xRisingForce

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.

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.

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. Because I for one, am going to protect the integrity of my pieces.

Simple. Because they wouldn't be smart high school kids, lol. They'd be seven year old college graduates. 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. 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. What are you talking about, no. Beethoven publicized his piece through performance because he composed it. It's not really rocket science.

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. 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.

Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself. 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. 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 really want to give this thread one more go.

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. Yep, that's why people don't listen to him or her, lol. How can a performer's understanding of the depth of a song be fuller than that of the composer's? I know. I was just trying to get him to admit that it was an overblown statement.

It's all in that [>]

No worries. And that's what scouring YouTube is for- everyone gets their 15 minutes o fame.

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.

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. The premise is anything but weak. It was well supported. 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." Awesome! 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. 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.

Click that. And welcome to the debate.

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? 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 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. 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.

I completely agree. 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. I've already responded to this today, visit my forum post if you want to see it.

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. 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. 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. Did you somehow miss this??? 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.

That's what the current topic is.

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.

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.

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

That's really interesting. What does the music set out to express, and without a melody or harmony, how?

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!

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.

Wait.. were you not being sarcastic here?

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.