The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[Sil]

Beethoven was actually my specific example in my post of a composer needing performers.

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

[Tensei]

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

While this is an ancient post by this time, I have to respond.

I was actually just posting my thoughts on it and happened to agree with OA, I wouldn't even try to get into this clusterfuck of a discussion thread because that would involve me having to actually read it. But hey, thanks for the 1000 word post you dedicated to me, I'm sure someone else would be very happy with it.

Edit:

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.

NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. Comprehensive reading much? Where the hell is it written you have to stick to a "RELEVANT CONTEXT" and since when does it have to "CONVEY" anything? For all I care you could turn the Bubble Bobble theme into brutal death metal ( or hillbilly, to keep it relevant ). If it works as death metal, then fuck yeah, you're a great remixer because I sure as hell wouldn't be able to imagine that as death metal, yet you pulled it off. All this talk of purpose, context and conveying is pretentious musicologist bullshit. And I hate musicologists. It's just music, k?

[xRisingForce]

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

And what's your thought on that?

While this is an ancient post by this time, I have to respond.

I was actually just posting my thoughts on it and happened to agree with OA, I wouldn't even try to get into this clusterfuck of a discussion thread because that would involve me having to actually read it. But hey, thanks for the 1000 word post you dedicated to me, I'm sure someone else would be very happy with it.

Pfft. You still manage to nonchalantly deliver such disrespect. How characteristic of you. I bet you didn't even read my post- you're just that above me I guess.

[DrumUltimA]

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

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...

[Monobrow]

-In my heavily biased opinion-

Why debate if you know your opinion is heavily biased. A bias is:

a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

So basically, from the start of this argument, you've shot yourself in the proverbial foot.

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.

This is already a flawed argument. You're jumping to conclusions. Let's work some logic into this argument okay?

1. Music would not be made without a composer, and yet we need a performer to perform the piece. They go hand in hand. Without a composer, we would not have music, and yet, without a performer no one would be able to hear the music the composer has made.

Many composers are also performers, many performers are also composers.

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.

Didactically speaking, seminal evidence seems to explicates the fact that your repudiation of entropy supports my theory of space-time synthesis, of this I am irrefutably confident.

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.

1. Everyone plays the pieces differently because we are all different.

2. If you don't like how someone plays, then you don't like their INTERPRETATION of the piece. It's valid to not like something because you think it doesn't stick close enough to original piece as it was intended. But there is no ultimate judge in terms of how to gauge someone's playing other than on their interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth all at the performer's discretion? Does mastery over the trivialities that even babies could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Babies don't even compose music and yet they understand the difference between these. Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate make a difference?

In other words, I ask you this. Should we set up a shrine to Beethoven and honor his name and donate to his soul? Or should we carry on with interpreting his music because we love it enough to play it over and over? I think the solution here is easy, we should get the DeLorean, go back in time and show this thread to Beethoven himself. His eyes will well up with tears of love and he will confess is love to you and only you.

Art is either completely meaningless or completely worthless which is a fact. We live in an age of eggplants and my eggplant is bigger and purple and you can say to me "Oh I don't care about how big your eggplant is because mine is more ARTISTIC... And I look at you and I think that the world has gone to shit right there.. I mean how could you begin to say something like that to me? I was here first, with my eggplant which is bigger and more skilled and older... And yet THERE is your eggplant on the pedestal and all I can do is watch. What's worse, your eggplant is basically cloned from the same stock as my eggplant but it is NOT INHERENTLY better because it's has come from my eggplant's ribcage. I can't fathom how.

Art's been tainted by things such as MTV playing things like Soft Cell... It's become this strange easy-going mass of pseudo destruction... A three chord song passes of as a Timbaland composition that can top the charts, as if it were an Amadeus, or a Mozart... And you can have a confrontation with Daos in a museum in mother Russia that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality... THERE IS NO OTHER REALITY. I am looking at a painting and then I look in a reflection of a mirror at that same painting and I realize that only when I look at this painting, does it exist.

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.

I ain't no Shnabubula, but I can play a good banjo... But the banjo is not how God intended a guitar to be played. So it's inherently wrong. Inertia defines guitarism as a plague on the nation ever since the 80s... It's been snowballing out of control and now we have bands like 3 Doors Down playing four chord progressions and calling themselves good. But in truth I prefer Seal or Meatloaf to Three Doors Down, and this was before Meatloaf developed tits and was more associated with Bats. Princes is a musical genius. Frankly, I'm upset that the masses can even call what we do today as art, our interpretation is horribly whack. I mean, speaking of Prince, in the original Batman movie, the Joker (which is a horrible interpretation of the true form of the Joker, and Jack Nicholson should be shot because he ain't my number one guy) in the movie, he goes into this museum with this purple paint and screws up all the old art! I mean fuck what the hell... I didn't mind him messing up the de Gaulle... But the Mona Lisa? Fuuuuuuuck.... And that is exactly what I mean. Leonardo would be turning over in his grave if he saw that happening to his art work... And that's exactly what happens when a "performer" tries to add their own stuff to the music. Purple paint. Everyone knows that purple is ghetto, and that Leonardo was a Euginics supporting White Supremist.

You get my point?

[Dhsu]

You crazu, Monobrow.

And what's your thought on that?

I'll tell you mine: I honestly believe a composer's mind is not so inscrutable that a performer cannot comprehend his intention. Composers are human just like performers, and if they're doing their job properly, it's perfectly possible for a performer to know exactly what's going on in the mind and the heart of the composer. Many performers spend many many hours in research in order to do just that. And when that is achieved, it's just like following a recipe...like the original chef, you might use a few more milligrams of flour on one occasion, or a few less grains of sugar the next, but you'll still get a delicious cake every time.

[Sil]

And what's your thought on that?

You are making assumptions about the composer's intent. Maybe he doesn't think his interpretation of the notes he wrote down IS the most valid. Or else, why let anyone else hear it? They're either just going to "get" it semi-right, or totally wrong.

Or is your intent as a composer that your listeners are only supposed to "get" it semi-right? That's a paradox. Because that would mean by only semi-"getting" it they "got" it completely right after all. You knew full well that would happen when you composed it. They "got" it because they didn't "get" it.

The only real solution is that composers don't put rules or unrealistic expectations of how well someone interprets their music beyond the performance aspect, and even then the performer can interpret dynamic markings and tempo markings to his heart's content, because that's what performers do and composers KNOW this when they put those markings to paper.

To expect someone to think a certain way about any art is just ludicrous. The mind doesn't obey your rules, man. It's like its own mind!

[Tensei]

And what's your thought on that?

Pfft. You still manage to nonchalantly deliver such disrespect. How characteristic of you. I bet you didn't even read my post- you're just that above me I guess.

Well golly gee Sherlock, whatever gave you that idea? Notice how I didn't quote you, notice how I didn't address you in any way, shape or form, notice how I definitely did NOT ask for a complete thesis on my post.

Me not reading your posts is not a sign of me being arrogant, it's a sign of you writing TOO FUCKING MUCH. You want a discussion thread? Fine, but ensure other people are able to join the discussion by being straight to the point.

Your problem is that you're assuming that ANYONE who posts in this thread is out here to get you and ANYTHING said is directed at you. Your assumption is wrong, so stop doing that.

[DrumUltimA]

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.

[PhiJayy]

I like how the original person xRisingForce called out (Mephisto) hasn't even posted in this thread.

hahahahah....lol. Quite funny, but very strange. Why hasn't Mephisto said a word?

Hmmmm....

[Wina A. Kamlongera]

xRisingForce, just to clear any misunderstandings...this is directed to you.

Okay...I consider myself pretty eloquent and well versed in the English language - to the point that I love adding extra "unnecessary" words to throw people off but it's getting really annoying reading when you have to take one-liners (where some are not even addressed to you) and reply with a pretty thick response.

I'm not gonna go back and find the quote (there's so much to go back through) but you don't seem to respect remixers. Have you tried remixing, or should I say rearranging? I can tell you now...I've had an easier time playing Devil May Cry 3 on 'Dante Must Die' difficulty. I'm not gonna say more on that matter because people have addressed it but I would personally feel really humbled if someone took time out of their life to redo one of my compositions in their own style.

Your comment about lyrics: listen to some instrumentals...does it feel the same without the lyrics? IMO, lyrics and music work pretty similar to paintings/pictures and colour. Pictures could do without the paint like music could do without the lyrics; but they would feel pretty 'empty' if you know what I mean. Yet, adding those colours/lyrics adds so much more. They work together and complement each other. Just like a composer and performer complement each other...I could do without someone performing a piece of mine but, damn...if someone performed my pieces, I would (a) feel really fortunate, ( it would allow people to hear my my music elsewhere where I could not have performed it (or would not have wanted to go) and © it would be an interesting chance to see just how someone interprets the notes I've laid out.

Oh, have you ever sat down in a class and been told to interpret a piece in your own way? That stuff is daunting, even improvising within the context of a song already laid out. Like people said before, you should have stopped early with your arguments and we probably would have all agreed or disagreed with you.

I'm no performer but I don't know anybody who's written any kind of orchestral or pseudo-orchestral piece would not dream of having their piece performed by a real orchestra versus a computer (I know I would)...hell, I have a crazy dream where I would love to hear an orchestra (or live instruments just because it would be so moving to me personally) play my pieces while a pretty thick/pounding drum pattern is playing over/supporting them; but that's just my weird style of music.

By the way, percussion does have emotive potential...why do you think a snare line can be played in so many different ways?

[Manji]

I don't really intend to get too involved in this argument since I've never been classically trained and don't consider myself a classical musician in any way, shape or form (I rather like classical music, but that's about it), but what I will say is this...

I write music that I think sounds good. I play this music to the people in my band. They listen. They say "Hmmm, interesting!" Then they go off and play what feels right to them. Recently, we started working on a new song. I'm still playing the same guitar lines that I wrote down... but the drumming's different, the flute parts are different, the bass is different, the keyboards are different. Does this make me angry and filled with rage because I am a composer and my vision is being ignored?

No, because it makes the song sound a thousand times better. They interpret it in their own way. This is how music evolves. If I tried to force them to do exactly what I wanted them to play it wouldn't be a natural process, and it wouldn't be half as enjoyable to play.

Probably completely off the topic of the original argument, but hey. Also, xRisingForce... to make an unfounded assumption, I think you really need to get laid.

[OceansAndrew]

This whole thing has gotten pretty silly, but I used to call out Brad before it was cool. ;_;

[xRisingForce]

I. Introduction

II. Classical Discussion

i. Clarification and Restatement of Terms

III. Videogame Discussion

i. On Correct Interpretation

IV. General Interpretation

i. On Understanding a Composer’s Intentions

ii. In a Classical Context

iii. The Validity of the Composer’s Intentions

a. Through Premise

b. Through Application

V. Thread-Related Offshoots

I. Introduction

I've slept on this, and am prepared to reapproach this topic more carefully. I'm glad that this topic is actually gaining some good momentum, and I also thank all, er, most of the people who've posted in this thread for providing me with how other people see things.

My appreciation for music started as a listener, moved up to performance, and has ultimately graduated to composition. I want to address how this is a remixing site, and because remixing has its roots in interpretation, my opinions have been met with, suffice to say, fierce opposition. My mind has been opened a bit by the words of some. We’ve accomplished the point of this thread (an exchange of ideas), and some persuasion has come as a consequence of deep discussion. The points that I will now present are purely objective because they can be thoroughly argued without the inclusion of bias, so now I ask that you all, in turn, will seriously consider the veracity of my arguments through removing your bias just like Dhsu and Sil have commendably done.

Now it's time to offer my opinion. And yes, the content in this septuple post will be massive, because I am attempting to collectively respond to 30-33 pages of discussion. In case it wasn't clear, I am fully aware that its breaking the rules. I cannot get this kind of message across incrementally.

II. Classical Discussion

Ok, I understand you here, but let's talk about the composers whose music is most commonly played by the very performers we're talking about- that'd be more relevant.

- Dhsu, I wish you hadn't edited your post because I really wanted to quote you here.

Everything I’m writing in here is geared towards the assessment of the conventions which characterize the classical realm.

i. Clarification and Restatement of Terms

I've managed in finding two overbearing misconceptions regarding my argument here (just proof that I should be far more specific in regard to the connotations of my terms); what's difficult in pinpointing them is that one is nested in the other. I've tried my best in stringing together all the relevant quotes.

Here's the primary misconception (followed by examples):

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. I am not speaking of performers and composers as people, but rather functions. 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.

A composer is no more "god-given" than a performer, and vice versa.

Also, it's odd that you seem so eager to put composers on a level higher than performers when many performers are composers and vice versa. Would you say that their worth goes up or down depending on what they're doing at the moment?

Performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all.

Let's turn that around: what would happen if there were no performers? Then what would composers who couldn't perform do? Like Sil said, they're forgotten.

Beethoven was actually my specific example in my post of a composer needing performers. Beethoven could only play his own piano and solo viola pieces. He would have a hard time accompanying himself, and would therefore need a piano player (or another violist) if he ever wanted to perform accompanied solos. Symphonies! If you think his symphonies were not a huge part of vast popularity and ability to transcend generations, then you're also foolish and wrong. Now imagine little Ludwig with his viola trying to play the 5th Symphony. Awesome! Or no. He could not play trombone. He could not play bassoon. He could only play one string part at a time.

Guess what he needed and used? Performers! It's not rocket science!

But that doesn't at all downplay the importance of the composer to the performer--especially when they're one in the same.

…

The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity. You might as well say that the sound engineer is just as important in the music making process, because in modern times, many if not most artists who record rely on a sound engineer to commit their audio to mp3. Is recording a piece just as important in the “music making” process?

DrumUltimA, you've put this into perfect perspective. The reason that so many people misunderstand this thread is because I don’t like saying “composer-performer.” The reason is, for me, composition entails performance. The naturality seems so self-evident. That’s why I think the dependency of a composer to performer relationship is not equally symbiotic, it’s way more one sided.

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.

Conceptualization of pitch is currently instrumentally dependent. If you literally play nothing, every midi programmer uses what’s known as a piano roll, so the way you conceptualize intervals and chords will be very fundamentally pianistic. He might as well play piano. What he listens to also constitutes a large part of his musical aesthetics, and whatever he likes is extremely instrumentally related. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable (in fact, elementary); you can’t notate bends on all stringed instruments (i.e. violin); every instrument has very inherently exclusive characteristics. What am I saying? He indirectly plays an instrument, and it’s stupid that he doesn’t pursue it further.

Here's the nested one:

Yeah, the reason I asked was to get you to clarify your views on classical performers. How can you call someone like Horowitz great if he's no better than a studio musician who doesn't know his role? And why do you keep talking about actors when you've already adamantly stated that they can't be compared to musicians??

Hollywood actors. I've stated my opinion on (and, this is many and not all) Hollywood actors. Those Hollywood actors that I do actually like (and for good measure, those who you all probably like as well), those are the ones who I view as Horowitzes, so to speak.

[xRisingForce]

III. Videogame Discussion

Given the subject matter of this thread, addressing this topic is to digress but because so many people are bringing it up..

i. On Correct Interpretation

NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. Comprehensive reading much? Where the hell is it written you have to stick to a "RELEVANT CONTEXT" and since when does it have to "CONVEY" anything? Fuck yeah… I hate musicologists.

Whew. More seriously though,

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

This is a cool analogy. What I’m saying is that it’s retarded to evolve it into a Jolteon when your battle with Erika’s coming up. Or more appropriately in the vein of aimless remixing (Tensai), that’s like evolving your Eevee into a Flareon when the next badge lies in Cinnabar City (another thing to be noted is that the Charmander route is not just difficult in itself, but is no holds barred the most difficult out of the Squirtle and Bulbasaur route. This is Pokémon’s subtle and cleverly implemented “Choose Your Difficulty” option). This is especially relevant here in that defeating Blaine is a necessary process, much like having how having aim and direction is a necessary process in good remixing that must be taken in achieving the ultimate goal of the game: becoming the Kanto region Pokémon champion. Really, I should be thanking you for making such a great analogy.

I'm not gonna go back and find the quote (there's so much to go back through) but you don't seem to respect remixers. Have you tried remixing, or should I say rearranging? I can tell you now...I've had an easier time playing Devil May Cry 3 on 'Dante Must Die' difficulty. I'm not gonna say more on that matter because people have addressed it but I would personally feel really humbled if someone took time out of their life to redo one of my compositions in their own style.

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 did I belittle or am I belittling the double edged sword of curiosity.

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.

"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 consequences. That shows tremendous adeptness as a composer on Umegaki's part.

My point is that they're all similarly linked through expressing derivative expressions of that initial expression, and if you can work in a context like that, interpretation is extremely appropriate. You can do this through genre. Think about it: what is a genre in a musical context? It’s a completely different way of expressing certain emotions, and exclusive emotions. The derivation of emotion/expression can lead to a circumstance where a certain genre would express those ideas/emotions better. That’s the catalyst behind the advent of videogame music arranging.

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. I ask you: what is art without expression? 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 adversity the group had to surmount to that point. It's about Tidus's state of mind as he has to digest 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? This is not to say it wouldn’t work in a metal context. Without direction, rearranging will not work in any context.

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. The older citizens of Zeal think like teenagers. They have that same self-entitlement mentality; they believe that they deserve to be in Zeal when the state of things is completely due to circumstance and they hadn’t the slightest hand in it. They cast down those that live on the surface, suffering from a wintery holocaust. Those who have can't appreciate like those who haven't, but the way they say the most childishly arrogant 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?

I know what you're philosophy is. You think that if a piece meant for flute is played on clarinet, it's a bad interpretation. You think meaning is the be-all and end-all of why music exists. Meaning as an ends unto itself. In other words, the meaning is the meaning. I can play an E and then you can play an E and I can say "No, that isn't what I meant at all, you got it all wrong!" You're infusing sequences of sounds with the abstract and berating others who don't conjure the same emotions and images that you did when you sequenced them.

Where are you sourcing this garbage from???

[xRisingForce]

IV. General Interpretation

Before I start, I’d like to present an idea. Room for interpretation is because of a lack of vision or because of specific intent. They are fundamentally different. Artistic shortcomings constitute the former and artistic intention the latter.

Take George Lucas for instance. The very creation of Star Wars: Episode I lacked vision. In designing the Naboo Starfighter, Lucas sat down very closely with the lead airship designer to run by a conceptualization of it, not a realization of it. He then has the designer run multiple designs by him until it struck a chord in him. Both of these co-operantly work towards the minimization of interpretation. This is the very way Mitsuda wrote music for Kato in Chrono Cross.

This is precisely why bands form: artistic shortcomings because all its members have singular instrumental fluency. If Jimmy Page could sing exceptionally well and write lyrics, he would have absolutely no need for Robert Plant. Yngwie, regardless of whether you like his music or not, delivers an extremely personal vision in that composition of every instrument is done by his truly. Why is this? Because of something he blatantly lets people know: he is a man of incredible vision.

I write music that I think sounds good. I play this music to the people in my band. They listen. They say "Hmmm, interesting!" Then they go off and play what feels right to them. Recently, we started working on a new song. I'm still playing the same guitar lines that I wrote down... but the drumming's different, the flute parts are different, the bass is different, the keyboards are different.

This is exactly what I'm talking about- you are only fluent in one instrument.

Peter Jackson, like many directors, allows room for interpretation through specific intent. Part of good cinematography is letting the actor shine through because people, essentially, are characterized by exclusive personality. He minimizes the occurrence of incongruent (to his vision) interpretation through a process commonly known as personal hiring.

The creation of a game like Super Mario is 99.9% if not 100% vision because the simplicity of the game’s construction allows Miyamoto to feasibly oversee all decisions. The reason he has to hire workers is, obviously, the sheer scale of videogame creation. By that very reason are bigger games far less personal, but rather a collective vision by circumstance of human limitation. In the creation of an rpg like Final Fantasy X, a director, plot author, composer, battle system developer, artist, and their respective subordinates must all work co-operantly. What’s important to take from this is although unfeasible, in theory the most personal game would come from a single person who’s well versed in fictional literature, cinematography, exciting interactivity, and music.

When I got to the part of the

game where Moonsong was playing, I was totally blown away by the level of

atmosphere I was faced with. I suppose this would happen when every aspect

of the game is coming from the same mind.

That's what I'm talking about.

The conclusion I'm getting here is that the ultimate performer would be a robot programmed with the composer's interpretation. Very often, composers (even very good and famous ones) can't or or simply don't want to provide such a specific interpretation. And that is why we need performers who will.

Whatever composers you’re referring to are extremely lacking in vision. This is not rocket science: the ultimate performer is the composer (and this can be realized in a live-setting through backing tracks recorded by the composer).

i. On Understanding a Composer’s Intentions

There are two battling viewpoints in this thread.

One is Sil’s:

The only real solution is that composers don't put rules or unrealistic expectations of how well someone interprets their music beyond the performance aspect, and even then the performer can interpret dynamic markings and tempo markings to his heart's content, because that's what performers do and composers KNOW this when they put those markings to paper.

and the other is ProphetofMephisto’s:

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'. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

I’m of the latter persuasion.

“There are times when I hear other music, but I mostly get inspired when I see things -- paintings or other things. When I see things, music just pops into my head. When I'm scoring a game, once I actually see it, that's when things come into my head. If there's nothing to see, I have a hard time.” – Yasunori Mitsuda

As a musician, what bothers me is the notion that music as an expressive outlet is limited. Take for instance Star Wars. George Lucas created Bespin, what is essentially a city in the clouds. Being associated with the sky, there's a certain surreal, elated feeling you get from it that any existing city in the world can't provide. Everything about it from its unique architecture to its culture is a pure, Lucas brainchild. He has basically invented a new emotion (along with the writer of Chrono Trigger inventing Zeal, and other historical incarnations of the sky-arcadia), through inventing a completely new world. Williams, while a fine composer, writes to augment 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 cinematic 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 levels of dependency on mediums which these expressions are feasible. Literature, cinematography, videogames, or really any art that entails a level of visualization as necessary in its appreciation is easily more adept in expressing the fictional. Why is this? Because words and pictures carry far more explicit connotations than what 12, ambiguous tones could ever hope to achieve.

If Williams was independent of Star Wars 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 the expression is intrinsically visual. He could not have done this if he was blind. This means the full potential of music cannot be realized exclusively auditory; there’s a visual aspect as well.

In this very vein, playing a game is, in most cases fundamental towards the well-understanding of its respective music; the contextual analysis of when pieces are played and why. Unlike you said earlier, this isn’t arrogant at all Sil; in fact, it’s in most cases the only sensible way to approach comprehension.

[xRisingForce]

On a related note:

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 modifying works is seen as proper social decorum.

I will reiterate what I’ve stated above: 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. They express the same thing differently, but music by nature cannot 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.

ii. In a Classical Context

Interpretation can mean many things. If I crescendo a little on a long note to make it go somewhere even though it's not specifically written to, then that could be interpretation. Maybe a rubato somewhere that isn't marked to. You consider that a cardinal sin. Maybe you overlay sloppy electric guitar (with your embellishments) over the top of different kinds of music that doesn't specifically call for electric guitar. That's also interpretation. Other people may consider distortion and embellishments a cardinal sin. It works both ways.

Well, I was more referring to cases like Bach where it was technologically impossible to have things like dynamics or legato, so they didn't specify anything in that regard. In that case, it's the modern performer's responsibility to do what he feels is best for the music. Unless you feel that everyone should stick to playing Bach on clavichords.

Fratto, the validity of your argument begins and ends with classical context. I’m now aware of the fact that the harpsichord was dynamically singular, and whether Bach left out dynamic markings in harpsichord pieces out of intention or limitation is ambiguous, but I lean a bit more towards the latter. I’m also aware that Bach intentionally left out tempo markings in his Inventions because it was in the spirit of baroque, and that the magnitude of dynamics and musical markings is, funnily enough, ambiguous. Like the relationship states, the lack of a specific intent gives equal validity to all interpretations, so long as they remain within the general framework (the notes, etc.). This logically allows Horowitz’s interpretation of Beethoven to be valid; however it is not any more valid than Gould’s. I have changed my opinion on classical performers. A relevant example within the context of this website: the limiting nature of SNES music. I’d be really excited to hear the composers’ performances of great 80s and 90s videogame music.

Anyway, just to clarify, are you saying that in the specific case that the composer had a specific interpretation in mind, classical performers are expendable because they should only play what the composer intended. If so, I guess I can understand such an opinion.

If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do.

Note: Because this is a very modern practice, it is inapplicable to classical music and does digress from the explicitness of this thread, but while we’re on such a broad topic I might as well clarify.

I want to make the point that the more explicit the intentions, the less feasible it is to transcribe such vision to sheet music. Classical music relies heavily on sheets, so yes, I am wrong because the composers could not transfer their direct intent other than through concert. So classically, yes, this is quite an unfeasible idea, but with the advent of midi and ultimately, programs like Reason, you can control down to the hundredth-place value the velocity of every note, the degree of rubato of every passage, the amount of decibel increase in every crescendo, the amount of decibel increase rather than use vague, historic dynamic markings, and so forth and so on. Such practice is extremely feasible and by virtue of, in practice.

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.

No, no, no. The entire point of that post was me debunking that interpretation is something magical by virtue of unobservability, through the logic that what you hear sounds that way for very real reasons. And that does away with the rest of your argument, since in essence, I agree.

In conclusion:

So in conclusion, it can be argued that the composer's interpretation of his or her own work is the most "valid".

iii. The Validity of the Composer’s Intentions

a. Through Premise

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying.

But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all.

A composer is trying to give you a window into their world, to let you in for a moment and allow you to share the awesome power of their feelings. In my untrained mind, that's where the greatest difficulty for a composer comes from, trying to let people into your heart and mind through that music.

The probability of anonymous invention inversely relates to the amount of personality in the invention. Art, like Shadow Wolf says, is the ultimate glimpse into a person’s mind- the chance that someone else would have the exact same musical aesthetics as another is less probable than the existence of identical snowflakes, and you know what they say about snowflakes. I’m not sure but I think I read somewhere that the human mind is far more complex than a snowflake.

Of course, this relationship also gives credence to the virtue of anonymous-invention regarding simplistic three chord songs. And in this sense, you’re right, the sandwich doesn’t display inherencies exclusively characteristic of the Earl of Sandwich- he just happened to be the first to invent it. The less a composer knows how to express himself, which leads to simpler songs, the better chance that someone else can use the melodic and harmonic elements of that composer’s song in creating a far more expressive piece. However, the inverse is more relevant to my argument; the more a composer knows how to express himself leads to far more personal songs with inextricably personal elements in the song’s melody and harmony, which decreases the possibility of anonymous invention and any virtues of anonymous invention’s utility to the point of nonexistence.

Why do you think in a book to movie or manga to anime adaptation, the book is almost invariably better? The answer isn’t rocket science; the composer holds a far better interpretation in representing what he/she wanted to express. Of course one could (and in this day and age, would) argue that the nature of cinematography doesn’t entail as-profound character development and there are time constraints, blah blah blah etc. [insert useless jargon here]- the composer holds a far better interpretation in representing what he/she wanted to express.

A good example of correct interpretation is that when we all visualize Hogwarts, the important thing is that we’re all visualizing castles. The visualization of a beach would be completely wrong, and make a significant remark on the level of your literacy. The thing with interpretation is it’s much easier to make this mistake because of the very inexplicit and ambiguous nature of 12 tones as opposed to reading “Castle.” To make an interesting point, it’s through this very explicit nature of words that songs which are lyrically based lose musical credibility, because the usage of words extends beyond a mere crutch in conveying the expression; it uses it as a fundament.

[xRisingForce]

On a related note:

Thieves evade the public eye all the time. Also, generations forget things. The number of people that think Soft Cell was the original performer of "Tainted Love" is huge. No one even knows any other songs by Soft Cell. Their biggest hit isn't even their own. How many people know that? The song was hugely popular and remains a staple of 1980s culture. Fast forward 150 years. If anyone remembers Soft Cell, they won't remember that their only hit was a rip off of a funk/soul song. I doubt that Beethoven stole all his songs, but I like to play devil's advocate on occasion.

Your premise loses all significance in that the fact-of-the-matter is, you are aware that Soft Cell didn’t write “Tainted Love.”

b. Through Application

I'm beginning to think that xRisingForce isn't so much concerned with the performance interpretation as much as the intention that drives the performance interpretation: that if music meant to draw a perfect sphere in your mind draws an oval instead, you are only approximating the composer's intention in your performance. He's saying only the composer can draw a true sphere. He believes that only the composer can grasp the true meaning of his own work, and that alone therefore makes his interpretation the most valid, even if that interpretation turned out to be the most technically and artistically dissatisfying to all critical ears.

I honestly believe a composer's mind is not so inscrutable that a performer cannot comprehend his intention. Composers are human just like performers, and if they're doing their job properly, it's perfectly possible for a performer to know exactly what's going on in the mind and the heart of the composer. Many performers spend many many hours in research in order to do just that. And when that is achieved, it's just like following a recipe...like the original chef, you might use a few more milligrams of flour on one occasion, or a few less grains of sugar the next, but you'll still get a delicious cake every time.

You’re half right Sil, and this is a great way of putting it. Let’s say the intention was meant to draw a sphere (the diameter is irrelevant here, although it certainly translates to my point as well). Different people would, by virtue of individuality, fill the sphere with a different color. If the sphere was meant to be a very specific shade of navy blue, we would only be able to approximate the saturation and luminosity of it. So yeah, I don’t believe that the composer’s mind is inscrutable to the point where we couldn’t even visualize the circle- then any potential for artistic appreciation would be nonexistent. I’m saying we can understand the tip of the iceberg (the circle) through listening, and through methods similar to understanding videogame music, maybe even close to the shade. But we can’t grasp the shade completely; even the grasping of a similar shade isn’t intrinsic in us, but acquired through the fruits of our labor. And that in and of itself connotates a ton of artificiality.

In application, take for instance a song about the serenity of walking along a coastline at sunset. Person x is a well developed musician and grasps the beach but misses the sunset, but what makes his beach serene is that he spent his honeymoon there, so in all of his performances, emotions derived from his wife carry the performance, not the inherent serenity that a beach and sunset exude in combination. Person y is a well developed musician too, but for him the beach is synonymous with death, because the first time he went there, his 13 year old son was wearing jewelry, swam too far in, and was killed by a shark. To make this more feasible, let’s say Person y listened to this song not too long after his son’s death. A mental block prevented him from going to the beach because he doesn’t see any worth in it, and he’s stupefied at the supposition that people can see beauty in it. In this subconscious equating of two things, he doesn’t even think of a beach when he hears the song, but rather his wife because he equates serenity with that. However, mere serenity is not what drives this song, and in missing the point, he has a fundamentally incorrect and ultimately incomplete grasp on the song. Serenity is the circle. The beach and sunset are the shade.

Blaming a situation on the side-effects of a condition rather than the condition itself is a very subtle fallacy that people commit every day. The veracity of analyzing such a situation and coming to the conclusion that a side-effect was the primary cause is deceptive, because it appears to be perfectly correct. This is relevant to the interpretation as well.

Take for instance, the death metal musicians who respect Yngwie so immensely. It is unarguable that he is a technical freak- and this is exactly where and precisely why they are short-sighted. His blisteringly quick licks are purely a consequence and entailment of the musical aesthetics that fundamentally drive his desire to play fast, because what Yngwie aims to express can only be realizable as such. That is to say, the speed is definitely not in the vein of self-servitude that so defines death metal musicality. That is a skin-deep interpretation of Yngwie’s speed.

All this goes into making the statement: a single circle to two different people means two different things; a beach to two people means two different things; and an expression to two people means two different things is reflective of OCReMix’s subjective type of interpretation.

The very reason why you all enjoy your own interpretations more is because it reflects you, but that’s not true appreciation. The compositions are about the artists, and true appreciation is within the nature of the connection: how we can connect with them because we connect with what they are expressing, not morphing the meaning of their work to suit us. That is extremely arrogant. Understanding the circle is the easy part. Understanding the color is what makes a good interpreter, and essentially, part of what makes a good composer.

DrumUltimA, in this sense, it’s not that music isn’t for everyone, it’s that it isn’t understood correctly by everyone.

As for me, I’m all about interpretation; correct interpretation. I’m not so pretentious in slapping my own emotion to the piece and arguing that I’m correct, because correct interpretation of a piece is NOT relative to us, but objective in the case of specific intent.

This is why the most valid interpretation of a work is by its composer; fictional literature has its roots in spoken word; music has its roots in performance. Why our culture prefers books and mp3s is because they are more accessible and modern technology can make for longer books and deceptively talented artists. The appeal of modern live performance doesn’t even have its roots in music anymore; the appeal is almost entirely visual and social. That’s at least true for rock, but then again rock is characterized by deviating from classical convention. Leave it to the orchestra to provide the live musical experience in the vein of spoken word orators.

I'd like to get a more direct response about my bad mother analogy though...you stated that some people shouldn't be composing, but the fact is that they do. Is it still the performer's responsibility to adhere to the composer's amateur concept of interpretation?

And for the record, music is for EVERYONE. I was a bit taken aback by that comment.

Dhsu, absolutely not! And this is where you’re right! It’s not that music isn’t meant for everyone, it’s that some are better, some are worse. In such a day and age where the fallacious “You can do anything through hard work” mentality is so promoted, there exists a tremendously large amount of people who plague the industries of their disciplines because they are extremely inept. It’s an utterly sad realization that many aren’t adept at what they’re best at. Best and quality are adjectives exclusive of each other.

On a related note, I also believe that not everyone is suited to be a parent. Childbirth is biologically intrinsic within the human race, but there are many infertile women who ache to bear children so badly, and fertile women who donate their children to foster homes, who neglect their children, who sexually assault their children, who have massive shortcomings in being a good parent. The numerous mentally ill children of the world are indicative of that.

Besides. If the composition is so crappy what incentive would there be to play it? This is a ridiculous argument.

[xRisingForce]

Direct response to analogy:

How about we take your mother/child analogy from earlier...there are bad mothers, just as there are bad composers. Just because you spawned the child doesn't mean you will treat it properly. A performer might be analogous to a babysitter...yes, you're expected to follow the parent's instructions, but most likely she will leave certain things like lunch and games up to your judgment i.e. INTERPRETATION.

This is an alright analogy, but any similarity is skin-deep. You're essentially changing a piece through interpretation, where trivialities like when to give the child lunch, what to give, when/if to play what games is inconsequential to how the child is going to turn out in even the smallest degree, because the essence of babysitting is temporary oversight. Also, the fact that bad babysitting (i.e. spoiling the kid) is unarguably bad makes this analogy uncomparable to music in that the base of your pro-interpretation argument is that it is void of restriction. Childbirth is a double-edged sword in that the biology of a child is absolutely uncontrollable; it’s quite different with composition.

You are making assumptions about the composer's intent. Maybe he doesn't think his interpretation of the notes he wrote down IS the most valid.

What kind of good composer thinks like this???

But PLEASE never assume you or anyone else is the ultimate authority on what OTHER people have written. Just don't be so presumptuous to think that other composers CARE how well their music is interpreted, because they only CARE as much as they're willing to put down little extra bits of info to explain just what the hell is going on when they hand the music to another person.

[xRisingForce]

Your comment about lyrics: listen to some instrumentals...does it feel the same without the lyrics? IMO, lyrics and music work pretty similar to paintings/pictures and colour. Pictures could do without the paint like music could do without the lyrics; but they would feel pretty 'empty' if you know what I mean. Yet, adding those colours/lyrics adds so much more. They work together and complement each other.

This is wrong. A melody is ambiguous without chordal context, so a melody would be like the outline of a picture, not lyrics. The colors which fill the outlines are the chords/harmony. I present my point of view:

The Augmentative Role of Lyrics

1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Arts’ fundamental disciplines are different solely in the inherently exclusive mediums through which self-expression can be realized.

3. Music is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through pitch and rhythm (2).

4. Literature is a fundamental discipline of art and is inherently exclusive in that its self-expression is realized through words (2).

5. Expression realized through words is literature by inherency and not music (3 + 4).

6. Lyrics are a derivative of literature.

7. Because lyrics are a derivative of literature, they are uninherently musical (5 + 6).

9. A song is a piece of music.

10. If a song’s expression is built on pitch and rhythm it is inherently musical (7 + .

11. "Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.” – G. H. Lewes (On Emergence and applicable to chemical reactions)

12. If the nature of x is unemergent and x is inherently y, augmenting x through z does not affect x’s inherency in the case that z shares properties of y because x’s inherent congruency is preserved.

13. A song is unimergent by nature.

14. If a song is inherently musical, in the application of lyrics do lyrics take on the inherently musical property of pitch, and can a song thusly retain its musically congruent nature (12 + 13).

Conclusion: Since the resultants of music (songs) are unemergent, if it is inherently musical, augmentation through lyrics does not affect its musical inherency (11 + 14).

There’s a definite way to use lyrics- it’s just that most of the world is completely ignorant of it. If you want my stance on how to use lyrics, this is neither the time nor place but I will post defense on what constitutes good lyrics.

As for your views on music and your claims, I'd be curious to know how far removed from you are from immigration. You have a dominantly Western view of music and Eastern music probably scares you. Music outside the US and Western Europe is very rhythmic and some have no pitch at all, though the music may be downright sacred to them.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! I’M 100% KOREAN! Can anyone say WRONG???

And that’s what you get for trying to prejudge me. I think roughly 5,000/7,000 of the songs in my library originated in Asia, 7,000 songs by 281 very diverse artists.

It’s a shame you didn’t read my awesome paragraph because it would’ve affected you on a level tremendous significance.

I read it; I didn’t value it.

Lurk moar in music.

Lurk more in logic.

The fact of the matter is that people who love music all love it for different reasons.

The Correlation Between Emotional Spectrum and Musical Taste

1. The aim and purpose of all art is self-expression.

2. Music is an art, so music is a form of self-expression.

4 A song is a piece of music, so a song is a form of self-expression.

5. If one likes a song, one finds worth in the song’s expression.

6. People naturally have predilections toward songs that express what emotions they value.

7. Broadening the spectrum of my emotions will increase the amount of emotions I value.

Conclusion: Broadening my emotional spectrum will increase the amount of songs that I value (5 + 6 + 7).

Logically, people love different music because for many reasons that I won’t list here, they value different emotions and expressions. You should like a song because you like what it expresses, nothing else.

By the way, percussion does have emotive potential...why do you think a snare line can be played in so many different ways?

Read a bit more carefully. It’s not the emotive potential in itself I’m downplaying, rather the degree of expressibility.

-Close-

[Tensei]

Or more appropriately in the vein of aimless remixing (Tensai)

K.

1. You make fucking pokemon analogies.

2. You misspell my nick. Twice.

3. You know shit about my remixes yet you talk shit about me.

4. YOU MAKE FUCKING POKEMON ANALOGIES.

5. You're breaking the rules x7 by posting 7 times in a row.

6. You're a retard for assuming anyone is going to read what you just wrote.

7. I make fucking awesome remixes, just because they're not 'Sloppy guitar noodling over someone elses backing track' like you like to do doesn't make them aimless. People like them, thus they have a purpose.

8. YOU MAKE FUCKING. POKEMON. ANALOGIES. HOW OLD ARE YOU EVEN?!

[Manji]

:\ You have no vision, bro.

Allow me to call bullshit on this one aspect of your stupidly-long posts.

From what I can tell, you're not in a band- you just do solo guitar stuff. As such, you obviously have absolutely no understanding of how a band actually works. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing to classical music, which is why I was hesitant to bring it up here in the first place; it's very rare to have a band where one person composes all the music and tells everybody else in the band to play it EXACTLY as it's been written. You know why? Because in modern music that leads to lifeless, boring tripe with no personal flare from the other musicians. The process of creating music with a band should be a fluid, natural act, whether built from improvisation between people with similar mindsets or triggered by a single composer with a vision.

I like to think I do have a vision; my idea for the song I write is communicated through the guitar lines and through the 'feeling' I have in my head for that song. I'll communicate that feeling to the people in my band (maybe I should have mentioned that in the original post) by saying "Okay, this song is about so-and-so, and it should ideally evoke a feeling of this, that and the other..." or something along those lines.

They then go and do what they do best- take those ideas, along with the suggested parts I've given them, and make something infinitely more awesome.

That's the way we do it, and I think it works much better than whatever other route you're suggesting; sorry, I can't tell exactly what you're suggesting, because I can't decipher what the fuck you mean from the maze of unnecessary words you're using.

On that note: saying "The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity" categorically proves that you have no penis.

And I'm done.

[po!]

wow this has become quite the thread. i only read a small part of it, and i was gonna say something but now i don't even know what to say. this has become an argument about nothing and everything

xRisingForce, you seem pretty adamant about forcing your opinions on others, and wildly arguing with anybody who disagrees with you. I know you think you are correct, but so does everybody else, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has changed their opinion. and of course we are talking about art and opinions, so there is no "correct" anyways

this kind of classic internet argument never gets anywhere. and if you all realize that, you could save a lot of time and typing posts when you find yourself repeating the same argument over and over in response to someone else's repeated argument

so that's what i've learned on teh intarwebs... make your point ONCE, then let it go. it'll make your life a lot easier.

with that, i'll make my point in response to the following quote, and you won't see me repeat this argument ad nauseam

Dude, it's freakin' logical. The need for self-expression gave birth to art, pitch and rhythm gave birth to music, and composition, as well as listening, is how we utilize music. Music is, on the most basic level, pitch-driven. What value does a piece carry if the foundation of it is lyrical? Literature has absolutely no similar qualities with pitch! In lyrics' construction (making literature vocal and assigning respective notes) you can see that the purpose of lyrics is to augment music. Music however, does not exist to augment pitch.

you're forgetting something very important, and that's rhythm... a lot of music is rhythm driven

when the europeans went to africa, they discovered that the africans' music was pretty much all drums and rhythm. they thought it was "primitive" music and that they were so much more musically advanced since they had harmony

fast forward to today, where this african concept of rhythm has become ubiquitous through black music having such a large influence in the modern music world. it's all about da rhythm... you don't see people dancing in the club cuz of pitch/harmony or lyrics

jazz, hip hop, house, trance, 2-step, eurodance... all that stuff is rhythm based. it's DA PHAT BEATS... RHYTHM

[OceansAndrew]

Peter, don't take this the wrong way, but your arrogance-to-skill ratio is completely unbalanced. I can't believe I read through a septuple-post, but I did, and through your narcissism and blatantly rampant hubris, I could find little actual substance to your posts.

To quote Frank Zappa, "Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar".

I wrote this over the weekend as a musical challenge to your Id. It's formatted in midi so you or anyone else can take the music and learn/perform it should you so choose.

You seem like you desperately have something to prove.

Well, here is your chance. I'm calling you out.

http://oceansend.com/5502/ocr/original/PIANO.MID

[cobaltstarfire]

You should like a song because you like what it expresses, nothing else.

Actually, no I'll like a song for whatever the hell reason I want to, not because you told me why I should like it.

Also, neat midi OA.