[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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 ).

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 ) 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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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):

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!

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

</soapbox>

You're a cool guy man.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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?

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

*Ahem* Fixed

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

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

It's listed as a "related" form (see here 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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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?

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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?

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

When I need to express myself, I draw shitty comics 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.

Hahaha, sounds awesome. Link me when you do?

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

**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.

[Game music that resembles mainstream music (or vice versa)...]

Always thought it had to do with the pun including Roll, "Rock and Roll", Protoman is Blues, Bass and Treble is more obvious. There's a mid boss/boss character by the name of Punk as well.

From Wikipedia~

Thanks for enlightening me, I had no idea about Protoman or the boss, haha. My pre-X knowledge is pretty much.. nonexistent. Now the question is whether the term "Rock and Roll" is indicative of a very specific period of rock and roll (most likely 70s) or whether they're referring to 90s rock as "Rock and Roll" because of Japan's very by the book grasp of English. It was at least, before Westernization become a hot trend, the three East-Asian countries all impregnated it, and it gave birth to Engrish.

[The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians]

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.