[Chrono Trigger Video Tribute]

Whoa whoa, now. Stop right there! I'm starting to think this video wasn't intended for a mainstream audience.

I wouldn't say that OCR is quite mainstream.

This video started out as a small pet project I made to appease my friends. I decided to take it a step further.

You claimed this was a friend's video...

I am qualified to say my video is superior.

I'm curious how you became so qualified.

[why do you play other people's music?]

oh, please enlighten me! what other artistic scene is even comparable to the level found in music?

keep on making these claims with no supporting evidence. iirc, you, much like darkesword did that in my last thread too. an excellent way to prove a point.

West Side Story is Romeo and Juliet. Wicked is the Wizard of Oz. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead is Hamlet without Hamlet.

Disney movies are Grimm's Fairy Tales; sometimes Hans Christian Anderson.

That new Friday the 13th movie is coming out soon. It's a remake.

The Ring is a remake of Ringu. The Grudge is a remake of The Grudge.

Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai = a Bollywood version of My Best Friend's Wedding.

DC Comics' "Elseworlds." Marvel's "What If?"

Etc.

Hell, he beat me to it. His list more than makes the point, though.

then, why was no one in my other thread able to concede that their interpretations were lesser? rather, some viewed them as equal and some as even greater. there are clear displays of that attitude all over OCR.

You're misinterpreting almost every feeling the mixers have. No one covers or remixes a song they think sucks. Read what's his name's post who I'll edit here in a second when I go look back at the other page. His Tin Pan Alley example is pretty much perfect.

every characteristic producible by an instrument can be sampled, and there's nothing dehumanizing or less human about using those samples in stead. sampling is a relatively new technology, and it'll only progress in years to come.

You can do lots of things with samples, but you really can't reproduce the humanization at this point.

i have to call bullshit on this. where are you pulling this from?

A decade of playing and studying jazz. A degree in music. More school that I'm in now for big band arranging. Being close with many local jazz artists. You know, the usual ways that people learn things about their surroundings.

and which famous composer opts to make albums of others' pieces as opposed to releasing original work? i understand that everyone likes to cover, but in professional circles it is done sparingly. even in jazz circles, people like arturo sandoval, maynard ferguson, john coltrane, sonny rolins, write tons of original material.

Most of the jazz composer/arrangers of time (I'm talking probably 40s to the 60s) played in bands where they would be one of several writers. Sammy Nestico played in the Dorsey and Krupa bands yet would end up arranging for Basie. My guess is he didn't play in the Gene Krupa band only when the called a Nestico chart.

You also need to learn the difference between a band leader and an arranger/composer. There is plenty of overlap, but putting Maynard in a list of people with "tons of original material" is a little bit of a stretch. Most of the time he had someone arranging charts for him that had been written long before. Lok up Bill Holman, I believe. Definitely Bob Brookmeyer.

Most standards you hear jazzers (except this new atonal, mixed meter avant garde jazz) play now were written decades ago and a ton are actually old Broadway songs that have been made famous through jazz musicians. Bebop took old chord progressions and just wrote new melodies over it. It's really amazing, actually.

Research your jazz. It's a crazy, copied, rehashed mess. And it's beautiful.

the "urge" that you speak of is exactly what i am trying to identify through this thread; what constitutes it, how deep it is, and things like that.

I hate not playing. The urge is pretty fucking deep.

[Ever have a character in a fighting game...]

I didn't include him because I don't really care that I suck with him.

As for Dhsu's feelings about forcing yourself, that was Jigglypuff for me in SSB. I still won't win the match if the people I'm playing are good, but I forced myself to get good enough with Jigglypuff that I wouldn't be the first dead or the one with the least kills.

[Ever have a character in a fighting game...]

Captain Falcon for SSB. Why is he too man for me to handle!?

I have a hard time with him because he's so damn fast, but I feel like his moves are so slow. The contrast kills me.

[why do you play other people's music?]

What? I'm sorry, that is ridiculous. What does that even mean? Also, improvisation is spontaneous composition, so that statement is an oxymoron anyway.

In contrast to the notion that everyone who can improvise also writes music, my statement stands true.

But, for the sake of spontaneous composition, I will clarify. Not all people who improvise also formally write songs, using notation, that they (or others) will play again in the future.

[why do you play other people's music?]

Fine. Serious post. I'll refrain from being overly sarcastic.

you two share a remarkable propensity for skewing viewpoints.

Nothing was skewed. Those were points that made in your other thread.

my stance is that a composer possesses the most valid interpretations as natural entailment, and interpretations by others aren't inevitably bad, but lesser by nature. what i think is "wrong" is this absurdly arrogant mindset that permeates ocremix which believes in distorting, morphing, or altering others' works and championing them, with inflated chests, as equal or even superior versions. that's what i think is "wrong", not interpretation itself.

I rarely, if ever, see this kind of attitude on OCR.

in considering all art, only music is home to a scene in which this kind of attitude is so popular. do poets alter existing poems? do authors rewrite published books? do artists repaint famous works, changing colors and shapes along the way? and have careers ever stemmed from this, as have with classical performers? it is a ridiculous notion to be sure, but for some reason, musicians exclusively among artists of other disciplines feel as if they have the creative license to do so. having said that, i don't want to dwell on this any longer. the intrinsic worth of classical musicians really has nothing to do with this particular subject matter.

Poems, not that I've heard. Rewriting stories? Yes. Repainted pictures, kind of. They are sampled and mangled and glued to meet new ends all the time. Hell, West Side Story is a remix, so there's theater.

Claiming that your previous thread has nothing to do with the subject matter is very untrue, when the subject at hand would be a sub-category of that topic. You can't say "Non-composing performers are of little use and don't deserve the respect they get." and then turn around and have something completely different that asks "Why do you play other people's music instead of composing? Where is the artistic end in being a performer?" It's the same.

orchestral pieces perhaps? in such situations where a composer enlists performance (not compositional) help, aren't such roles comparable to that of a tool? with the advent of sampling technology, that's pretty evident now than ever before. i heard klaus bedalt produced the pirates of the caribbean soundtrack purely with samples.

Musicians are much more than mere tools. To compare sampling to an actual musician is about as musically ignorant as possible. The feeling and musicality of even an average player cannot be matched by computers and samples.

And no. Klaus Bedalt did not purely use samples. He used the Hollywood Studio Symphony along with other groups and musicians.

right, it would seem that their innate capacity allows them to only perform. however, i don't think i've ever heard of a musician excellent at improvising never write a piece or two.

The majority of jazz musicians do not compose. The majority of jazz musicians improvise.

lol, so yngwie malmsteen makes money off of people who cover his music? i think this is only true for classical composers, but they're so long gone they're not benefiting anyway

Well, yes. As tired as I am of hearing your fanboyish enthusiasm for Yngwie, he does make money when people cover his music. He may not need the money, and may not write the music with the intent of making royalties, but he does get them. Also, when your boy Yngwie covers others, he pays them.

yeah that's exactly what i'm talking about. what drives that kind of decision? what makes them elevate performance over composition, especially performance of pieces that aren't even theirs? you'd think it'd make for a much more personal, and arguably artistic, experience to perform your own pieces.

Like with your comment about OCR, I rarely see this attitude where performers are elevated above composers. No one decides that a violin player is elevated above Beethoven.

You're right, though. Playing your own music can be extremely rewarding and is personal, but even with the number of talented composers out there, they get bored of playing only their music and want to play the music that inspired them to write in the first place.

yeah, this looks to be the most common impetus. see, i'm not sure that art is about "wanting".. expression is way more than that. it's a need, i think. if performance is driven by just surface desire, in my mind that disqualifies it as art. i don't think that's the case though.

I would not call the urge to perform a "surface desire" at all. It's much deeper than that. Also, you do not choose what is and what is not art.

in terms of music, i feel like performance could be a natural function of the musical experience itself, something we are inherently driven to do, so it's interesting to wonder what drives it.

You're right to think this and you pretty much answer your own question.

and to answer your question explicitly, the "type" of person i am requires a rational impetus before action, and in other cases, a rational impetus to continue an action. decisions aren't really decisions if they aren't outcomes of shaping factors.

If a deep-seated desire is not a shaping factor, then what is?

you've got to be kidding yourself; a thread that starts with a triple post with huge, emboldened letters, and an overt argument against a thread that starts with a genuine question are similar to you? the only thing similar in both threads is your provocative language.

the "thesis" isn't making an argument at all, otherwise i'd be presenting some sort of stance. the thesis is clearly a genuine question...

i love how, right off the bat, you make these off-hand and insulting statements, rather than contributing a useful answer or two. oh well, it's not like i really care for your opinion at this point anyway. thanks to everyone for the great responses, keep them

Right off the bat I made comments that essentially said, "We've been here before with this same person. Here is the thread where it happened." They were not off-hand or insulting by any means. They were very relevant because, as I explained above, you turned your last thread's statement into a question for this thread.

By thesis-esque, I meant nothing about thesis statements in an essay. I meant like a doctoral thesis, where you write try to write like you have a Ph.D. Your flowery, over eloaborated posts seem to swirl in circles with no particular reason. Hell, zircon just flat out asked you what you were talking about. The guy's not an idiot, and your superfluous use of frivolous vernacular completely masked whatever the hell you were trying to say.

Coming to a community of musicians and music lovers and asking "Where is the artisitc end in being a performer?" and then accusing the community of being everything that you think is wrong with musicians probably won't go over well - no matter how delicately you word it.

I have now answered your question seriously and explained my (and others) knee jerk reaction to your thread.

[why do you play other people's music?]

Wait, your saying the original poster said those things? Where? I can't find those comments anywhere... Is that sarcasm?? OMG!

To be fair, he hasn't said any of that in this thread yet. He said those thing in a previous thread that started very similarly to this one.

EDIT: No, no, I really did mean 'What does OP mean?'. Seriously. I'm that bad.

I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

[why do you play other people's music?]

OP = original poster

I think he meant "what the OP stands for" like saying "I dont know what the OP's stance on this subject is, but..."

Not, "What does OP mean?"

[why do you play other people's music?]

The OP believes that performing other peoples music and interpreting it is evil, horrible and wrong, if I remember the last thread they made correctly.

You do remember correctly. He also believes that interpretation of a person's music is wrong as well and that the only person who is allowed to play a song is the person who wrote it. Further, he believes that the only real composers are ones that perform their own music, no matter how many parts there are.

Note that there have been several good responses to his question and that he only responded to a handful that were mostly about the semantics of what his thesis-esque posts actually mean.

[Ever have a character in a fighting game...]

If I like a character I'll use them until I'm good (or at least not terrible) with them.

This is how I am too.

Except that cactus fucker in the Marvel vs Capcom 2 game. I wanted so badly to be able to kick ass with a giant sombrero cactus, but I couldn't make it happen.

EDIT: Apparently his name is Amingo and wasn't from Marvel or a previous Capcom release.

[why do you play other people's music?]

This thread looks like it's very similar to, and probably going to go in the same direction as, this thread.

[New Jersey: America's secret treasure-house of culture]

There are more notable things about the city I live in than there are about your whole state. And my city isn't big or cool enough to be included in the name of the metroplex.

[Awesome Nonsensical Lines from Games/VG Music]

I don't do this for the money

I don't do this for the paycheck, oh no no no no

I don't do this for the ladies

I've already got their respeeeeeect

I've got their respeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The first few times I heard this, I thought it was "I've already got Larry's Paige." When I learned that it was "their respect" I was very disappointed.

Very disappointed.

[Out of all the video games out there, which one has the most skilled ninja?]

Y'all don't know nothin' about the ninja skills of the red guy from Excitebike.

Give it up people. It's like bringing dollar store water guns to a super soaker convention. YOU CAN'T WIN!!!

A good ninja could...

[Recommend Me Some Good Chord Progressions and Key Signature Chords]

D minor is the saddest of all keys.

[Super Mario 64: Portrait of a Plumber - History]

Hey, guess what? My hard drive crashed. Luckily, I'm pretty sure I have my project backed up on an external drive. I actually had time to work on it now, and my computer won't boot. Sweet.

[Super Mario 64: Portrait of a Plumber - History]

You'll pay for that.

[Super Mario 64: Portrait of a Plumber - History]

This isn't the place for this. And I didn't want drama last year. Now I'm going to be all about the drama. I'm going to send you a very dramatic PM. Very dramatic.

[Super Mario 64: Portrait of a Plumber - History]

You've made little to no comments on remixes. Instead of hounding us to get our shit done, we have to hound you to even check the boards. You missed the first several WIP dates. Your one and only track update was ridiculously late and is probably the worst WIP on the boards.

I think you make my point for me by just noticing that post from over nine months ago.

Popping up every six months or so and adding a smiley to the end of your post doesn't make up for the fact that you are the weakest link on this project.

[Weapons that should be in games but aren't...]

And why exactly am I not aloud to post in my own thread? Seriously now. Free country USA guys. Get a moderator in here if you hate me that much. The rest of us will continue to do our own thing until then.

Now:

What we need here is something like Samus' grapple beam, only the beam is emitted from a very large spike which you could yank the victim onto. Then throw them at someone else. Or use them as a shield.

How do you post aloud?

[Super Mario 64: Portrait of a Plumber - History]

but the project almost fell apart when that happened... i swear to god, ready or not the project will be out before september!!! Smile

September 2007 was a while ago. History repeats itself.

[OC ReMix plagiarism: report it here!]

Shariq Ansari. He's a card player, gambler, scoundrel... you'd like him.

[is it too late?]

The best jazz bassist I know (other than professionals) has only been playing four years. He's playing the pants off people who have been playing for ten to fifteen years.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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 + .

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!

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.