Jump to content

zykO   Members

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,155

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by zykO

    In defense of music theory

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by zykO

    6 hours ago, BloomingLate said:

    Lastly, I think music theory in general suffers from a bad reputation as being unpractical, which may explain its de-emphasis in a school setting and the low expectations teachers have from their students. If it is not meaningfully connected to something tangible (as John described with his guitar class) it will stay in the unpractical. And if unpractical, why bother with it?
    It probably also doesn't help when a teacher is not a composer/musician himself/herself. I'm trying to work my way through Paul Hindemith's works on composition (part 1 and 2). In the introduction he laments the state of music theory education and names the lack of composer-teachers as part of the problem. If the teacher is not immersed in the craft himself, how is he expected to meaningfully transmit the knowledge to others?
    Unfortunately for music theory, it does tend to get a little dry and technical, even a little esoteric when you get to things like harmonics and get the math and physics involved. I find it not as accessible as other subjects, though I imagine you could get esoteric with color theory too if you bring in the frequencies of colors 0_0;

    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

    In defense of music theory

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Admiral_C said:

    Are songs that are not written with the above form "wrong" or are they "not songs"? To me (a layman) it sounds like this is the same as saying that Hemingway's books are not books. Can you explain the difference, or clarify what "make sense" means?

    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

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    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

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    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

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, JohnStacy said:

    My last thought, which I'm giving, leaving, and not coming back to:

    One of my remixes is so far removed from the original that if you take away the original melody, because of the altered harmony and counterpoint, it sounds like a completely different piece.  I've actually performed said remix without the original melody as an original composition for a graduate composition recital.  An analysis of it shows that without the melody, the style, harmony, and counterpoint are so far removed from the original that it can classify as a completely different piece no matter how you look at it.  I mean like...it's now less than 10% the speed of the original, the melody was almost completely reharmonized.  The harmony doesn't even classify as tonal anymore at this point.  It has a loose key center, so it's key centric, but the function of the chords don't exist in a traditionally tonal sense.  If you speed it up 10x, then the groups of measures together suggest a tonal progression, but the actual phrases in the piece are not tonal.  Basically I wrote a contrafact of the Underwater theme from Super Mario Bros.

    I'm a jazz musician, so the idea of taking several tunes with the exact same content and changing the melody is normal.  The concept of contrafact is kind of a center point of the genre.  Sometimes when people write a tune, the original writers fade into obscurity while the performers of said piece get credited.  Donna Lee is credited to Miles Davis, but that is heavily debated.  It is a contrafact of the tune Indiana, and is practiced as such.  The chord changes to I Got Rhythm are so iconic that we just basically call them rhythm changes.  There is no effort at all to hide the fact that it's basically the exact content of the song minus the melody.  There are other times where tunes are arranged in DRASTICALLY different styles and although they are the original song, they contributed to the development of the genre, or in some cases multiple genres in a significant way.  Many musicians do arrangements literally all the time to develop their compositional and arrangement technique.  More times than not, doing an arrangement of a VG tune in the style of a composer helps me learn more about the writing of that composer than if I were writing an original tune in that style.  It takes less time, so I can get more out of it really quickly.

    Brahms wrote Theme and Variations on a Theme by Haydn.  But Brahms is credited as the composer, not the arranger.  In the classical canon, having a theme and variations form virtually always results in a new piece, even though the melodic content was written by somebody else.  Brahms, Mozart, Beethoven, and Strauss are some of the major composers in the classical canon, and they all wrote theme and variations on the themes of somebody else, yet are credited as the composers.  Theme and Variations on a Theme by Haydn was basically a remix of a piece by Haydn.  But Brahms is credited as composer.

    I mean if by added some seasoning you mean I dumped so many seasonings to it that it's basically a mountain of rainbow powder with no liquid left, then yes.  I just added some seasoning of my own.  That is a simplification of what goes on and you know it, so please drop the condescending attitude toward the matter, thank you very much.

    And please for the love of God don't do the thing where you quote each individual sentence of this post and make me defend it line by line, because I have better things to do with my time.  People get tired of that REALLY quickly, because more times than not, you simplify what they said in your response, which just adds fuel to the fire rather than continuing the discussion.  People waste so much more time correcting your simplifications than actually continuing the discussion because you "don't give a shit."

    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

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    ...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

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    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.

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Phonetic Hero said:

    So does literally every piece of music ever

    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 :)

     

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

    Well, I specifically said there's nothing wrong with things like cosplay if that's what you want to do, but I likened the creative ownership of it as being the same as remixing. :-)

    yes, you did which is why the only thing i really tried to interject in my initial post was to step away from the technicality of a remix being unoriginal which is already infallible as you've pointed out... but rather focus on how an artist can inject a great deal of originality into the project making it very much "their own" without it being technically or legally their own. 

    like a really creative cosplayer
    https://technabob.com/blog/2016/02/04/super-mario-bros-x-fallout-cosplay/

    there is still quite a bit of originality, artistry and vision here and as a result it is very much unique, i've never seen anything like that before... that's all i'm saying :)

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

    It's not about whether or not it can be confused for someone else: It's about the inescapable reality that it deliberately uses someone else's idea as its foundations. Not influence, not imitation, etc. Just straight up revision. That is why I will not hear an argument otherwise.

    There's nothing pessimistic about this — it's simply an honest assessment of what an arrangement is.

    If you want to be a creator, then it simply makes sense to value your own work more than revisionist ones. This is a perfectly sensible stance as to why someone like myself can lose their appetite for remixing. 

     

    "straight up revision" 

    yeah you're still kind of missing the point. there is very rarely a truly unique creator and your definition of what that is seems irrevocably rooted in logic and there is no logic when it comes to art and how it is passed from one "creator" to another. i understand what you're saying... obviously if you're remixing Zelda's Lullaby, that's Zelda's Lullaby as composed by Koji Kondo, not Waleed Hawatky. that part is self-explanatory...

    but otherwise, what you're suggesting is that then the entirety of "classical" music save a composer or two and the entirety of jazz save a writer or two would be utterly "unoriginal" and/or "revisionist" and that seems both exceedingly harsh and tone deaf to the fact that music is almost never played the same way twice unless it's recorded. i call bullshit on the "makes sense to value your own work more than revisionist ones" because i make this argument having written just as much original music as i have arrangements, currently releasing my 12th original album and frankly i don't see much difference between where my "original" work is derived from and where my arrangements are. in the end, the process feels just about the same... with the exception of one critical feature:

    MELODY.

    i feel like where we're having a fundamental disagreement is on the effect of melody because melody has the unique feature of being a specific combination of notes and meter that make it particular and thus why we recognize music and sing along with them in the first place and why when either of us goes and remixes a videogame song, it's immediately recognizable. were i to arrange a popular game tune and outright ditch the melody and offer up my own (as i just did for an unreleased Xenogears track), then most casual listeners wouldn't know either way. even some musicians wouldn't know unless they knew the context (ie on a game music album or site, etc). my new Xenogears song is practically an original tune... and in truth is a lot more a result of my originality than mitsuda-sama's and, like with the Adventure Island tune, your argument doesn't hold any water in regards to it. it would if, say, it was a note for note cover but that's not the only kind of game remixing out there so making your blanket statement is still not the play here...

    take specific forms, even. any waltz in videogame history isn't going to be immediately accused of being derivative (although it most definitely is) and is given the benefit of the doubt that it is original. same with the blues. just because the original game source was a blues song doesn't mean that piece is any more original than one derivative further. you choose where to set the point of the revision based on the fact it is the immediate source... but a vast majority of game music is not original so when an artist takes it upon themselves to make it a point to arrange something in a completely new concept, calling it a "promotion for a commercial product" is offensively disingenuous

    your assessment isn't wrong (it is quite logical albeit sterile) and of course neither is your reason for losing your appetite and i'm certainly not criticizing that you felt that way. i'm just offering the opposite perspective because i feel it's just as valid and also just as correct. saying you "won't hear an argument otherwise" in regards to the matter, however, makes you look a lot more wrong than you are.

    now... if we were talking about this from a purely practical business perspective (in other words, content attribution and sales), then yes, you're right: you could never pass an arrangement utilizing the original source's melody as an original composition and if you did, you'd get sued so hard, you'll open up like an azalea

    and that's like something that pretty much everybody in the scene, whether here or anywhere else, is already perfectly aware of.

    4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

    I created this thread to see what individual reasons are and how they differ, not to pass judgement on their reason, but have now spent three pages basically saying: "I'd just rather write my own stuff because it's uniquely mine and no one else has any part in its creation". A position I feel I've adequately justified and defended, and see no need to do so further.

    an individual's reasoning for wanting to do something or not do something cannot be on trial so i apologize if somehow i came across that way. it was never the intent

    at the same time, your initial post presented itself kind of trolly... seeing as how OCRemix is a site dedicated to the very thing you essentially shit on in two bullett'd points lol nobody is going to sit you down and force you to remix videogame music or blast you for wanting to write your own music. in fact, i'd be the first person to encourage it seeing as how i take my original work considerably more seriously.

    the problem is you came out guns ablazing albeit passive aggressively talking shit about remixing as essentially "cos play" disregarding the artistry involved on the part of thousands upon thousands of very talented artists who have spent lots of time pouring their souls into this shit and then spend three pages defending that. not your preference but the unnecessary cutdown of the form on quite literally the first site to embrace and promote the shit lolllll

    soooooo..... yeah, i see no need to do so further either.

     

    (by the way, in case it isn't already clear, this is not at all personal and i aint at all mad at ya :) this is all just music nerd talk)

    Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    eh

    frankly, shoehorning "success" (as a function of any external metric) into why anyone does anything is part of why new artists are often so utterly confused when trying to find their own voice and why so many promising musicians end up boring cookie cutter clones. whether anyone listens to your remixes or thinks you're good at it or if it "propels" your "career" as a "musician" are ultimately very arbitrary points. furthermore, i'd wager that if the audience isn't appreciating that it's you making the music, then you're probably either doing something wrong or that was your intent all along. in other words, it isn't intrinsic that your arrangement won't be deliciously unique; it's either a choice or a failure.

    as for other measures of "success"... it's great that it works out for some people to where music gets to be their actual livelihood... but more often than not, i've found that particular life to be difficult to attain and, once it is, quite stressful... unless of course you're stupidly talented at it (which i am not), in which case, it's blissful... but in the majority of cases, the sheer saturation of the field drowns out even the fairly talented ones and that life just isn't very easy... unless you really do love hustling and grinding gigs and contracts as much as you love creating. right on but no thanks. and look if it's really about doing what you love... well, i do what i love and, shit, i feel i'm pretty damn successful at it too lol seeing as how i very rarely do not achieve what i set out to do (stupid fucking uber-shitty CEO track that sucks pokeballs is an example of a time i didn't haha)... and from where i'm standing, that's the best measure of "success." 

    furthermore... i think part of why there has been such a mixed reaction to the OP is because of the second point that was made. ie: "A remix can never really be your own. It's like fanart or cosplay: You're ultimately (where OCR is concerned) just giving free promotion to what is, at the end of the day, a consumer product."

    LOL SHOTS FIRED - dude, that is abysmally pessimistic. it's your truth, perhaps... but it's hardly anything beyond that. as i cheekily alluded to in my previous (shit)post, nearly every remix i've ever made pretty much cannot be confused with anyone or anything else and certainly neither its source nor its creator lolllll perhaps that's because my originality, even in a remix context, is entirely my own and is my truth; that the original notes of any given remix of mine were first conceived by someone else does not mean my vision was, nor my interpretation nor my performance of it... and thus neither was the resulting "remix." at risk of sounding like a dick, the alternative is a very limited way of looking at art seeing as how a vast majority of contemporary music is fundamentally derived (a very long conversation topic for another thread no doubt) making this whole notion of "originality" something that ought to be measured OFF the sheet and not on it.

    ie. nakamura-sama may have composed "oil ocean" from sonic 2... but zyko wrote "the long war" and it's kinda hard to confuse the two

    another example: "Strange Island Eggplant" off the Bad Dudes' "Jingle All the Way" EP takes a short 15 or so second ditty from Adventure Island 2 and turns it into a fully fleshed out song fitted with lyrics. how is that not my song? :shrug:

    =====

    tl;dr (because #zykorants)

    any artform, derived or not, can absolutely be "yours" (since nothing in existence actually is) if you seek it to be and learning how to do that is the real trick ;)

    IMMA BOUT TO GET BBQ'D

    OCR00883 - Chrono Trigger "Green Amnesia"

    in ReMix Reviews & Comments

    Posted

    it's about a dozen days short of a dozen years since the last time i said it so i may as well return for the fourth iteration of "zykO (really) loves Green Amnesia"

    GOAT.

    best. ever. if i could fornicate with this song (not to the song; been there, done that), i would and then i would pray the little green forgetful monkey spawn that emerge would then concoct this ever-green, ever-glorious beauty of sound again and again in an endless timeloop wherein i could eternally rest.

×
×
  • Create New...