The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[xRisingForce]

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

Frank Zappa's a good guy to quote. I thank you for actually reading it, but there's a lot of substance in there, a lot less verbiage than the usual.

In regards to the song- what do you want me to do with it, if anything it all? Do you want me to respond with one of my own compositions?

[Kanthos]

I have a very closed-minded view of music and refuse to accept that any other view, let alone one more broad, could possibly be right.

The only thing I can say about this thread is that I'm glad you're not arguing religion.

[DarkeSword]

xRisingForce, I'm going to tell you again: stop double-, triple-, septuple posting. It's against the rules. If what you have to say won't fit in one post, well then you're saying too much and not promoting discussion. Learn to use some brevity in your arguments.

[OceansAndrew]

In regards to the song- what do you want me to do with it, if anything it all? Do you want me to respond with one of my own compositions?

I wouldn't want you to do anything with my song itself, to be honest. Anyone performing it but me would not even know where to begin to match my passion and emotional involvement, and would simply end up falling short. /darkesworde

I want you to write a response to it. I don't know what you have planned for the next week, but I wrote mine in about 6 hours. So I think you having a superior piece by Friday 12:01 is perfectly reasonable.

[Dhsu]

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?

Audio engineers are in fact paid more than many composers.

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.

I think this is the major flaw in your reasoning: just because something is "natural" or "self-evident" to you does NOT mean it is true! There are hundreds upon hundreds of composers like DarkeSword who have no performance skills at all. That would be like expecting all directors to be A-list actors as well.

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.

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.

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 was actually referring to greats such Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.

I think this point is going to get you a lot of controversy. I don't see it so much a lack of vision as a lack of need...it's not the composer's job to tell someone how to play a piano, because the performer already knows through experience and practice what to do.

There is a time and place for compositions that are detailed to the point at which every note and velocity is meticulously crafted, but more often than not it would just be a waste of time. Not everyone is imagining cities in clouds when they compose...sometimes it's just anger, or happiness, in all its ambiguous complexity. If you want to call that lack of vision, I won't stop you, but here's an idea that may seem revolutionary: maybe sometime, someplace, a little less focus is not such a bad thing. Maybe the composer's vision is a lack of a vision.

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.

There were and are blind composers. And Beethoven was freakin' DEAF!

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.

Actually the same reasoning you use to claim that a composer's interpretation is unique can be applied to performers as well, since like you say every person is unique.

What's more confusing to me is this blatant double standard that keeps coming up. You feel differences between two interpretations are mundane and insignificant when coming from a performer, yet mysterious and sacred when produced by the composer. Let's just pretend for a moment that a certain piece was composed by 10 different performers. Could you see how each person's unique interpretation would be valuable and worthwhile? Performers, just as composers, put their soul into a piece, and it's ignorant to belittle their differences.

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.

Equipped with the appropriate knowledge of the beach and sunset, a performer could recreate the shade as well. I repeat that the mind of a composer isn't so inscrutable that nobody else could possibly comprehend it. Even if such a comprehension is artificially obtained, I believe a performer can be so in synch with the mind, will, and emotions of a composer to the point that he can play a piece exactly as the composer would (or even better, in the likely case that he is more skilled at performance than the composer), just as a good actor knows perfectly the intentions of a good director.

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.

And right after you say no one can know a composer's intentions, here you are interpreting Yngwie's intentions...

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.

That is entirely beside the point! The point is that you have been very clear in asserting that the composer's intention is the only correct one, and yet here you have admitted that some composers are better and some are worse, even to the point that some shouldn't even be composing. So where do you draw the line? At which point should a performer follow the composer note for note, dynamic for dynamic, and at which point should he start questioning the composer's musical credibility?

For the record, I think the belief that some people shouldn't compose is ludicrous. Music is expression, and everyone has a right to express themselves. Unlike a child, a composition has no feelings or needs, and can be ignored with impunity.

6. Lyrics are a direct derivative of literature.

Derivation is not equality.

Lurk more in logic.

I say this as a friend: you would do well to do the same.

[DrumUltimA]

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

[xRisingForce]

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

Can't say that I am. Who's he?

[DrumUltimA]

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

[DarkeSword]

There are hundreds upon hundreds of composers like DarkeSword who have no performance skills at all

Pretty much true.

[xRisingForce]

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

Haha yeah, that would've been. They say we all look alike. *Shrug*

P.S.: I'm extremely impressed/blown away by your Moonsong arrangement. Your mom's violin lines are as clear as Perlman's.

[DrumUltimA]

Haha yeah, that would've been. They say we all look alike. *Shrug*

P.S.: I'm extremely impressed/blown away by your Moonsong arrangement. Your mom's violin lines are as clear as Perlman's.

Thanks! I'll pass on the compliment

[Sil]

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.

What kind of good composer thinks like this???

Well, since you're so keen on using examples, take the Warsaw Philharmonic under the direction of Anthony Inglis

He said in this interview:

"I get no musical guidance from Kanno or any of the Japanese composers I have worked with."

You might find it hard to believe, but like I've said, interpretation is only as important as how ever many dynamic markings the composer is willing to put down. I myself will trust the performers, or who I like to call, "the final authorities on interpretation."

[cobaltstarfire]

Oooh, he got to work with Yoko Kanno a few times too. He's a lucky fellow that has worked on some really amzing scores.

Yet again, the orchestra and chorus loved the music. There is no doubt that Yoko Kanno is an extremely talented composer. However, I get no musical guidance from Kanno or any of the Japanese composers I have worked with . It is entirely left up to me, which is fortunate considering that most of their English isn't very good. Of course I have musical annotation but I am still given a lot of freedom.

[Sil]

Well, he worked with Kanno insofar as to receive scores from her and then was given every opportunity to be totally interpretive of her music.

Another quote from Inglis: "To be perfectly honest I have never had a composer tell me that my tempi are wrong either, which I have always thought to be pretty amazing."

...shows complete faith in the performer/conductor. Composers aren't as stuck up about their works as one might think. It seems to be that when it comes to OTHER people's work (dead people's work) that people get irritated over "wrong interpretations" as if there ever was such a thing. It's a stereotype to think that classical music isn't congenial at all.

[cobaltstarfire]

Yeah, I realize I probably worded that poorly, but meh. Getting to conduct for stuff she wrote, and having had a hand in the way it sounds, is pretty cool.

I agree with him that she is an incredibly talented composer, and knowing the Macross Plus music, he, and the orchestra did great in conducting/performing it.

[Dhsu]

Yeah, if you say a person like Kanno has "no vision" I will personally drive over to your house and slap you with a large trout.

[Dhsu]

I mean, I think that the composers are more important than the performers simply because there are so many skilled performers and so few revolutionary composers

That's pretty much exactly what RisingForce is saying.

But honestly I think there are just as many skilled composers and just as few revolutionary performers.

[DrumUltimA]

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

[Sil]

What the hell is this thread even about?

Didn't you read it? It's quite simple. To quote xRisingForce:

The construction of all of these arguments is extremely fallacious in that it has to capitalize on a false dichotomy to attain any veracity.

xRisingForce, from now on talk like you would if you were in talking in person, face to face. That means no essays, straight to the point, as if you only had 5 seconds to get your ideas across. If you can't, then you need more time to sort out your thoughts before you press submit.

[Fratto]

Fratto, the validity of your argument begins and ends with classical context.

How so? How is you laying overdriven guitar over someone else's non-guitar track any different than someone rocking out on an oboe during a Metallica track? Are you really going to say that arrangement and specific instrumentation are strictly classical ideas? This thought process is fallacious.

This is wrong. A melody is ambiguous without chordal context

This is wrong. It's like saying that a minor scale is ambiguous without chordal context. It's still minor. Melodies almost always imply a mode. Saying that a melody alone is ambiguous is a fallacious statement.

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).

The aim and purpose of art is not necessarily self expression. It has already been pointed out to you that composers also score for a living. This doesn't exclude self-expression, but nullifies point (1).

Art is not exclusive. Music and literature are not exclusive. Opera, poetry, musical theater, cinema, etc. all contain undeniable elements of both.

So if points 1-4 are all wrong, then your conclusion (and the entirety of 'The Misnomer of Modern Music') can only be described as fallacious.

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.

I did not prejudge you. Your views and thoughts on music, as expressed by you in this thread, are overtly Western European and have little to no Eastern or African influence. I know you're Asian. You link to your Facebook and you post videos of yourself. You're clearly Asian. I asked what the first generation of your family to come to the States was. You're very removed from Eastern music. I'm not saying that the bands are not from Asia. I'm saying they are probably extremely Westernized. The amount of Western music coming from the East is huge. Actual Eastern music is a failure according to your own posts. If you actually listen to, enjoy, and value actual Asian music, then you need to restate just about everything you have posted on this forum because everything you've expressed about your views on music would then be fallacious.

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.

Musical taste is not logical. I know that making logical flow charts is great and fun, plus you get to use big words in the overly long titles, but it doesn't make your flow charts any less fallacious..

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

But will my great great grandchildren know? Fallacious.

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.

Since you are not Yngwie or any of the other "self-serving" metal musicians, it is fairly arrogant and fallacious of you to slap your own feeling and thought upon their performances and desires.

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.

Rock music is not deviation from classical convention. Rock is an extension of jazz and blues, which are more an extension of African music (with a Western harmonics) than anything else. It's a subtle fallacy that rock is the opposite of classical.

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.

You apparently have no idea why bands form. I'm getting really tired of Yngwie being used as an example and the blatant double standard that you your fanboy excitement creates within every point that you try to make. He performs violin concertos on electric guitar and shapes them into metal concertos, which you view as a cardinal sin. The man can play a handful of instruments, but cannot do his own drum work and rarely does his own vocal work. He also hosts an entire band and is known as a "bandleader" He's featured on tribute albums, meaning that he's sinning against Ozzy because only Ozzie could possibly understand the depth and meaning of "Mr. Crowley" and Yngwie is just ruining it. According to your own fallacious posts, Yngwie should not need a bass player, should learn to play the drums, and should singing his own lyrics. But in a twist, Yngwie is also inherently unmusical due to his use of lyrics in music. Enough with Yngwie. He's a very talented guitarist and he knows his way around some classical music, but for all practical purposes, he's just a Satriani clone.

You should be focusing more on Prince or Steve Vai. Those two can (and on rare occasion do) actually play all the parts to their music.

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).

Once again, Beethoven would be a far cry from a great composer by your definition due to the simple fact that he could not play his own music unless it was strictly piano and a simple viola part. You are saying that the ultimate composer only writes solo literature with possible piano accompaniment. Fallacious.

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.

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.

Fallacious! A lot of Williams' music borrows pretty heavily. Star Wars in particular owes a healthy debt to Gustav Holst. Do you think that he really needed to have the vision of Lucas to write for Vader, or do you think 'The Bringer of War' was a good enough basis to write about a bad guy?

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?

Who decides that the dichotomy is fallacious? You are only gaining truth by capitalizing upon your own ideas - ones that the majority of musicians in this thread find fallacious.

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.

Actually, there are several midi programs that use a musical staff.

Also, knowing the notes on a piano does by no means indicate the ability to play the piano.

Similarly, sequencing on a piano roll does not make something pianistic.

Lurk moar in logic.

I did, and I found that your logic is fallacious.

Fallacious.

Fallacious!

[Manji]

*applauds Fratto*

I got many lols from reading your usage of 'fallacious' in every paragraph there.

Oh, also, since I missed the point about 'metal musicians respecting Yngwie "so immensely"' in the midst of that 7 post splurging vomit heap...

Bullshit. I'm a metal musician. I don't jerk off to Yngwie. There are much better (and faster, coincidentally) guitarists out there... but I don't give a shit how fast they are. That's not what most other metal musicians that I know care about either.

Death metal isn't just about being fast and technical, moron. It's about creating an atmosphere once again- except this time, the atmosphere is one of violence and anger that is cathartic for the people who listen to it.

Case in point; Carcass. Any DM fan would call them one of the pioneers of death metal. Probably their most famous song, 'Corporal Jigsore Quandary', is not very fast, and not hugely technical (except perhaps for it's use of different time signatures, but feh, they flow together easily)- it just has a fucking stomping riff which is firmly intended to make people bang their heads.

You are not a death metal musician. You know nothing about death metal. Do your research, and then come back and try and argue with me about one of my favourite genres.

Finally, I would say that Yngwie plays fast because he's rather arrogant and wants to show off just how good he is, not because of any "consequence and entailment of the musical aesthetics" or whatever shit it is you're claiming there. But hey, what do I know, I'm obviously not as big an Yngwie fan as you are, with your fallacious arguments.

[Wintermute]

What Fratto said. Pretty much.

[Kanthos]

xRisingForce, I challenge you now and forever to stop playing other people's music. NEVER DO IT AGAIN. You can never do it as well as the composer intended, so there is no point. You *obviously* have considerable musical talent and knowledge, so from now on, you must write your own music and perform it and never play anything written by someone else. You may use no backing tracks unless you have recorded them yourself.

For you to do anything other than this would be blatantly hypocritical.

If you cannot or will not do this, then stop posting in this thread because you have, by your own inaction, defeated any argument you might make.

[Tensei]

This can be summed up as 'Frattowned'

Death Metal musicians who respect Yngwie immensely? LoL!

[xRisingForce]

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

You said I could respond however I want. You wrote a cool aggressive piece, and I'm responding passively with my song about a summer night out on Tokyo.

It's called Yume no Natsu (working title), and was composed in Reason 4.0. Reason only exports in .wav, so to compress it I used iTunes. If you have no other means of listening to .m4a files, download VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html (9 mb). I started work on it indifferently, but as the song picked up I really got into it; in all I contributed 12 - 14 hours to this piece (because of that the production value is extremely low).

The song fuses elements of American, Japanese, and Korean R&B. Enjoy. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5AWWXF45

Note: I just got up, so I am posting past the deadline, but I only worked on this song from 12:00 A.M. - 2:00 A.M, so I didn't break the deadline. One more thing, I just realized that the chord at 1.36 is supposed to be half-diminished, but I used a M7.. minor, minor fix.