The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[xRisingForce]

I feel the need to point out that I haven't had that much trouble understanding his arguments. While his writing style is somewhat flowery and he does need to use fewer adjectives, let's not lose sight of the fact that

a.) He was asked to start this thread.

b.) He is readily receiving, analyzing, and attempting to apply heavy criticism of both his musical opinions and his writing style, a trait only present in .000000001% of forum users.

c.) The subject matter of the thread is actually extraordinarily interesting and thought provoking as long as childish insults are kept at bay.

d.) Other people have pulled the thread off topic with discussions of semantics.

and finally,

e.) If everyone will back up and breathe for a minute, there's a lot of good discussion to be had.

In essence, this guy is doing pretty much everything we've been begging Bluefox to do for months now, without being asked more than once. That said, please count your blessings and don't chase him off.

</soapbox>

You're a cool guy man.

[Tensei]

When someone attacks, the most logical thing to do is defend. Attack, defend, attack, defend. See the pattern?

No, the pattern I do see is that Dhsu POLITELY asked you for some clarification on your use of deceitful/deceiving/blah and that you GOD FORBID might have been using a term incorrectly.

The way you responded with AMAGAH STOP DERAILING THE THREAD when you were proven wrong on the dictionary definition( as well as perceiving this as an ATTACK OMG MUST DEFEND) is pretty much how I would expect a 4-year old to respond.

[xRisingForce]

No, the pattern I do see is that Dhsu POLITELY asked you for some clarification on your use of deceitful/deceiving/blah and that you GOD FORBID might have been using a term incorrectly.

The way you responded with AMAGAH STOP DERAILING THE THREAD when you were proven wrong on the dictionary definition( as well as perceiving this as an ATTACK OMG MUST DEFEND) is pretty much how I would expect a 4-year old to respond.

Albeit negative, I'm glad that you have such a developed opinion of me. If you give me some time to breathe I'll try and respond to you more concisely.

[Tensei]

If you give me some time to breathe I'll try and respond to you more concisely.

Don't worry, some people actually, you know, follow the forum rules and do one post in a row at max.

[xRisingForce]

Don't worry, some people actually, you know, follow the forum rules and do one post in a row at max.

Yeah if someone were in my shoes and arguing semantics with numerous people, most of who just want to get a quick hit in, I'm sure he or she'd handle it with more calm and finesse. I'd be willing to learn from their actions.

[Dhsu]

Sorry if you took offense at my posts, I was just trying to be helpful.

[Admiral_C]

Shadow Wolf made a very good point about getting the thread back on track...

[xRisingForce]

Sorry if you took offense at my posts, I was just trying to be helpful.

No worries, thanks for all the help. I should be more careful before using a word when I'm not 100% sure of its definition.

[xRisingForce]

Never underestimate the sheer, staggering RANGE of human experience and emotions. While it is true that each composer has their own 'emotional soundtrack' for a composition if you will, mine may be entirely different when I hear the song. Each video is a look into the mind's eye of the band creating the song, a window into what they wanted you to feel when you heard it. When I hear a song on the radio, I develop my own mind's eye video of what I think is going on, based on how that song makes me feel. Invariably, every time I have ever watched a video for a song, my ideas about that song have been utterly different from the band's. Does that mean I felt wrong? No, it simply means that I applied my own experiences to that song.

Well, it's clear that the main difference in our thought is that what I view as cardinal sin, you view as divine right. I think it's great that you have the creativity to come up with such unique interpretations. I think it wouldn't be so great if I showed you one of my compositions about the sensation of driving down a Tokyo street at night with summer wind in hair, streets illuminated by the orange glow of streetlamps and you told me it was about skiing on a European mountain. I'd definitely be glad you could connect with it, but I'd either be 1, frustrated at myself for being an inadequate composer in relaying my message, or 2, angry at you for bastardizing (for lack of a better word) the meaning of my song. Think back to a time when light bulbs were the most beautiful, mindblowing things man had ever known. And imagine if his wife disregarded the value of Thomas's invention, and used his precious light bulbs as house decoration. Inventors expect their inventions to be used in the vein of their intention.

Also, I don't think you as a non-musician is any less fit to understand music's depth than the rest of us- your learning curve's just a lot slower, because you have no way of actively interacting with the 12 tones. Having never painted doesn't make me inadequate to appreciate painting, but I'm oblivious to most of the subtlety. I suppose I could just scrutinize the complete portfolios of Monet and Picasso and maybe even derive the same conclusions as seasoned art professionals, but my creative ability.. well, there'll be none to speak of.

Since you don't play an instrument, you don't compose your own pieces, correct? It's like us men trying to understand that magical bond that forms between mother and child, that 70% of all mothers will give their lives to deliver children they haven't even met. Perhaps when you start composing (because I'm pretty sure you'd be good at it) you'll come to understand the connection between a composer and his respective works. It's not cool when you construct with explicitly specific intent and that intent isn't relayed to the listener.

Multiple mixers on this site have received personal contact from the original composers of some of their remixes, telling them how much they enjoyed the interpretation. As I said above, with any composition, there are innumerable choices the composer can make as far as composition, tone, arrangement, style, etc. But they only get to choose one. Even if they mix styles together in the same song, that's still one of infinite interpretations. How is it shameful if someone takes the basic song of ANY composer, from Beethoven to Jeremy Soule, and follows another path to create a different end result? I would be thrilled as a composer to see every possible option for a song realized, to find out how many different ways it could have sounded, not ashamed.

Well the precondition of the shame was that the remix completely outdid the original. Receiving praise from the composer as a token of gratitude for their love of his/her music isn't really incongruent with what you're trying to refute. The paradox in this situation is that fulfilling the precondition is not only absurd but impossible, because how could anyone express the underlying ideology behind a song better than its composer? Rationally speaking, how can another woman claim a more profound understanding of a child than his or her mother? Receiving praise doesn't even work towards denying the sense of shame that would dominate any mother's being if a complete stranger had a better understanding of her children. And another thing, don't you think that whatever voicing and structure the composer chose was out of reason? In creating the depth of a song's end, he chose everything that he did because purely objectively, his actions work toward what he was trying to convey. As the composer, his decisions are the most suited just by virtue of circumstance. What's this mystic logic that I'm so ignorant to? Is anyone under the notion that a composer involuntarily relinquishes all creative control over his pieces upon completion? That all consequences stemming from the undeniable connection between potter and jar are deniable? Somehow it feels to me that because free music is something so synonymous with our generation, that we live in a society where public release entails free circulation, music's value not only as a market but as something personal and sacred to the composer has been utterly depreciated. We act, many times, as if our actions were inconsequential.

But there is an instinctive 'what if' factor in the human mind, a desire to take the road less travelled and see what would happen if we press button B instead of button A. That desire is what leads to interpretations of other people's work, remixes, etc. For example, I've been grinding away on a pounding industrial remix of the Zanarkand theme from Final Fantasy X for a long time now. Originally, that song was a gorgeous piano solo. I'm fully aware of what it was supposed to invoke: Sadness, loss, the end of a journey. It did all those things beautifully. I want to see if I can get it to convey power, determination, even anger. Why? Because it's a challenge. To change that song and cause it to invoke those emotions would be such a drastic change that I simply want to see what happens if I try. There's no possible way NOT to leave room for interpretation and modification of a song.

In no way am I belittling the double edged sword of curiosity, I'm just aware that it killed the cat. Rather than manipulating the work of an artist, why don't you try composing a crazy industrial rock song yourself? I'm sure the challenge would be even greater, as you'd have no source material to footstool off of.

Luna Umegaki is in my humble opinion one of the greatest videogame composers of all time. Three of her songs, "Holy Land," "Esperanto," and "Freesia," are all entirely based off of a single developed idea. Each incarnation of the melody is only affected subtly, and the chord progression remains unchanged. The cool thing is, even with this consistency what each song represents is very different from the next; arrangements I'd be very curious to hear.

"Holy Land" is a lament on the oppressive and persecutory nature of the government, "Esperanto" is an embodiment of a hero's indomitable determination, and "Freesia" is about the death of a friend, a hero, and loved one. The cool thing about this is that every piece is driven by the same feeling of sadness and oppression extremely specific to Rockman Zero, but the difference in the songs is reflective of how that single emotion could lead and did lead to different actions. That shows tremendous adeptness as a composer on Umegaki's part.

My point is that they're all similarly linked through expressing derivative emotions of that initial emotion, and if you can work with a context like that, interpretation is extremely appropriate. The drive behind your arrangement however, seems to be aimless and more a satisfaction of uninspired curiosity than anything else. If your drive is aimless, the resulting piece is going to be as such. You seem to know well what "To Zanarkand" is about, and it's extremely relevant when it does play, because you can view the song's message through the eyes of every party member and the resultant understanding would make perfect sense. It's about the intense struggle it took for the group to surmount their obstacles to get to that point. It's about Tidus's state of mind as he has to register the huge sacrifice required to get the final aeon. These are feelings of trying to maintain sanity when the current atmosphere is dominated by anxiety and unrest. To Zanarkand is about that, and more specifically, the success in finally achieving a mental state of calmness as everyone is gathered around the crackling fire, silently meditating upon the unearthly trials of tomorrow. The overbearing tone here is sadness. It's not an emotion metal really expresses well. Haven't you heard the Black Mages version?

Corridors of Time is much about sadness also, but it's not from any observable character's point of view. It's written from an anonymous third person perspective, and what's sad is his realization of the ignorance and infantile mentality that so summarizes the mentality of Zeal's inhabitants. Those who have can't appreciate like those who haven't, but the way they say the most obscure things so nonchalantly is both disturbing and upsetting. And all that, believe it or not, is expressed within the Corridors of Time. What if you gave Corridors of Time a reggae mix? Would that relaxed, chill feeling so characteristic of it be at all congruent?

At any rate, this is a video of Esperanto (with my embellishments):

Where that line is, how fine it is, and what constitutes a 'bastardization' all fall firmly into the realm of personal opinion. What you consider bastardization may well be what another person considers extraordinary art. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Well, I think we can draw the line of bastardization with changing a song so it hasn't the vaguest hint of derivation from the source. It's like drinking soup with chopsticks.

It seems by what you're saying that you've completely closed your mind to any interpretation of another person's work whatsoever. Placing a boundary like that both on your ideas and your musicianship will keep you from an incredibly rich world of differing viewpoints and interpretations. It's not wrong to hold a different view, to want something different, to try to invoke DIFFERENT emotions. If composers throughout history hadn't tried to invoke new, different, and even controversial emotions, who knows what music would be today. Try to maintain an open mind.

You're using "different" very generically. You have to specify a context, because well, yeah, of course being different isn't bad. I'd much rather be of a world characteristic of identity rather than uniformity, but I want extremes of neither, you know? I don't want identity to the point of irrationality, where bastardizing works is seen as proper social decorum.

"I think under the single condition that the aim and purpose of all art is self-expression, and consequently, to convey emotion. As an art, I came to the conclusion that the purpose behind music was to express emotion as well, and as a musician, what bothered me was the notion that music as an expressive outlet is limited. Take Star Wars. George Lucas created Bespin from the ground up. Being associated with the sky, there's a certain surreal, elated feeling you get from it that any existing city in the world couldn't provide. Everything about it from its original architecture to its exclusive culture is a pure brainchild of Lucas. The point I'm trying to state here is that Lucas basically invented a new emotion through inventing a completely new world. Williams, while a fine composer, writes with the purpose of augmenting every thematic niche in Star Wars, and while he too may express a new emotion not yet done through song by writing a theme for Bespin, he has to use Lucas's context as a primary fundament and footstool."

What this translates to is music having an overall less creative capacity than other arts because playing off of abstract contexts entails a certain level of dependency on mediums through which these emotions are feasibly expressible. Music plays off of things already known to man. What accounts for difference in music is that you can take 100 composers, have them all write a song about a simple emotion like anger, and get 100 different pieces. Music doesn't create new emotion; that's actually one of its undeniable drawbacks.

Perhaps not grammatically, but if anything I want you to know how musically open minded I am. I give everything a chance.

Food for thought: If Williams was unaware of Lucas's work and was trying to write a song that conveyed the above outlined emotion of witnessing a floating city, he would have to visualize it first since that emotion is purely a derivative of sight. This means music is not purely auditory! There's a visual aspect as well!

[OceansAndrew]

Rather than manipulating the work of an artist, why don't you try composing a crazy industrial rock song yourself? I'm sure the challenge would be even greater, as you'd have no source material to footstool off of.

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

I can just take the song wherever I want, forging my own holy and righteous path through the steaming and dense jungle of Borneo, rather than taking the worn, yet familar, cobbled roads of the Roman empire and merely taking a brief shortcut through a beautiful meadow before returning to the civilized path.

[xRisingForce]

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

I can just take the song wherever I want, forging my own holy and righteous path through the steaming and dense jungle of Borneo, rather than taking the worn, yet familar, cobbled roads of the Roman empire and merely taking a brief shortcut through a beautiful meadow before returning to the civilized path.

Sounds tight man, you gotta make sure to upload it to WiP if you ever follow through with it.

And, I don't really want to say anything because I DON'T want people to start new arguments, but yeah, it seems completely logical that composition is comparatively easier because there are no real rules. So long as your piece conveys the message you instilled within it. The reason why I said it might be hard for Wolf is because probably unlike you, he's not overly familiar with the chromatic scale aka the notes at his disposal.

[Tensei]

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

Agreed, the challenge of reconceptualizing a source in a remix of a totally different genre is IMO definitely greater than writing original music (And I have experience with both, so I know what I'm talking about ).

The fact that you're used to hearing the source in a certain context, with the defined backing chords, rhythm and instrumentation makes it that much harder to reimagine it as something different, which is why I like this kind of remix (one that sounds totally different but where you can still easily recognize the source) best.

If nothing else, making a remix of this kind (for example Corridors of time into a metal/hardrock mix, like I'm doing myself now ) is an incredibly good exercise for yourself as a composer since it covers so many vital areas( Instrumentation, chord progressions, orchestration, rhythmic stuff, etc.), whereas with the writing of original stuff you can basically just follow your instinct and get where you want through trial and error.

[José the Bronx Rican]

Anything you can do to facilitate my velocitous extramuralization.

[Sil]

It's a slap in the face to tell the composer, "Hey, I can express exactly what you want, better than you."

So long as your piece conveys the message you instilled within it.

I see what you're doing, xRisingForce. You're putting thoughts into the minds of composers by assuming they are these wet blankets of emotions loading their music with pathos and laboring over each and every note they put to paper.

I think it's very arrogant of anyone to assume they know what the composer was thinking when he or she wrote a piece, and what emotions are being expressed if any. No melody is inherently more expressive than another and anyone can interpret the same melody, despite who composed it, to express anything they want. Just because someone came up with the sequence of notes first doesn't mean they get to attach their emotional connotations to it.

[DrumUltimA]

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:

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.

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

[PhiJayy]

wow Doug. I'm seriously thinking about framing those words on my wall.

Composers create what they're feeling, and performers must accurately deliver those feelings. (Well in my own words.)

Just because performer's perform, doesn't mean that there behind the scenes creating wonderful musical compositions. Many people make this mistake, which is so sad.

[xRisingForce]

wow Doug. I'm seriously thinking about framing those words on my wall.

Composers create what they're feeling, and performers must accurately deliver those feelings. (Well in my own words.)

Just because performer's perform, doesn't mean that there behind the scenes creating wonderful musical compositions. Many people make this mistake, which is so sad.

The way you so arrogantly paraphrased my argument makes the incorrect presumption that the role of performance is vacant, when realistically the composer should be fully capable of doing both. This is of course with the omission of classical, fullscale-orchestral music.

There are two types of performers in the music world:

1. Studio musicians

2. Classical musicians

I don't really mind the former, because they know their role: as an actor. To fill a role that the band leader can't play, because:

1. They're onstage

2. He's simply unable, but that certainly doesn't mean he can't compose for the instrument

Maybe I don't like classical musicians. Maybe what I don't like is how they think they're important. Maybe they don't, maybe others think they're important. However..

The most pronounced testament to an actor's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

[xRisingForce]

Agreed, the challenge of reconceptualizing a source in a remix of a totally different genre is IMO definitely greater than writing original music (And I have experience with both, so I know what I'm talking about ).

The fact that you're used to hearing the source in a certain context, with the defined backing chords, rhythm and instrumentation makes it that much harder to reimagine it as something different, which is why I like this kind of remix (one that sounds totally different but where you can still easily recognize the source) best.

If nothing else, making a remix of this kind (for example Corridors of time into a metal/hardrock mix, like I'm doing myself now ) is an incredibly good exercise for yourself as a composer since it covers so many vital areas( Instrumentation, chord progressions, orchestration, rhythmic stuff, etc.), whereas with the writing of original stuff you can basically just follow your instinct and get where you want through trial and error.

I like how I delivered my stance clearly and concisely, and you segue into a discussion with me by quoting someone else.

Your comparison almost seems like the comparison between composer and performer (sharing some common characteristics but being fundamentally different), no? And the matter of what's being compared through your vague notions of difficulty is another story; it's something you didn't even state. Remixing Corridors of Time is maybe harder than writing a little jig about going to the nearest grocery store, but I will wager my life that writing something like Corridors of Time, a piece that has the depth of an abyss, is on a completely different level than that of remixing it.

Remixing isn't the wonder drug you prescribe- in fact, without knowing what makes a good harmony and how to transcribe for orchestra (correct me if I'm wrong), you'll be fumbling everywhere because the you'll have the sense of direction of a blind man with down syndrome. Funnily enough, how you, or anyone else for that matter know what's good is largely guided by composition. The artists you listen to should display a degree of uniformity because they should define your unique, "Genius-san" sense of musical aesthetics. For Christ's sake you don't learn how to orchestrate better by simply doing it- all that does is teach you to program in Fruity Loops more efficiently. Ways to get better at orchestration are realizing what makes good orchestration for yourself or having someone teach you, whether that be a friend or professor.

Though I'll concede that remixing is an art form, since art wholly exists because of our human need for self-expression remixing is an extremely limiting art in that music (or any art, really) aims to do so through composition, and by definition, there isn't really any true composition going on through remixing.

The drawbacks:

1. You have to stick to the source material. Doesn't it say volumes that you're working with material that you yourself *probably* wouldn't have come up with?

2. You have to stick to a relevant context to the song. Otherwise the remix, not as a remix but as art, is completely purposeless in that it conveys something impossible.

3. You don't learn to fully compose because the source material acts as a stepping stool, giving you the meat of the song. Now what's left is cooking the side dishes.

It's actually a lot easier for a lot of people (myself included) to write something completely original rather than try to properly tie in something to an arrangement.

Check it out, he agrees with me. And I agree with him to an extent, because again, the context of difficulty is unspecified making any sort of comparison impossible. To express anything through composition is easier than making a remix, because you have to follow the standard criterion laid above such that your remix can be called a remix. They're not guidelines I've made up, just obvious and observable criteria, essential if a song is to be a "remix". Before I go on I want to asses the rather trivial nature of music being difficult. The creation of a piece, no matter how simplistic, no matter how difficult, is simply inconsequential because the only thing that matters with any art is the finished product. The finished product is what's observable, what's audible, what's visible. You can't appreciate something just because you're more aware of the complex technicality behind it- that's an inconsequential reason because musicality doesn't stem from technicality, the relationship is quite reverse. I'm not saying you shouldn't appreciate the work behind something, letting that sway your predilection however is fallacious.

For the count, I'm not denouncing remixing, all I'm saying is that the hardest part about remixing is analyzing to determine what elements need to be changed so the song's melody and harmony (at least, in terms of the pitch) remain pretty much intact, what voicing to change, what phrasing to change, and what rhythmic overcoat to give it so that it's a really changed piece yet it's intrinsically reflective of an emotion related to the original. What is vital here is consciously recognizing those elements paves the way for a better understanding of yourself and what you specifically like about a certain song you happen to be remixing. And that's definitely not an easy feat, irrelevant to the comparison. That awareness of what guides your own sense of musical aesthetics is the very foundation of the "Joren De Bruin" style of composition, because nobody else on on Earth has that specific set of what's cool and what's not. You're a snowflake, man.

Most of your "vital" areas are trivial in acquisition, purely technical things that can be learned through a simple process of reading and learning. The beauty of composition is that it's something which can't be acquired or taught, no matter how artificially, mechanically, or scientifically you try. You are yourself- that is to say nobody's going to "learn" to compose like Mitsuda because if something's incongruent with your special philosophy towards music and its aesthetics, you're not likely to be incorporating it in your repertoire anytime soon.

I swear, the thought process by which you come to your conclusions is just so.. mechanical. Your defense of remixing by its exercisable nature and vague, unspecified level of difficulty is a joke enough if that's what you're using put it above composition.

Remixing is more difficult than composing? In what sense, bro?? But what in the world is the point of exercising those technical skills if you're never going to use them to create something new? Let's also keep in mind that the reason you're remixing is because someone composed it first.

And experience my friend, means nothing without stating the quality of it. And don't give me that "How the heck am I supposed to judge myself objectively" crap. Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. As far as I know the amount you're actually benefiting from your training could be on the level of a paraplegic practicing for the 400 meter dash.

[PhiJayy]

The way you so arrogantly paraphrased my argument makes the incorrect presumption that the role of performance is vacant.

What I said was just a general statement of what I feel about the matter, that being said I'm sure some will disagree with the me.

realistically the composer should be fully capable of doing both.

Probably, but reasons for a composer not being capable varies. I personally find this to be highly likely in todays world.

[xRisingForce]

What I said was just a general statement of what I feel about the matter, that being said I'm sure some will disagree with the me.

How could you feel that snide towards me when I've done absolutely nothing to provoke you? I'm sorry man, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that says volumes about your personality.

Probably, but reasons for a composer not being capable varies. I personally find this to be highly likely in todays world.

Let's hear some of those reasons, and some examples that enforce your highly likely statistic.

[PhiJayy]

How could you feel that snide towards me when I've done absolutely nothing to provoke you? I'm sorry man, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that says volumes about your personality.

You are obviously thinking way to much of yourself. I have said nothing personally against you.

Let's hear some of those reasons, and some examples that enforce your highly likely statistic.

You would just love that wouldn't you, fact is you have enough "knowledge" to talk for both of us. Take a look at this thread it's got you all over it.

[D-Lux]

How could you feel that snide towards me when I've done absolutely nothing to provoke you? I'm sorry man, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that says volumes about your personality.

Hold a minute a here. Did you seriously just take the words that PhiJayy wrote (and further clarified as a general statement about what he feels) and turn it into a personal attack against you?

Here's some snide: get off your fucking pedestal.

[xRisingForce]

You are obviously thinking way to much of yourself. I have said nothing personally against you.

Since when was attacking a person's ideology so different from attacking the person himself?

You would just love that wouldn't you, fact is you have enough "knowledge" to talk for both of us. Take a look at this thread it's got you all over it.

To be honest it's not really of concern to me but you, who has offered an empty point and have consequently been invited to clarify, because so far as I know, I'm not aware of composers who don't play their own compositions. Ball's in your park.

Hold a minute a here. Did you seriously just take the words that PhiJayy wrote (and further clarified as a general statement about what he feels) and turn it into a personal attack against you?

Here's some snide: get off your fucking pedestal.

Sheesh, looks like I'm stepping on some toes here. I only have more respect for you in that you defend your friends at the drop of a penny. Since you asked, I'll tell you what I did. I first read this:

wow Doug. I'm seriously thinking about framing those words on my wall.

Composers create what they're feeling, and performers must accurately deliver those feelings. (Well in my own words.)

Just because performer's perform, doesn't mean that there behind the scenes creating wonderful musical compositions. Many people make this mistake, which is so sad.

Now that I reread it, I see the error of my ways. The sarcastic tone is reflective of his good sense of humor, and he's actually in agreement with me. Funny, I was under the impression that he was indirectly, albeit obviously, making fun of me. Which, what do I know, might qualify as a character attack. I guess that depends what country you're in though (joke).

And with that, this thread is on its way to derailment again. You wanna restore some order, Wolf? Such a shame, since I put so much effort into responding to you and Tensai. ;

Seriously though, stop cluttering the thread. I'm here for some hardcore musical discussion, not to hear anyone complain about the way I spell. If you're just gonna say something stupid, get out.

[Dhsu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Clavicembalisticum

If you say that performing this work is easier than composing it was, then you are wrong.

[DrumUltimA]

The way you so arrogantly paraphrased my argument makes the incorrect presumption that the role of performance is vacant, when realistically the composer should be fully capable of doing both. This is of course with the omission of classical, fullscale-orchestral music.

There are two types of performers in the music world:

1. Studio musicians

2. Classical musicians

I don't really mind the former, because they know their role: as an actor. To fill a role that the band leader can't play, because:

1. They're onstage

2. He's simply unable, but that certainly doesn't mean he can't compose for the instrument

Maybe I don't like classical musicians. Maybe what I don't like is how they think they're important. Maybe they don't, maybe others think they're important. However..

The most pronounced testament to an actor's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

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