DrumUltimA

Hey guys! Here's something new I just started sketching out. I wrote some words, and played piano singing them. I'm gonna sequence-arrange it, and mom will play Hopefully i can get it under 6 mb... Btw- did I butcher latin? http://drumultima.googlepages.com/nostrumsketch.mp3 here's a small update! I started sketching out the accompaniment. No singing yet http://drumultima.googlepages.com/nostrumfull.mp3 (piano part outlines voice part) here are the words: http://drumultima.googlepages.com/nostrum.txt

Four, ... Five, PROFIT!!!

actually i don't even know what we're talking about anymore, that's why I stopped

i'd like to see it come back

Thanks! I'll pass on the compliment

hahah that was great!! edit: i just saw the my first friend one and now i'm crying :[ that happened to me...

damn! some kid who goes to my school, kinda looked like you. That would've been nuts.

Wait... is your name Peter? You wouldn't happen to be named Peter Kwon, would you?

a lot of the next gen sonic games have music that is metal and shitty also, I always thought that I could hear the instrumental track to Rhianna's "Unfaithful" in a game...

holy INTERNET

Alright, i want to go to bed, so I guess I'll leave my final words. Yes, conceptually speaking, it is only logical that the composers original conception would be the "best" interpretation, if the term "best" is defined as "closest to the composer's original conception". And yes, I would much rather prefer to play my music myself than give it to somebody else. But I think it's important to define performer with the same regard that composer is defined. I do believe I already posted about this, but I'll go more in depth. Part I. The composer and performer have equally important roles in the music making process. The composer and performer can be the same person, or different people. Heifetz was a performer. Paul Lansky is a composer. Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, and Liszt were Composer-Performers. The act of composing is the conception of sound. The act of performing is the execution of sound. Without one, the other is not possible. If this happens to occur in the same body, fantastic. I am not speaking of performers and composers as people, but rather functions. Part II. It isn't unreasonable for the composer to have other interpretations of their music as part of their original conception of sound. Historically speaking, composers have always written pieces for instruments with specific performers in mind. It is completely possible for a composer to not want to deal with performers. For example, Paul Lansky of computer music fame did most of his work on the computer, using that as his performer. When using a computer, you have much more control over the sound you want, and the interpretation will always be yours. But he did end up writing live music to have performed. When a composer writes for an instrument that he or she cannot play, he or she is agreeing to an interpretation that was not originally his or hers. And it is not unheard of for a composer to work with a performer to try to get the sound that he or she was unable to write down. But especially in this day an age, when anything is possible with the right software, composers could easily refrain from having their music performed live and sequence everything to exactly how they wanted (which OverClocked Remixer Shnabubula did when he wrote his remix "Mario Likes Thorazine"--I asked him if he wanted it performed, he said no). Yet, the fact that so many modern composers do strive to hear their music performed by other people can only logically mean that the composer is looking to hear somebody else's interpretation. So in conclusion, it can be argued that the composer's interpretation of his or her own work is the most "valid". But that doesn't at all downplay the importance of the composer to the performer--especially when they're one in the same.

yeah, that pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as I can tell. But if that's all that this argument has been about, I'm gonna be frustrated that so much collateral damage occurred...

Rising Flame, I HIGHLY reccomend you read alex ross' "The Rest is Noise" before you go passing any more judgement on what is music and what isn't. Once again, John Cage, also perhaps some Ligeti and Stockhausen-- great examples of composers who use NOISE. And they're not just like, average whoevers. These are the Mozarts and Beethovens of OUR time. Also, I love Yasunori Mitsuda but his music is certainly not as deep as you're making it out to be...he's one of my favorite video game composers for sure, but I wouldn't put his music on the same level as say, Reich, John Adams, John Britton, and a lot of the other composers of our time... And for the record, music is for EVERYONE. I was a bit taken aback by that comment. As for Sil's comments... do you really refuse to believe that composers like to hear other peoples interpretations? This isn't the first time I've heard that from a composer...

so are we commenting on the importance of the performer as an individual? edit:oops sorry bout the double post

When John Cage was studying with Arnold Shoenberg, he was informed that he was basically tone-deaf and that he was going to run into trouble with this. He was also having composition lessons for free, given that he would devote his life to music. So, he found ways to write music that did not involve much tonality, if any at all. If you listen to third construction, it is a percussion quartet made up of chinese toms, congas, tin cans, shakers, etc. He builds sort of "faux" melody out of recognizable rhythmic motifs, and introduces consonance and dissonance by superimposing polyrhythmic figures and permutations (aka, 5:4, 7:4, even (7:5):4!) over them. Steve Reich and Phillip Glass: minimalists. Steve Reich uses melody and harmony to a limited extent... but he takes one rhythmic figure or melody and repeats it over and over again--in a manner that exposes every detail about that rhythm or melody. Phillip glass has a slightly different approach, he works with cells, adding and subtracting notes after a certain amount of repetitions. Iannis Xenakis is also an architect. His music is very mathematical. Look for "rebon B" on youtube. Other good composers to check out are george crumb, aspheregis, franco donatoni, to name a few. All of these people are writing pieces of music that push the definition of music to many.

it's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake...

dude, that post wasn't any more than a summarization of my post... anyway i have more to say! See, now you're opening a whole new can of worms. I strongly advise you not to define music in this discussion...if you listen to the works of steve reich, john cage, phillip glass, iannis xenakis, etc, you will find that many composers seek to write music that does not involve melody or harmony.

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

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

I haven't really read all of this because there is a lot of stuff that I simply don't have the patience to sift through, but I read a few things that got me going. So rather than targeting specific excerpts, I will only target one or two and then put in my own two cents on the importance of performers vs. composers. first of all, this quote: If this is the case, then that person should not be a musician. Anyway here's what I think. Composers and Performers are equally important, because without both in combination you never actually get music. The composer and performer may share the same body, or they may be separate people. In modern times, the composer is also the improviser and the performer is also the computer. If you're Raymond Scott, the composer is the computer, and the performer gets shafted. Speaking as not only somebody with compositional inclinations, but a heavy background in both jazz and classical performance, it's quite unfair to get on the performer for not composing. All performers compose at some points in their lives, but more often than not it's nothing substantial, just as all composers perform at some points in their lives. The fact of the matter is that people who love music all love it for different reasons. If a musician is not inclined to write his or her own music, but loves playing the music of others, than for Gods sake don't take that dignity away from them. The same goes for composers. One of my composer friends at school, upon asking him what instrument he plays, told he me he didn't. "I took piano lessons for a little while, but I didn't get very far. My teacher told me that she liked my improvisations and I should keep going with that." And surprise, I LOVE his work. All musicians need and utilize creativity, whether you compose or perform. Contrary to a statement I read earlier, interpretation is not systematically analyzing where you place rubato, dynamics, articulation, etc. When performing a work, the interpretation involved is much more subtle, intricate, delicate, and ultimately effective than the systematic deciding on how to articulate. Whereas a composer may base a composition off of a feeling, a landscape, an experience, etc. it is the responsibility of the performer to accurately convey that feeling, landscape, experience, etc. to the best of their ability. This is where the idea of personal interpretation comes in, and the rapture that a composer may experience by hearing a composer tell him a similar story to the one he or she wrote about. Talking to other composers at school, I was surprised at how many valued the performer's personal interpretation of their work. Ultimately, it is a form of dialog. I guess my point is that performers and composers are all musicians. They are all given the same "stuff" that draws them to music, and that "stuff" gets redistributed based on what their inclinations and interests are. But a composer is no more "god-given" than a performer, and vice versa. As far as remixing goes, my belief is this: Anything and everything is fair game. You're interpreting, but not with any sort of responsibility. The video game musicians didn't write you music for you to perform, they already wrote the music and that process is done. This stage is post-performance. You can have an eevee, but evolve it the way you like

i heard you guys met my cousin!!!!!

no i don't, sorry. that's just the way it is. actually i will be on a plane during that

this is an excellent thread

oof, too bad I'll be going home that day. Say hi to Chris for me.

okay, so we have most everybody, except for dom and bluefox and qpa and xerol. i'll keep my lappy with me!