xRisingForce

Alright, thanks a lot for the feedback. Why say "I have a poodle dog" when it's poodle implies the animal, right? I'm more curious on what your opinion of the subject matter is. There is a pretentious overtone to that statement. Just saying "You're preaching to the choir" seems flat compared to what you get when you expand on it in that subtlely snide fashion. It drives the point home, it makes clear my initial awareness regarding the topic. I couldn't reduce it to just five, because that gives off a completely different impression than what I was going for. I don't see why that wasn't realized. There was no misinterpretable information, in fact there was no information in there at all aside from the fact that I'm blatantly aware of the subject matter. It's almost like you're telling me to stick to writing three chord songs so I can have an overall better public recepetion. Maybe. Your understanding of my comment is from the wrong direction- I don't aimlessly write and then bullshit respective meanings, I feel what I want to write first, and then write. At any rate, conceding isn't the problem. I'll take this into account because my wording does seem dense at times. Of course, of course. But difficulty of interpretation is consequent of what the writer/composer was trying to express/convey, and how. The thing is, you're exactly right about my paragraph. That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurrence, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppositions which characterize the beliefs that most people cling to. So so so so different than "People interpret things in different ways." You toss "irrelevant" around far too thoughtlessly. Hahaha, true true. I'm not saying elitism is exclusive to the classical realm, just that it's a bit more synonymous with its advocates than any other genre. Rockers are out getting buzzed/hammered, and Jazzers are off smoking hooka, talking about world peace, and the latest hollow bodies. And remember: we're not discussing casual fans, but people who define themselves as musicians of a respective genre. A casual classical fan's knowledge of classical music's probably altogether defined by "Fur Elise" and "Minuet in D." Some brownie points if they're aware of "The Well-Tempered Clavier." I'm not sure where you're coming from. At any rate, this orchestra isn't a good experimental control because they are so involved in orchestrations of these poppy, mainstream tunes. That in itself is probably a modern occurrance, reasons for which I'll list below. Concering the musicians, getting to that point entails a lot of the criticism I prior assesed. And with such a classically cultivated/trained mindset, they probably approach pop music in much the same replicative and emulative mindset they approach classical with. Also, the motivation towards any sort of transcription of mainstream music is probably rooted in making the music more commercial and marketable/lucrative. Did you read about how John Mayer didn't believe in the pop-jazz trash he wrote (funny because it wasn't hard to see that coming); he did it to gain a foothold in the mainstream community so when he finally did compose purely from hisself, all ulterior motives removed, it's stuff that he definitely wouldn't have gotten famous for. But it sold.

Well then I guess the first thing I should do is apologize. When you respond to my entire argument with a one liner, and especially one like "You could've stopped here," the notion that you agree with me isn't a first thought. My initial post was lengthy, yeah, because I was outlining all my points. And from there on out, responses to my post were lengthy just by circumstance, so mine to theirs were as well. I can break down the reason I wrote every sentence for you if you want. There're no unpurposeful spacefillers in my writing. Trust me, in real life I don't think I'm inflating my view of myself by saying I'm pretty affable. When in Rome, I do as they do, you know? When I step into elitist classical territory, I don't make it a habit to make unprovoked attacks, but I try and get my point across a little more than neutrally. I'm not a narrow-minded guy. I give everything a chance, and the reason why I don't take many points onboard, as you like to say, is because they're not new to me. I still have a ton to learn, but on issues that I've already carefully and meticulously formed opinions on are pretty set in stone. If you won't attack me for "writing lengthily", I'll give you a perfect example. Let's say a certain person is mentally ill. One of the detriments of that illness is a severe inability to control his anger, and consequently, an inability to communicate well with people, paving the way for social anxiety syndrome which leads to social withdrawal, capping off with his social status as a recluse. You see how everything is resemblant of the characteristic before it? If this guy brutally murdered a man and a news story was done on it, people would start forming opinions. The point to be noted here is how different the initial level of intellectuality of various people is. You put four guys together in a room, one guy says it's in his blood to be a serial killer, the other guy says him not interacting with society is the problem, one guy blames his failure to see a shrink for his inability to converse regularly, another says he's not societally active enough; they're all right, in a certain sense. Quoting anything but the primary reason (mental illness) as the fundament behind the act of murder is however, a bit fallacious. And in particular with music, the thought process of those four manifests itself in plenty of blatantly observable ways. The way I approach anything and everything is to think in such a way that someone can take my point of view, and see how six other commonly held points of view stem from it. It seems both the most logical way to think, and the most logical point of view. On a good note anyway, it's cool that we fundamentally agree on such an accepted issue.

No, I think the reason I've garned so many heated, deep, and most importantly enjoyable discussions is because I'm audacious in challenging wrongly accepted thought, the thought that classical institution perpetually indoctrinates their students with. The blindness of its adherents is a bit more than obvious as shown by the intellectual depth of the most relied upon defenses. Also, if I had stopped there- who the hell states an empty thesis??? Calling solid reinforcement "a thousand lines of irrelevance" not only makes you look stupid and arrogant, but literarily incompetent and argumentatively flaccid. I guess some people are just above having to refute key points to refute an entire argument; I can just strawman to win an argument because I'm Fishy.

Isn't this everywhere? If not down to the note, videogame music is extremely reflective of the music from any period. It's hard to be radically original like Uematsu. Not saying the magnitude of originality is indicative of anything in particular, but you see a lot of parallels in all music. Just like how rock came from jazz came from blues came from delta blues came from black gospel came from slavery, you could say that Videogame music came from all currently existing genres for definitely not all, but a fair amount of artists. Yasunori Mistuda can write in a ton of different styles, but one style that's almost a dead giveaway is the Mitsuda-style celtic, most notably audible on his Chrono Cross work. If you listen to traditional Irish melodies the melody and subtle progressions of the harmony are really reminiscent of him. Michiru Yamane is extremely baroque influenced, stuff like Wood Carving Partita from the SoTN OST is powerfully resemblent of a Bach harpsichord piece. Luna Umegaki of Sound Create Unit: III dabbles in Japanese Jazz Fusion, and some of her pieces sound a lot like early Casiopea. The resemblence is nowhere near as strong as Yamane though. Somewhat inversely, if you look at the soundtracks from Rockman X compared to Rockman X5, the former has 90s smothered all over it. The hallmark of 80s music was the electric guitar (banal in its own right just like today), which seems to be the lead instrument on most Rockman X tracks. Another obvious allusion to pop culture is the name ROCKMAN, lol. Whether this is just bad Engrish or a reference to the popularity of guitar-driven music, I dunno. Heavy metal seems to be catching on lately, and the success of all three Guitar Heros only fuels the fire. Bands like Children of Bodom, Lamb of God, Slayer, Trivium, Avenged Sevenfold, they're all coming to the forefront of the mainstream scene. And Guilty Gear, a recent addition to the fighter genre, makes gluttonous use of shred guitar.

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it. Guess which one you are? The two arts of composing and performing are so inextricably linked people carelessly use words that denote one position to encapsulate both. Passing the test signifies an understanding of the what, an understanding that barely grazes the surface in relation to an understanding of the why. When you do have that deeper understanding, your knowledge will be marred by two things. Firstly, the fact that it was acquired through a group effort diminishes the overall depth of your understanding. Secondly, the fact that it was artificially acquired implies 1. Your musical intuition has shortcomings because your sense of musical aesthetics is incongruent with conventional/institutional music theory, and/or 2. You just suck at music. And that's where the line blurs. Inventing the why still and always will carry a fuller and more profound connotation than an understanding of the why because comparatively, inventing something entails numerous things mere understanding does not. For example, having the capacity to invent something like calculus speaks volumes about Newton's mathematical and analytical genius. Performing is definitely an art and can be the most technically demanding slave labor in getting a piece up to public presentability, but at the end of the day you'd better not think of yourself any higher than an actor.

MEPH. being a composer myself, i can tell you that while composition is hard - really hard - performing is more so because as a composer, you have an eraser. as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'. and by the way, most performers don't have teachers to tell them what to do where on a piece. i haven't had a teacher actually tell me what to do somewhere on a piece in months and months and months. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece. that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

PROMETHEUS. Mmmm.. taking part on this xRisingForcex VS Prophet of Mephisto argument, I have to stand on RisingForce's side. Performers are truly overrated. The fact that you see the music coming throught them, sometimes makes people think they made that music, when they actually did not. The amount of musical elements you can control in a piece as a performer are LIMITED, VERY LIMITED, and normally you have to stick strictly to the damn paper, playing exactly all the notes written on it. The strict, musical-school-taught performers are extremely overrated. They just do what is in the paper. If they do an arrangement of the piece, cool, is their life... but when they play the piece the way it is, they're just playing what someone else thought once. Let's get a cool methaphor. A composer is someone who creates a cool, catchy phrase. For example: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. " - Albert Einstein. If I now repeat the phrase, I will become an interpreter of it (and not it's composer). Since my voice sucks I will be a bad interpreter of it. But, give the phrase to someone with a cool voice and a cool image... imagine Bruce Willis saying "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. " Okay,.. sounds cooler because of the voice, but the message is STILL THE SAME . Bruce Willis NEVER discovered that E = M*C^2 , he just said the damn phrase To be a music-college performer, you need technique and MECHANICAL TRAINING... Just moving the fingers... over and over.. practice the movement,.. get speed. It's really a lot of work, but it's not the intelligent training Prophet of Mephisto says. I've spent 8 years learning piano in a music college, and got highest marks, but i stopped because i was bored and i was sick of playing someone else's pieces. Jazz performers are different. A jazz piece is an excuse for interpretation, creating a whole world from 5 or 6 pentagrams. A jazz partiture is, in some way an attemp to create an "organised improvisation". Jazz musicians are on the border of composition, so... they're not really overrated. They almost create from very few notes that are written on the pentagrams. To be a jazz performer, you need INTELLIGENT training... specially like playing with bands and such. I realised that a couple of months ago, when i started learning jazz. Still , I havent got a band, but im trying to figure out some stuff to practice. But... WTF?... I think you guys should create a thread in the forum and keep discussing this there.

MYSELF (CONT). You're probably referring to the jazz video, right? You've seen one of my videos, and you make this retardedly ignorant assumption about my guitar playing. Christ, and I thought I was narrow-minded at times. I'm guessing you hate Yngwie J. Malmsteen? I think I could've done a better job on note choice at the end solo, but for the most part I didn't play a note that I didn't want to or think wouldn't fit. I mean I'm not a purist of any genre, so I guess I should apologize to all jazz musicians for using distortion and a whammy bar. I know there's more than notes and rhythms, and you're probably going to say, "The WAY you play the note." I've heard that about a thousand times, and then some. I kind of hate how teachers have to be so cryptic, but I can't really blame them since that's probably how they were taught anyway. What goes in goes out, there's no magical quality to it. The WAY one hits a note is the same thing as breaking it down into timing, clarity/articulation, and dynamics. There's nothing else to it really. P.S.: Also, don't rag on me for my style man. I know five years olds who have better argumentative ammunition so don't stoop to that level- you don't need it. I'm not going to apologize for not dressing like a token videogame fan. At the end of the night, does my choice to wear a ring or a watch affect you in any small degree of significance?

MYSELF. I definitely know all of them, and I'm glad you know them too. They're really great composers. Kinda why I didn't include them in my argument against musicians that stick to exclusively performing (which include most of, if not all, members of most philharmonics for example). Paganini's a rather special case, because he was probably more known for his electrifying performances and showmanship than his amazing compositions (which are amazing beyond a doubt, but his ability to write polyphonic music is questionable and if he can't graduate beyond writing single-line violin pieces.. he sorta loses some of his grandness.) And I also recognize that all of these composers are performers, but I thought it was just the most understood concept that a composer be able to perform his own works (haha, in this day and age I can't even get away with saying something like that.). The inverse isn't true, however, which was kinda my initial point. You're preaching to the choir. You're the charismatic loud pastor with saliva flying out like a rapper drops curse words, and I'm the all-black choir who hears your message every single Sunday. I couldn't give two shits less about how fast someone is. Obviously the most important thing is whether the speed was a consequence of an emotion the artist felt he could only express with blisteringly fast runs, and not the opposite. Technique for the sake of technique seems almost contradictory. I think practice starts and ends with technique, and only serves as a means to further technique. Disregarding instruments with easy access to subtleties (i.e. the bend on a guitar or saxophone), technique is all about expressing a phrase the most efficiently, sorta like how I wouldn't downpick an entire arpeggio if I had sweep picking at my disposal.. but I don't think I would be any better off in that regard (or any, really) if I had a teacher. You'd have to be pretty short of just retarded to try and downpick an Yngwie song or try and play Fantasie Impromptu with just four fingers. In the end, technique is just a means of efficiency. You don't learn how to better interpret a piece by practicing it, interpretation is all theory and practice is active. Practice is making yourself comfortable with the technical aspects of the song, and familiarizing yourself with the theory. And in that sense, you do get good by practicing, and it looks like you agree with me. Ever hear, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect?" The only thing you can build on a crooked foundation is an unstable building. I've never practiced a day in my life, at least by conventional means. I just play a lot, or at least, I used to, and that was the easiest thing in the world. What you guys do, cooped up in small practice rooms playing songs you probably don't even want to play and having to perfect them over the course of several months, yeah, that's tons of work, grueling work that I'd hate to be doing. So, kudos, I guess. I wish I'd played more when I had the chance, because for playing for four years I'm not really where I want to be. I'd agree with that a lot of my licks are sloppy. Wow. Just wow. Look at yourself man, you know a sentence in my autobiography and you're already spitting off presumptuous claims about how I view music. Yngwie, out of 282 artists in my music library, is the only guitar driven artist I have. I mean I could just stop there. Seriously. It's the most painfully obvious thing that you wanted to segue into that Herbie Hancock phrase because you heard your teacher say it in Jazz improv class and since then, have wanted to use it in any context so badly. Aside from that, let me clarify my definitions to you such that they're beyond a shadow of a doubt. Composer: one who composes. Performer: one who performs. LOL. I didn't mean for you to take any implication of live performance, but the misconception is easily understandable. Someone who merely plays and doesn't compose is what I meant by "performer." Music is an auditory art, so I'm talking from a purely auditory perspective. As for the Herbie Hancock remark, I completely agree, but I respect him for his ability to compose. I've never seen the dude live, I could care less what his stage presence is like. You see an artist live after you've heard their recordings. Tell me, why do you go to concerts? To see whoever's playing, right? Exactly, the primary appeal of concerts lies in the visual and social aspects of it, not the auditory. The audio for live shows sucks more often than not anyway, because there're the acoustics of the venue to account for, as well as a shitton of reverb and sound bleeding. Not to mention the balance is always geared to favor the guitarist, but everything's so loud it just ends up sounding like someone puking (joke). Capturing the audience's attention well is in the vein of entertainment, not composing. My whole argument here is that people who just play others' works suck, so however well one's stage presence may be is somewhat irrelevant, because in the end he still hasn't composed a thing. About theorizing and executing musical ideas- tell me, do you do any original thinking, or do you just regurgitate what your teacher tells you? I'm pretty sure you just play your pieces for him or her and you get corrected and taught what's "right". It doesn't seem like there's any theorizing or anything musical about institutional education, whatever song you're playing, the hardest part's already been taken care of. And I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to argue that interpreting any of the legendary classical pieces would be harder than it was for them to compose the pieces. Vivaldi actually went out of his way to meticulously outline what every section was supposed to represent (this passage is indicative of ice skating, etc.). You've got composing taken care of, and your teacher to spoon feed you the interpretation. I really don't get what the hard part is. Your comment on research skills caught my interest. Could you give me an example of what type of research you've done to perform a piece, and why? Well duh. But don't think you deserve a pat on the back just because you're able to play a piece back with emotion. Any human with sense of emotion should be able to do that. There are millions of people who've played Beethoven, but there's only been one Beethoven. Out of those millions, whom have had the creative capacity to actually, I dunno, CREATE, rather than emulate? Stop being so dense. I can respect Horowitz and Perlman as amazing human beings, and as amazing performers. But being a performer doesn't carry nearly the connotation as being a composer does. It doesn't matter if Beethoven wanted his pieces to be played by others, the fact that he wrote it still remains unchanged, in stone. I mean I play Beethoven from time to time and I'm a crappy pianist, but I don't think he's greater than I just because I can't replicate his works well. I think he's greater than me because he can compose with an air of greatness far greater than what I could hope to even dream of. Definitely. The self-expression which unarguably drives all art is timeless. Judging a piece's worth by its spot in time is just as fallacious as calling a gay person a communist. I never said that anyone could do what I did on a guitar, but I'm not denying it. Technically speaking, it's not really impressive at all, but who the hell listens to music for technique. If your reading comprehension skills were up to par, you might've even caught this! :shock: :shock:

MEPH. this ain't true. there are a large number of famous performers who have done fantastic arrangements, adaptations, and original compositions that are well known. you saying this tells me that you're a well spoken but musically illiterate person...else you would have remembered liszt, paganini, bach, buxtehude, chopin, debussy... if there's one thing i've learned in college, it's that practice is in no way simplistic and easy. while your statement above says 'you get good by practicing, duh' with a bunch of bling added on to make it look good, you should know that practicing is in no way an easy thing to do. it's possibly one of the most learning to practice was one of the most valuable things i learned at college, in all reality. just because you're technically good doesn't mean that you're truly a good musician. this entire paragraph is an enormous load of bullshit, fyi. it also proves that your definition of music doesn't extend beyond HOSHIT INSANE GEETAR SOLO because you don't understand that. is the jazz pianist at your school as good as Herbie Hancock because he can comp chords too? of course not, and it's not because of Herbie's insane knowledge of style and his crazy technique. it's because Herbie's got a pocket so deep that a four-year-old could play in it and sound hot. interpretation is one of the most difficult things to really, truly understand for non-musicians because of the depth behind it, just like in an incredibly complex piece of artwork or a beautiful sunset or anything like that. and the fact that you're saying that a performer's ability is determined solely by interpretation is just as wrong. stage presence, interpretation, research skills, and the ability to theorize and execute a musical idea are all important aspects of a performer's ability - while we often laud interpretation because of the fact that it gets the lion's share of the time in the news, those are all just as important. interpretation is by no means trivialities, either - if someone went through to play a really great solo piece and hit every note, but it sounded lifeless and dead, is that a good performance? no! it's the interpretation that MAKES it art, not in spite of it. more bullshit. you're just writing words with no idea to what they mean. particularly since your first sentence screws with everything you just said. although i think your houdini metaphor raises an interesting question, you're forgetting something. houdini didn't do his act with the idea that people would do it over again. beethoven and wagner and bach and palestrina wrote music to be performed, over and over and over again - and the people we say are fantastic performers are the ones that can do that music EXACTLY as it was in the composer's head. don't get me wrong, i agree with you here. society has lost a lot of depth of understanding in the art work in the past few hundred years. that said, i'm a modernist when it comes to artwork. that does not mean, however, that all art nowadays is worthless, or that the art that's been done in previous times is not any good either. do i understand the point you're attempting to get at? not really - as a performer it doesn't make much sense to depreciate your role. you saying that anyone can do what you do on guitar (which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already) by just repeating endlessly. but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms - and until you understand that (which, it's not a concept that an infant can understand, trust me on that), you really aren't as good as you think you are. in general, no one is, but you definitely aren't. edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

MYSELF. Just to respond to everyone first: -In my heavily biased opinion- In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer. None of the known performers do any composition whatsoever, and if they do, the underlying reason for their fame speaks volumes anyway. Technical mastery is impressive, and especially so when carried out flawlessly, but anything that can be acquired through "monkey see, monkey do" should lose its sheen. The secret to technique lies in practice, carrying an oxymoronic connotation of sorts due to the rather simplistic nature of practice and the obvious relevance of its merits. The merits alone point toward the explanation behind practice's existence. Strictly speaking in the classical realm, if performers don't compose, then all they have going for them on a musician's level is this laughably esoteric concept they always fall back on in arguments: interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth. Interpretation basically entails three things: rubato, dynamics, and articulation, all at the performer's discretion. Does mastery over the trivialities (another oxymoron) that even infants could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges, carry any sort of weight or bearing, when classical music is an institution whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate rather than create, to be spoonfed skewed musical perceptions of what's right rather than self-realize? This is an industry that whores so much money by producing a jizzfest of knockoffs of the same piece when the only thing differing is this inane concept called interpretation. Training oneself to the point where one can dictate whether Horowitz or Wilhelm Kempff possesses a higher level of interpretation is somewhat like a mental placebo, so to speak. That being said, at the end of the day, when I see the passion on Kempff's face while he's playing Beethoven's Third Movement of Moonlight Sonata, or just by hearing what came of Perlman's efforts to commit Paganini's 24 Caprices to audio, I can't help but respect them. The thing is though, I respect Beethoven and Paganini so much more. Perlman is incredible because he's the first person to be able to duplicate the 24 Caprices with enough accuracy to commit them to vinyl, but in the end all he hasn't composed a thing and all he's doing is calling forth an insane amount of pyro-technicality. It's not impressive when a computer plays it through midi, so by the same token it's only sensible that it's not impressive when a human does it, unless you think it's impressive being able to copy a computer (in which case I retract my entire argument and erase my account). If I copied David Blaine's entire act, I'd be called a knockoff and given no attention. If I copied Houdini's entire act, I'd be regarded as a genius because of my ability to mimic his unreal level of showmanship and finesse. If 50 people copied Houdini, we'd all experience what would happen if one person copied David Blaine. Funny thing is, no one bothers to call any classical musician a Beethoven knockoff, or a Chopin knockoff. Most "art" these days is either completely meaningless or completely worthless. We live in a day and age where you can accurately call Stairway to Heaven a great form, the Mona Lisa an incredible song, and a beautiful samurai form a nice portrait. We live in a day and age where shit can pass as art. Art's been tainted by things such as MTV and it's acquired this strange, liberal, and too open-ended global understanding that's completely different than the understandings held by the artists themselves. A three chord song passes of as a genius composition that can top the charts, and you can probably find three paint blobs of contrasting colors in some avant-garde museum in France that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality, which is what the seller uses to argue his price of 5,000 euros. Whenever Houdini is as old as Beethoven is now, maybe we'll start seeing what's acceptable or not in the art of deception through a different lens. Now that's out of the way, as a musician, I don't really have a greatest accomplishment, just really small things here and there that carry a lot of meaning to me. Some of these accomplishments are: - 99% of the time I'm second guessing myself. I'm almost never happy with where I am musically, so when I surprise myself (which is extremely, extremely, extremely rare), it gives me a good feeling because I actually feel like I'm competent at something. Here are some of those few times: - Finally coming to the understanding that art is just expression, and being able to consciously express myself to the fullest whenever I pick up an instrument, or listen to music. - Receiving a special comment or email. I receive plenty of half-assed comments like "COOL! jajajajaja," but once in a while I get something like, "thats some unbelievable improve dude, whenever i watch one of your vids it always makes my day seem a little brighter... kudos." or "Hey, first I should excuse for my lame English, because I'm a bloody German Just want to say that you are one of my favorites on youtube. Not that I have any others lol. Ever day when I come home from work I immediately turn on some of your videos. Wonder if you have a CD or something like that? Would be nice to get some of your stuff as mp3. I really think your one of the best guitarist on the whole planet. You have a really rare talent and you probably one of the best guitarist on the whole planet, keep it up! Also I like the kind of music you play. Definatly my style But also makes me kind of sad, because I know I will never get in range of your skill on guitar :smile:" It gives me a reason to play music other than for myself. It's the most humbling thing to see how you can be so meaningful to a complete stranger.

He challenged me to start a thread on this, so I will. I'll start by posting the beginnings of our discussion, which began in a thread about what your greatest acheivement as a musician was.

Oh man, first things first. It probably doesn't mean much, but my condolences for you and your grandfather. You must be in some pretty trying times. I took a look at your gameplay videos on YouTube and needless to say, the game looks awesome. Like you said, the music style that this sort of game would call for would be in the realm of 3rd Strike and perhaps Marvel Vs. Capcom 2, both genres in my ballpark. I'll have a lot of time on my hands now that summer break's coming up. It already looks like a bunch of talented musicians are ready to contribute their two cents, and if you would have me, I'd love to be a part of your team. If you're interested, you can check out some of my playing at the website in my sig. Anyway, send me a PM if you wanna talk!

I definitely know all of them, and I'm glad you know them too. They're really great composers. Kinda why I didn't include them in my argument against musicians that stick to exclusively performing (which include most of, if not all, members of most philharmonics for example). Paganini's a rather special case, because he was probably more known for his electrifying performances and showmanship than his amazing compositions (which are amazing beyond a doubt, but his ability to write polyphonic music is questionable and if he can't graduate beyond writing single-line violin pieces.. he sorta loses some of his grandness.) And I also recognize that all of these composers are performers, but I thought it was just kinda understood that a composer be able to perform his own works. The inverse isn't true, however, which was kinda my initial point. You're preaching to the choir dawg, I couldn't give two shits less about how fast someone is. On top of just playing fast, I listen to how it's used (whether its for its own sake or whether it serves to make a good melody), and I listen for an "organicness", to see whether or not that speed was something innate or acquired artificially (i.e. drilling dumb speed exercises to a metronome for hours on end). That "organic" characteristic usually shows itself in the quality of an artist's composition anyways, and I'm pretty sure they're two sides of the same coin. You do get good by practicing, and it looks like you agree with me. We just differ in the ease of doing it. Ever hear, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect?" Well I definitely stand by that. The only thing you can build on a crooked foundation is an unstable building. But I think practice starts and ends with technique, and only serves to further technique. You don't learn how to better interpret a piece by practicing it, that's a result of either the teacher telling you that the Moonlight Sonatas are supposed to be played in quicker and quicker succession, or you realizing it on your own. Technique is all about expressing a phrase the most efficiently, kinda like how I wouldn't downpick an entire arpeggio if I had sweep picking at my disposal.. but I don't think I would be any better off in that regard (or any, really) if I had a teacher. You'd have to be pretty short of just retarded to try and downpick and Yngwie song or try and play Fantasie Impromptu with just four fingers. In the end, technique is just a means of efficiency. The catch is, I've never practiced a day in my life, at least by conventional means. Practice entails repetition; I hate just the thought of wasting my time in front of some stupid exercise book. I just play a lot, or at least, I used to, and that was the easiest thing in the world. What you guys do, cooped up in small practice rooms playing songs you probably don't even want to play and having to perfect them over the course of several months, yeah, that's tons of work, grueling work that I'd hate to be doing. So, kudos, I guess. I kinda wish I'd played more when I had the chance, because for playing for four years I'm not really where I want to be. I'd agree with anyone that a lot of my licks are sloppy. Wow. Just wow. Look at yourself man, what do you know about me and how dare you make these presumptuous claims about how I view music. Yngwie, out of 260 artists in my music library, is the only guitar driven artist I have. I mean I could just stop there. Seriously. Aside from that, let me clarify my definitions to you such that they're beyond a shadow of a doubt. Composer: one who composes. Performer: one who performs. LOL. Nowhere in there did I mean for you to take any implication of live performance. I guess I can understand the misconception, but I'm not going to call the performer a player, because that'd sound stupid. However, someone who merely plays and doesn't compose is what I originally meant by "performer." Music is an auditory art, so I'm talking from a purely auditory perspective. As for the Herbie Hancock remark, I completely agree, but I respect him for his ability to compose. I've never seen the dude live, I could care less what his stage presence is like. Tell me, why do you go to concerts? To see whoever's playing, right? Exactly- the appeal of concerts lies in the visual, not the auditory. Capturing the audience's attention makes you a good entertainer, not a good composer. My whole argument here is that people who just play others' works suck, so however well one's stage presence may be is somewhat irrelevant, because in the end he still hasn't composed a thing. The audio for live shows sucks more often than not anyway, because there're the acoustics of the venue to account for, as well as a shitton of reverb and soundwave bleeding. Not to mention the balance is always geared to favor the guitarist, but everything's so loud it just ends up sounding like someone puking. About theorizing and executing musical ideas- tell me, do you do any original thinking, or do you just regurgitate what your teacher tells you? I'm pretty sure you just play your pieces for him or her and you get corrected and taught what's "right". It doesn't seem like there's any theorizing or anything musical about institutional education, whatever song you're playing, the hardest part's already been taken care of. And I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to argue that interpreting any of the legendary classical pieces would be harder than it was for them to compose the pieces. You've got composing taken care of, and your teacher to spoon feed you the interpretation. I really don't get what the hard part is. Your comment on research skills caught my interest. Could you give me an example of what type of research you've done to perform a piece, and why? Well duh. But don't think you deserve a pat on the back just because you're able to play a piece back with emotion. Any musician with sense of emotion should be able to do that. There are millions of people who've played Beethoven, but there's only been one Beethoven. Out of those millions, whom have had the creative capacity to actually, I dunno, CREATE, rather than emulate? Stop being so dense. I can respect Horowitz and Perlman as amazing human beings, and as amazing performers. But being a performer doesn't carry nearly the connotation nor amount of respect I have for the composer. It doesn't matter if Beethoven wanted his pieces to be played by others, the fact that he wrote it still remains in stone. I mean I play Beethoven from time to time and I'm a shitty pianist, but I don't think he's greater than I just because I'm shitty. I think he's greater than me because he can compose with an air of greatness far more than what I could hope to even dream of. Pieces are meant to express yourself, and there's a definite ulterior goal to strive for: recognition and appreciation. Just like a chef cooks food that's meant to be eaten. But how could anyone respect the consumer on any level even remotely close to the source just because he's able to stomach what's put on his plate? Definitely. Art is timeless. Judging a piece's quality by it's spot in time's just as narrow-minded as prejudging a piece based on its genre. I never said that anyone could do what I did on a guitar, but I'm not denying it. Technically speaking, it's not really impressive at all, but technique in general's lost it's flair to me anyway. If you could read a little better, you might've even caught this! 8O8O 8-O8-O You're probably referring to the jazz video, right? You've seen one of my videos, and you make this retardedly ignorant assumption about my guitar playing. Christ, and I thought I was narrow-minded at times. I'm guessing you hate Yngwie J. Malmsteen? I think I could've done a better job on note choice at the end solo, but for the most part I didn't play a note that I didn't want to or think wouldn't fit. I mean I'm not a purist of any genre, so I guess I should apologize to all jazz musicians for using distortion and a whammy bar. I know there's more than notes and rhythms, and you're probably going to say, "The WAY you play the note." I've heard that about a thousand times, and then some. I kind of hate how teachers have to be so cryptic, but I can't really blame them since that's probably how they were taught anyway. What goes in goes out, there's no magical quality to it. The WAY one hits a note is the same thing as breaking it down into timing, clarity/articulation, and dynamics. There's nothing else to it really. P.S.: Also, don't rag on me for my style man. I know you're not out of ammunition so don't stoop to that level- you don't need it. I'm not going to apologize for not dressing like a token videogame fan. At the end of the night, does my choice to wear a ring or a watch affect you in any small degree of significance?

The funniest part is that I was just about to delete all that, because it wasn't really relevant to the thread. I guess I can't really delete it now. But that's a really good idea. Could we get a moderator to move it, or would it be too arrogant of an underling like me to PM a request to one of them?

??? Tell me, do you have a habit of developing temporary leprosy in your eyes before you respond to my posts, or do you just skip over them entirely before you proceed to spew nonsensical bullshit that I've more than likely refuted several times?

Eh, he's alright. He doesn't write the fully orchestrated songs though, the keyboardist is the one that takes care of 100% of the orchestration. Orchestration is definitely this band's strong point, so their keyboardist would be their biggest asset, since he's the brains behind the songs in the first place. I really dig the orchestration though, Dark Tower of the Abyss is so kickass. As for "exclusively" liking Malmsteen as the only guitarist I listen to, I think the true meaning of my words were lost somewhere along Tensai's incessant need to.. "educate" me. I never said that Malmsteen is the only guitarist that I dig, he's the only guitar driven artist that I listen to, two entirely different things. Examples of guitar driven artists would be Michael Angelo Batio, Paul Gilbert (I do have much respect for this man), Steve Vai (As do I for him too), Shawn Lane (What a champion this man was), Joe Satriani, Cacophany, Jason Becker- I think you get the point. If your conceived notion is that Malmsteen is the only guitarist who I think is good, I'd be in the United States and you somewhere in the deep Korean sea. I think Jimmy Page can write some mean shit, like "The Rain Song", which is easily a contender for my favorite Western ballad; I think Jimi Hendrix's compositional genius in the field of rock and roll is something yet to be matched by 99.9% of the guitarists that came after him; I can groove to Michael Romeo 25 hours a day, I actually saw Symphony X in concert and they blew my mind; both guitarists from DepaPepe have a ludicrous amount of compositional skill in regards to melody and counterpoint, as does Kotaro Oshio; I entirely dig the session (or not session) guitarist who did the solos to T.M. Revolution's "Heart of Sword"; the guitarist in Arturo Sandoval's jazz band is a monster blues player; I'm not afraid to admit that I loved and still love Kirk Hammett's solos in Metallica, and I think James Hetfield writes the most badass metal riffs ever. I could go on for a day but you'd probably get bored, and I think I've more than proved what this paragraph set out to anyway. So no- if you're thinking that I worded it in an easily misconceivable way or anything of that nature, no, I didn't. There it is, plain as day. =) And no, Tensai-san, I'm not "cooped up" in the "niche" of my "favorite" musical genre- I don't have one as you can clearly see, my musical tastes are all over the place. I don't hate eclecticism, not at all. I guess it was my fault for not clarifying adequately. What I hate is mindless eclecticism, eclecticism for the sake of its own shit, just so you can say you listen to everything, and there are certainly those who'll try their hardest to force themselves into believing that they like something with a bona fide appreciation that they didn't initially have. I think it's so gay that people do that, if you don't like something at the least you'll have a better, more honest-to-yourself, and well thought out reason for not liking it than some pseudo-logic today's teens constantly conjure up to defend their "diverse" and "versatile" musical tastes. Not to be elitist here, but I think music is viewed much in the same way as the Wii's motto towards videogames: family fun to the point where your grandmother could beat Ken in a smash match! Eclecticism is an easy way to make yourself seem like your musical sense is more expansive than it really is; it's like the first step in a "Music Appreciation for Dummies", so to speak. If you don't have it, and I'm so sorry for being vague here, other's knowledge can only take you so far without an inherent ability to realize unteachable characteristics of your own ability. I strongly believe the same to be true of any art. C'mon, as much as we, much less I (being as he is my favorite character), want to see Rock Lee take down Sasuke.. it's never gonna happen. My preference in artists, from KOTOKO to Masato Kouda to Kansas to Motoi Sakuraba to Maynard Ferguson, is, I say with no arrogance, definitely diverse. I think we can all agree on that. I'm no Videogame music listener who listens to jazz just so I can say that I do, my taste is bound by one key element: melody. Shoot, I'd leave this forum if you'd merely heard of DepaPepe or Kotaro Oshio, or even Tetsuya Shibata. I just don't listen to bullshit wanking like half of "No Boundaries" (it has its amazing moments, but I guess he ran out of ideas or something because the transitions are just pages and pages of chromatic scales thrown into a blender) or Takayoshi's bullshit, or anything that doesn't place a heavy emphasis of importance on melody. Even if you completely despise the artist he's turned into, can we all civilly agree that "Far Beyond The Sun" is a masterpiece deserving of our respect as guitarists, no, musicians?

Why don't you respond to my other post first? It's on this page. As for those guitarists, Gilbert, Batio, and Buckethead- I have the highest degree of respect for Gilbert, I've seen his videos and the respect he has for the classical greats. He is a musician. But no way in hell are you gonna sit here and argue that Batio is a musician. BATIO wanks less than Malmsteen? And as for Buckethead, I don't want to outright deny any creativity and originality, I just don't like atonal melody. I find it.. unsettlingly unmelodical and auditorily repelling. And as for "Why something as 'visually abrasive as cubism caught on' is easy to answer: The philosophy behind cubism was attractive to spectators and other artists in that period," Avril Lavigne is attractive to spectators and plenty of other self-dubbed artists in this period. =) P.S.: Yep. Gauguin. Picasso was central to the cubism movement though, just how Paul wasn't the inventor of Christianity yet central to its movement. I didn't "miss" anything friend- the whole replacing idea was simply satire. God, I hope you knew that. And I never knew you liked Greenday. I hate eclecticism more than anything else. After your last mega two-post rebuttal, I'm through arguing with you.

This is a terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible reason. I shouldn't have to remind you of the notorious logical fallacies of man vs. Columbus, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, etc. Sure, originality is important, since it's how we distinguish artist from artist. But I don't think anyone, aside from the "clones", can truly be fully unoriginal. Originality is defined by uniqueness, and if you're not Malmsteen, needless to say I don't think you can be Malmsteen. Even in the clones' music there is a shred, albeit a shred, of originality. True originality is something I've observed and believe to be innate; it can't be learned. I think most of originality is having great musical sense and taste anyway, but then again you can't learn to like something you're adamantly opposed to. You don't have to be originally revolutionary to be a great artist- merely not impersonating another existing artist is originality by definition. Besides, history shows that original brilliance entails art few can appreciate, and I hardly think esotericism is a credible factor. Malmsteen isn't nearly as world renown as Picasso, so he's obviously not at the level where you can defend him with the one statement "Dude, he's Malmsteen!" applicable to Picasso and Hendrix and the like. Even so, plenty of non-guitarists and guitarists who can't play his music can appreciate Malmsteen, but I think due to the paleness of Malmsteen's popularity compared to Picasso, a non-guitarist who readily recognizes his music as genius is in a completely different vein from a non-art major who recognizes Picasso's genius. It's recognition by skill, not by fame. Surely I can't be the only non-art major that thinks Picasso's cubism is more a product of a disturbed mind than artistic genius. Ears for eyes? A mouth for a nose? Brilliance? Hardly. Who even knows how something as visually abrasive as cubism caught on in the first place? Then again, the Western race is one willing to spend enough to make Greenday multi-millionaires. Too much of "guitar music" is forced originality, guitarists spending days on end trying to create some sort of musically nonsensical sound all for the sake of some abstract sense of originality. At this extreme's end you'll have Tom Morello, who'll never use the same pedal twice. I think we can all come to some sort of consensus regarding the.. "mechanicalness" of Rage Against the Machine. Just look at the guitar community man, when a friggin' clown like Joe Stump is the head professor of Berkeley's shred department I think that's a testament to the fact of how a failure can succeed in the music world as long as he attracts like-minded failures. Before you delude yourself into thinking you know anything about my style, I suggest you go watch several other videos to clear up any misconceptions you may have about my list of influences. Malmsteen is, and will most likely remain, the only guitar driven artist I will ever listen to. This is a VIDEOGAME MUSIC thread for crying out loud, the mere fact that I am, or anyone else is aware of OCRemix and have cared enough to register and post on the forums speaks volumes about the level of respect I have for Videogame/Japanese music. "Open Your Mind", "Shine of Voice", "Clock Tower Stage", you're honestly telling me that I sound like Malmsteen in those videos? Are you stupid or just deaf? Yoko Ishida, Dream, Tetsuya Shibata- hell I'd leave this forum if you'd heard of ANY of them. But I'm solidly assured that you haven't. There is a reason why Malmsteen is less popular than Petrucci, in the West. And, my friend, it's in fact the exact reason why Videogame music is less popular than Greenday, in the West. Edit: This is a notification to inform you that you Sir, have been owned. Have a nice musically dry day.

What's wrong with it? Absolutely nothing. If I come up with a sweet lick, of course I'm gonna keep it. But an important aspect of true musicianship is perpetually improving that number of licks. And I don't know if I'd call an ideal improvised solo 100% made up; as long as you're the one who made up all those licks. What's most important to me is whether it sounds good or not. As for Friedman, I agree for the most part. He is an insane musician, and it's kinda funny to see how he can't explain himself during his instructional videos. But to like someone because they go through obscure scales.. I don't know if that's the mark of a great musician or not. I mean it's cool how he plays and approaches improvisation, but his general sound just doesn't appeal to me. Crank up your speakers, or use headphones, preferably. Here's one of my best improvisations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpoHjj0-aTw&mode=related&search= It's not nearly as clean as I play now, but it's still bearable, and I'm really digging the "melody". I had a "Friedman" type thing going on, I had no idea what scale I played from 1:15 - 1:17, but it sounded badass. Regarding melody, I use the textbook definition man, the globally recognized definition. Melody is defined as "A rhythmical succession of single tones producing a distinct musical phrase or idea." As for your whole Clapton is God argument.. I think that's been your worst argument so far. I hope you're not forgetting that we live in a day and age where Billy Joe Armstrong and the fruitloop from Blink 182 are widely considered "gods" by today's teens. Though, I don't think that amounts to shit. You're also forgetting that the only place Malmsteen is widely considered a "god" is in Japan, and some sections of Europe. Even if you don't like him that much, I think we can come to some sort of basic consensus of his amazing playing ability. And as for why you consider rhythm important, are you saying that it's a result of your teachers' influence? Who cares who they like? Why don't you form your own opinions? And, if we were to go to extremes, you said you liked the counterpoint of Stairway to Heaven's solo, so what if we changed EVERY note in that solo to an A? It'd sound like shit! And for rhythms, what if we condensed a song's melody to strictly eighth notes? Then you'd get Moonlight Sonata, which is infinitely better than a Stairway to Heaven solo with a one note restriction. Man.. you read "somewhere"? Was it even a credible source bro? Christ, you have to realize that the majority of bullshit floating around on the internet is total crap, it's almost as if you want to believe Yngwie is a prick. When you have bullshit interviews like, "Mr. Malmsteen, why can't you play with feeling?" of fuckin' course you're gonna say, "What the fuck?" And such a statement can easily be skewed to fit a personal bias, especially when that interviewer is probably jealous as shit. Read the Guitar World interviews by Joe Lalaina man, or some interviews on his website. Yngwie apologized for being a dick in his earlier days for stints like "Unleash the fury." Let bygones be bygones man, it's elementary as shit to dredge up the past. Let's also not forget that Paul Gilbert cites Yngwie as a primary influence.

Personally, I do. But this argument isn't going anywhere, so how about we just agree that they're both showing off? And if you decide not to agree, that's cool too.

Give me the times for any nonsensical licks in that improvised solo.

Well a criticism bouncing around in this thread is "cleanliness", and the lick from 0:12 - 0:14 is horribly messy. Obviously Yngwie's gonna stick to the harmonic minor, it's his trademark. Why aren't you people off bashing B.B. King for using the blues? Yngwie has at least used the pentatonic, blues, minor, harmonic minor, major, AND mixolydian scales in his career, whereas B.B. King has only used that single scale for his entire 60+ year career. I don't see any slamming there though. You could say the same for Robert Cray, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eric Clapton, Joe Walsh, AND Buddy Guy. Honestly man, I don't see how you can prefer that nonsensical mess of notes at 0:38 - 0:41 to Yngwie. Oh well, to each his own, and in the end, I respect your opinion.

If you think I dislike the solo to Stairway to Heaven, I think it's safe to say that you don't have a very clear grasp on what I'm trying to say at all. In no fuckin' way am I saying to improvise randomly! That's retarded, I 100% agree with you. What you're saying about playing subconsciously, that's basically what I'm saying too, just slightly differently. Naturally, people solo differently because they have different auditory aesthetics as to what sounds the best over such and such progressions. But if you think these groups of notes sound best over this particular part in a standard blues jam, what's keeping you from playing that specific lick EVERY time you play the blues? That's where the "random" (to you) or spur-of-the-moment (to me) aspect ties into soloing; I'll play whatever I feel at the given moment. And isn't spur-of-the-moment, by definition, what improvisation and ad-libbing are? And also, when to play notes, how doesn't that tie into melody? Isn't rhythm intrinsically a part of melody? If I wrote out the guitar solo on a sheet of music, wouldn't I have to notate the note lengths and rests? Isn't that what rhythm essentially is? The pattern of pulses in music caused by the occurrence of beats (Note lengths and rests?) (Webster, rhythm)? I don't get how anyone can disagree with melody's foremost importance to writing a solo, or even composing in general. Seriously, after reading that blog, I'm shocked how you can still confuse my stance on music with all these ideas. I don't care whether you shred or not, my blog clearly states that Malmsteen remains the only guitar driven artist I'll listen to, and that I don't give two shits about shredding. Which brings me to another point: it's the most commonly made argument that Malmsteen is gay because of his attitude. We have no idea of what type of person he is other than those very biased 80s interviews and Pantera's "Donut" video, and if someone was disrespecting you to that degree, I'm not saying Yngwie handled it in the best way but doesn't the blatant disrespectful intention of those donuts alleviate some of the blame? With donuts you're calling someone fat, can any of you justifiably call him a cocky faggot for not taking that kind of insult gracefully? And who the hell in this world is perfect or characteristically flawless enough to be able to judge him, or anyone else for that matter, without being a hypocrite? This is why personality attacks bother me so much- unless you're as flawless as Jesus, or maybe Mother Teresa, you have no right to judge anyone else. If you somehow were as flawless as Mother Teresa, such humble people don't waste their time rebuking other people to begin with. All rebuking does is make you (not YOU) look like an elitist prick. And you must be kidding if you think Petrucci plays cleaner than this. Also, the remix wasn't bad, but the chords at 0:45 were wrong. Did you do that on purpose? Some of the bends are flat too, like the one at 2:57. The arrangement is pretty badass for the most part, the half-time breakdown at 1:35 is sick as shit, although I think I could do without some of the double bass gunning. And.. your vibrato doesn't sound wide like mine at all. Maybe it's the solid state amp or globs of distortion sucking up the tone that should be coming from your fingers. On a final note, this thread has become heavily derailed. But I don't mind it, I really like hearing other people's views. P.S.: Contrary to your assumption, I think Santana is a BEAST. Clapton, in my opinion, is an overrated amateur, but not because he sticks to those scales. I have no problem with that, people call Yngwie repetitive but what's the difference between sticking to your style and being repetitive? Aren't they essentially the same thing? What do the Americans want, for Yngwie to release a Jazz Fusion album? Would he not be "repetitive" then? How the hell does anyone even suggest that all of his songs sound the same? How in the world does Blitzkrieg sound like Far Beyond the Sun, or does Dreaming sound like Fugue? What about Prelude to April? Vivance? Amberdawn? I Don't Know? Seventh Sign? Someone want to start drawing parallels?

Well, while I think Vai has some cool songs and very original playing, and Satriani does as well, they generally aren't super shredders, and Heafy is about as exciting as a rock.