings because all its members have singular instrumental fluency. If Jimmy Page could sing exceptionally well and write lyrics, he would have absolutely no need for Robert Plant. Yngwie, regardless of whether you like his music or not, delivers an extremely personal vision in that composition of every instrument is done by his truly. Why is this? Because of something he blatantly lets people know: he is a man of incredible vision.

You apparently have no idea why bands form. I'm getting really tired of Yngwie being used as an example and the blatant double standard that you your fanboy excitement creates within every point that you try to make. He performs violin concertos on electric guitar and shapes them into metal concertos, which you view as a cardinal sin. The man can play a handful of instruments, but cannot do his own drum work and rarely does his own vocal work. He also hosts an entire band and is known as a "bandleader" He's featured on tribute albums, meaning that he's sinning against Ozzy because only Ozzie could possibly understand the depth and meaning of "Mr. Crowley" and Yngwie is just ruining it. According to your own fallacious posts, Yngwie should not need a bass player, should learn to play the drums, and should singing his own lyrics. But in a twist, Yngwie is also inherently unmusical due to his use of lyrics in music. Enough with Yngwie. He's a very talented guitarist and he knows his way around some classical music, but for all practical purposes, he's just a Satriani clone.

You should be focusing more on Prince or Steve Vai. Those two can (and on rare occasion do) actually play all the parts to their music.

Whatever composers you’re referring to are extremely lacking in vision. This is not rocket science: the ultimate performer is the composer (and this can be realized in a live-setting through backing tracks recorded by the composer).Once again, Beethoven would be a far cry from a great composer by your definition due to the simple fact that he could not play his own music unless it was strictly piano and a simple viola part. You are saying that the ultimate composer only writes solo literature with possible piano accompaniment. Fallacious.

As a musician, what bothers me is the notion that music as an expressive outlet is limited. Take for instance Star Wars. George Lucas created Bespin, what is essentially a city in the clouds. Being associated with the sky, there's a certain surreal, elated feeling you get from it that any existing city in the world can't provide. Everything about it from its unique architecture to its culture is a pure, Lucas brainchild. He has basically invented a new emotion (along with the writer of Chrono Trigger inventing Zeal, and other historical incarnations of the sky-arcadia), through inventing a completely new world. Williams, while a fine composer, writes to augment every thematic niche in Star Wars, and while he too may express a new emotion not yet done through song by writing a theme for Bespin, he has to use Lucas's cinematic context as a primary fundament and footstool.

If Williams was independent of Star Wars and was trying to write a song that conveyed the above-outlined emotion of witnessing a floating city, he would have to visualize it first since the expression is intrinsically visual. He could not have done this if he was blind. This means the full potential of music cannot be realized exclusively auditory; there’s a visual aspect as well.Fallacious! A lot of Williams' music borrows pretty heavily. Star Wars in particular owes a healthy debt to Gustav Holst. Do you think that he really needed to have the vision of Lucas to write for Vader, or do you think 'The Bringer of War' was a good enough basis to write about a bad guy?

The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity. You might as well say that the sound engineer is just as important in the music making process, because in modern times, many if not most artists who record rely on a sound engineer to commit their audio to mp3. Is recording a piece just as important in the “music making” process?

Who decides that the dichotomy is fallacious? You are only gaining truth by capitalizing upon your own ideas - ones that the majority of musicians in this thread find fallacious.

Conceptualization of pitch is currently instrumentally dependent. If you literally play nothing, every midi programmer uses what’s known as a piano roll, so the way you conceptualize intervals and chords will be very fundamentally pianistic. He might as well play piano. What he listens to also constitutes a large part of his musical aesthetics, and whatever he likes is extremely instrumentally related. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable (in fact, elementary); you can’t notate bends on all stringed instruments (i.e. violin); every instrument has very inherently exclusive characteristics. What am I saying? He indirectly plays an instrument, and it’s stupid that he doesn’t pursue it further.Actually, there are several midi programs that use a musical staff.
Also, knowing the notes on a piano does by no means indicate the ability to play the piano.
Similarly, sequencing on a piano roll does not make something pianistic.

Lurk moar in logic.I did, and I found that your logic is fallacious.

Fallacious.

Fallacious!