zykO

Contributors
  • Content Count

    1,150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

1 Follower

About zykO

  • Rank
    Phoenix Wright (+1100)

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sacramento
  • Interests
    You

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.zykomazika.com

Converted

  • Biography
    i am the zyko monkey. and so are you
  • Real Name
    waleed hawatky
  • Occupation
    that guy
  • Twitter Username
    zykmonkey
  • PlayStation Network ID
    zykomonkey

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
    Cubase

Recent Profile Visitors

5,312 profile views
  1. ah yes and therein lies a rather substantial chunk of the problem... just the other day, i was listening to Dave and Chris Brubeck's Ansel Adams: America piece for the first time and was thoroughly moved by it. later that evening at band rehearsal, i eagerly wanted to rant and rave about it like the moment i got there lol i sought to describe how intricately they had woven Chopinesque romantic piano with grandiose baroque piano ala Bach all the while writing this sweeping symphonic and rather American (Coplandesque, i suppose) tribute to one of the great American artists. I ultimately described it to them just as i did now hahaha ie. in very broad strokes, emphasizing the tonal palette they used, the way the different elements juxtaposed and interacted. in the end, i had analyzed and related the piece as would a curator rather than as a composer but when i had piqued their interest and they wanted to know more about how exactly the Brubecks accomplished such a magnificent synthesis, i ran into the quandary of not really knowing exactly how to describe it properly. i eventually would get the point across and they certainly are used to playing with me so they understood me and my quasi-technical lingo... but i was reminded, yet again, of just how practical having that formal training and technical background is. hell, it could have at least saved us the hour we could have instead been working on our set, not listening to me fumble about with chromaticism and diatonicism lolllllllll the knowledge gained from proper formal training may very well have made me a better, more efficient, more compelling composer over the years... we'll never really know since i abandoned classical training a long time ago... but it is in these sorts of instances when confronted with having to communicate or break down a truly nuanced and complex piece of music that requires more than just a rudimentary harmonic analysis, that training can be and is quite practical indeed. it isn't that music theory ever has to be dry. it's just that as with a lot of things, the status quo prevails and institutions as old as "western music" are unshakable even when blasted by a barrage of jazz, punk, electronica, etc. over the years. in the end, the establishment holds because it was built a long, long time ago and it isn't really broken; it just requires its educators to be mindful of emphasizing why we should use the knowledge rather than just providing it. or maybe, i have no idea what i'm talking about lol
  2. John can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that's not what he was saying at all. As far as I can tell, he's suggesting that music theory is quite instinctual at its core... meaning that we recognize forms and systems as "a way to do things" without explicitly recognizing them as technically sound extrapolations of music theory... since all music theory does is set out to describe and organize how music exists in the natural world and establish a language for it to be communicated quickly, accurately and consistently. Some things, such as harmony, come entirely natural more often than not (not taking into account unique "ears" that find more harmony in disharmony but that's just over-complicating this point lol). Any given musician can utilize any number of constructs in their writing at any given moment without ever specifically setting out to do so... but in doing so, are manifesting a function of traditional music theory as it is taught at some level. This is most obvious in styles of music that originate from parts of the world that have largely developed their folk and/or traditional composition and tonal sensibilities outside of Western influence. And yet, the Western nomenclature can still very much describe most everything any of it does. This is also why many "musically ignorant" artists can still compose and perform compelling - and at times, profound - pieces of music without the ability necessarily to explain what it was they just did with any metric and/or nomenclature. The problem - and I believe he touches upon it excellently and refreshingly as someone who is, in fact, trained - is when trained musicians negatively criticize those of us - like myself - who don't really know all the nuances of the nomenclature or care to lol Also, knowing John, I'm 100% certain he doesn't believe that "intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, chorus" is the "right" way to write a song... while I admittedly do it plenty, I find it a particularly innocuous and banal way to compose but, hey, there's certainly much to be said about easily-digestable music Anyway, great read; it's been a contentious topic among musicians for years
  3. GrayLightning EDIT: Void lollllllllllllllll
  4. truth. my music was arguably better when i was changing strings once a year and not tuning
  5. bizarre question. because it's the law? put in place to protect the work put in by artists? (did you catch the part that you yourself highlighted where an artist covering or arranging an existing tune can still make a living from it by paying licensing fees? did you catch how that's not illegal? in other words, legality has nothing to do with the matter of originality and creativity in art, just in the protection of artists and their hard work no matter what they're doing?) i realize you're having a real hard time thinking outside of the box of tangible, basic definitions of things but it's pretty obvious those are different discussion points
  6. as far as i can tell, nobody in this thread at any point showed a lack of understanding about the legality of the matter. i'm pretty sure everybody has acknowledged that, legally, an arrangement is not your IP and that anytime you are going to distribute any covered material, you'll have to pay licensing fees. this is baked into every single distributor whether it is distrokid or LANDR or whomever and all the legal entities such as ASCAP or BMI. if you're going to record a cover and sell it, you're going to pay for it either up front or on the back end
  7. nah, i won't quote each individual sentence... i'm just gonna go ahead and quote the whole damn thing and make superfluous, unmitigated love to it because i can't heart your comment more than once and that's not nearly enough. to briefly roll with your point about your SMB underwater arrangement, tho... i perform "Rime of the Wandering Seafarer" live all the time both when i'm solo as well as with my band amidst an entire set of strictly "original" material. nearly all of the time, nobody is the wiser. literally had an actual videogame composer in the crowd once who later admitted still didn't even recognize it as being a zelda tune let alone a cover until i mentioned it after the tune had ended. that it fit seamlessly with the rest of the set while being tonally consistent with my specific sound is precisely the point. i guess original vocals and lyrics, as well as an entirely different song structure, instrumentation, tempo and key is "seasoning." it's a different food group, dude. it doesn't sound like koji kondo at all. it sounds 100% like zykO and always will. can anyone really say that Sublime's "Summertime (Doin' Time)" is anyyyyyything like Gershwin's iconic aria? lol or Ella's rendition? was Ella wasting her time, too??? how about billie holliday? or billy stewart? *shrug* so here are a few more hearts for you, good sir: <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
  8. ...that would be because " just because you added some seasoning of your own" is a wildly gross understatement of what actually goes on in arrangement or any measure of creative interpretation but we've already beaten the living death out of this horse and it's clearly gone nowhere but south so..... i'll take your cue and let this inane argument go to pasture
  9. lol just because it's WillRock's opinion also doesn't mean it's any more or less anything peace out dude
  10. dude, what's with the 'tude? lol "*hits blunt*"..."pedantry"..."the logic being touted"... seriously bro? you keep making these ostensibly narrow-minded broad strokes about creativity and originality all the while lookin down your nose pretentiously at everyone offering a counter like you're the first person on these forums to write original music. besides, there's plenty of logic in the premise being argued... that, barring legality and the most rigid of interpretations, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a piece of music that blatantly derives its tone, style, and phrasing from another and one that begins with the specific compositional structure but interprets it in an entirely unique and original approach. (i can tell you like examples as it ruffles your feathers somethin wicked so here's another:) a band that sounds exactly like System of a Down but writes songs System of a Down hasn't, isn't fooling anyone; they're not very original or unique. an artist who takes the epic orchestral Liberi Fatali and writes a killer four piece punk rock arrangement for their band is considerably more original no matter how hard you plunk on your keyboard trying to suggest otherwise. they're both derivative despite having different reasons for being so and yet can both be enjoyed for whatever element of them is original or refreshing without this unnervingly unnecessary debate. how is that not logical? and no, dude, it isn't pedantic. for someone who supposedly takes great pride and care in "studying a score to discover what composition techniques," you sure have a fundamental misconception of how scrupulous and precise and overwrought with minutiae that writing music is. are you sure you actually do write any original music in the first place or are you just here to blow hot takes all over the thread? there's utterly nothing pedantic about a conversation on music, man. particularly on a music forum lollllllllll *insert Carl Sagan mind-blown gif here* *hits blunt* lol at this point, i'm not entirely shocked but even then, i'm still a bit perturbed that you'd dig up the ol' pot stigma card... blatantly undercutting Majeles' statement with the absurd suggestion that he must have been stoned to have said it, further denigrating any stance taken opposite yours. I can't quite figure out if you're 12 or 72. LIKE... BRUH HAVE YOU EVER HAD A FORUM DISAGREEMENT... ON WEEEEEED?????? 1998 called and wants its outdated weed dig back. honestly, if you're so irritated with (by, at this point, SEVERAL...) people calling bullshit on your assertion that there is no creative or original value in the hard work of talented, creative, and original artists when working on video game arrangements... then why do you keep responding? especially if the only way you're going to do so is by being a colossal douche? like maybe some of us actually prefer to express their unique voice through videogame remixes. i personally don't; that's why i have an original music career. makes utterly no difference to me... but you know... it might to others and that's perfectly ok! i can recognize the artistry and abilities of any musician without having to pinky finger a point about how much better it is to write "original" music, suggesting those who disagree with you are "threatened" by the "inferiority" of the form... nahhhh, i'm pretty sure you're just being an asshole at this point.
  11. there is no such thing as a universal truth or a baseline to any interpretation of aesthetic but here we are anyway, thousands of years into this shit, quibbling over it like paleolithic DJ's at a burning man festival
  12. there's no point. we've resorted to "i don't really give a shit" of course, AngelCityOutlaw isn't at all wrong that a fan work is never actually yours and never can be as it is a) legally someone else's and b) is pronouncedly more derivative; the contentious point is the mere fact that he equates that with creative originality and, well, who really gives a shit
  13. this is what i unsuccessfully tried to express before