The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[xRisingForce]

When I need to express myself, I draw shitty comics about my friends in Paint.

Also kudos for the novel length dialouge between you and Mephi. I think I will wirte a comic about that.

Hahaha, sounds awesome. Link me when you do?

[xRisingForce]

Yes, in this case it is *how* you're conveying your message that is being criticized here.

I think the fact that so many people are misinterpreting you is evidence of how your obfuscated writing results in misunderstanding. For example, "deceivably" doesn't even make sense in this context...you might have meant "deceptively." Using big words is fine, but they should be used judiciously, or at least correctly. And why say "the beliefs of what most people cling to" when you most likely mean "the beliefs that most people cling to"? The two sentences have completely different meanings. Like Fishy said, one could take pretty much any paragraph you've written thus far and point out similar flaws that obscure and/or distort what you're trying to get across.

Regardless of whether you think your style of writing is justified, it is extremely cumbersome to decipher, and you end up coming across as someone who went overboard with their thesaurus. In an age of "tl;dr", people are likely to ignore what you say entirely.

In the end, just keep in mind the advice of Strunk & White: "Omit needless words."

Thanks a lot for the great criticism. I'm definitely not using this as a scapegoat or anything, but I've been responding to these posts since 8:00 AM and as you can obviously see, they're lengthy. I slipped up with the preposition usage, so thanks for pointing that out.

Just for the record, the first definition of "deceptively" means "tending to deceive." Either make sense here because blaming a situation on the side-effects of a condition rather than the condition itself is a subtle fallacy that people commit every day. And 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.

For the record: I don't use a thesaurus. The essence of synonyms lie in similarity, so it's wrong to simply replace words because they don't carry explicitly identical connotations. I know that.

Maybe it's that a forum isn't as formal as I thought. Would you have the same disposition towards my writing if it were presented in a more formal fashion?

[Dhsu]

Just for the record, the first definition of "deceptively" means "tending to deceive."

Yes, but "deceivable" means "able to be deceived." So did you *really* mean that it is easy to deceive a supposition's veracity? Such a meaning would, of course, be nonsense.

blaming a situation on the side-effects of a condition rather than the condition itself is a subtle fallacy that people commit every day. And 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 was MUCH more clear than your original paragraph. Keep it up!

Maybe it's that a forum isn't as formal as I thought. Would you have the same disposition towards my writing if it were presented in a more formal fashion?

Formality is not the issue here. Even though you use big words, your writing comes off as messy and amateur. That said, I would definitely err on the side of informality in this situation, for the sake of our collective sanity...

[zircon]

Yep, gotta agree with Dhsu. You need to get to your points faster and use words more effectively to convey your message. I want to participate in this discussion but don't have time to re-read the same paragraph to figure out what you're trying to say. And this is coming from someone who loves contract law.

[xRisingForce]

Yes, but "deceivable" means "able to be deceived." So did you *really* mean that it is easy to deceive a supposition's veracity? Such a meaning would, of course, be nonsense.

Well, "deceivably" comes from "to deceive," and not from "deceivable." The first definition of "to deceive" is "to mislead by a false appearance or statement," so "deceivably" would mean "characterized by misleading through false appearance or statement." So, what I meant by "deceivably veracious suppositions" is "something supposed that has correctness but is misleading," in that it is mistaken for the cause when it is a result of the cause.

Formality is not the issue here. Even though you use big words, your writing comes off as messy and amateur. That said, I would definitely err on the side of informality in this situation, for the sake of our collective sanity...

Haha, fair enough. I'm getting a bit tired of arguing the quality (or lack thereof) of my writing. The point here isn't to sell a novel, but to convey my point, and the only way I know how to do that is just to do what I've been doing.

Yep, gotta agree with Dhsu. You need to get to your points faster and use words more effectively to convey your message. I want to participate in this discussion but don't have time to re-read the same paragraph to figure out what you're trying to say. And this is coming from someone who loves contract law.

Is my writing that hard to comprehend? You're a veteran member here, and I'd love for you to put in your two cents.

[Dhsu]

Well, "deceivably" comes from "to deceive," and not from "deceivable."

According to whom??

Haha, fair enough. I'm getting a bit tired of arguing the quality (or lack thereof) of my writing. The point here isn't to sell a novel, but to convey my point, and the only way I know how to do that is just to do what I've been doing.

That's cool, it seems like you've recognized our points and are making efforts to improve. That's pretty much all I wanted to achieve here.

[PhiJayy]

Geeesssh. Too many words. My eyes! You must be a walking dictionary.

[xRisingForce]

According to whom??

Here, "deceivably" is listed as an adverbial form of "to deceive."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceive

Is "deceitfully" a better word here?

Geeesssh. Too many words. My eyes! You must be a walking dictionary.

Lol, I don't know too many words.

And with that, can we get this topic back on track?

[OceansAndrew]

Is my writing that hard to comprehend?

To be totally blunt (and please don't take this as a slight against you, just the tactics you are using), it really is. In my opinion, I think you are (occasionally mis-)using large words to try to distract from your anemic arguments. It seems like you are trying to impress people and achieving the opposite effect.

You are spending so much effort in typing a lot, but nothing you are saying is focused, and I am having a very hard time taking you seriously.

[PhiJayy]

And with that, can we get this topic back on track?

whoops didn't mean to throw the "topic" off. BUT.....

In my opinion, I think you are (occasionally mis-)using large words to try to distract from your anemic arguments. It seems like you are trying to impress people and achieving the opposite effect.

You are spending so much effort in typing a lot, but nothing you are saying is focused, and I am having a very hard time taking you seriously.

This statement pretty much sums up this thread, I'm sorry for even posting.

[xRisingForce]

To be totally blunt (and please don't take this as a slight against you, just the tactics you are using), it really is. In my opinion, I think you are (occasionally mis-)using large words to try to distract from your anemic arguments. It seems like you are trying to impress people and achieving the opposite effect.

You are spending so much effort in typing a lot, but nothing you are saying is focused, and I am having a very hard time taking you seriously.

I don't intentionally pick longer words, and I don't pick them to impress people. It's just the way I write. If people are turned off by it, it can't be helped.

If you got anything from this thread, I seriously hope it wasn't waving my arguments off as anemic. I guess I'll go back and edit unnecessary verbiage, but I hope you're able to see the main points which are anything but anemic.

[Dhsu]

Here, "deceivably" is listed as an adverbial form of "to deceive."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceive

Is "deceitfully" a better word here?

It's listed as a "related" form (see here for a straight definition from Webster's). The other adverb listed, "deceivingly," is much more appropriate. "Deceitfully" is not as a good a choice, as it has the connotation of malicious intent.

[xRisingForce]

It's listed as a "related" form (see here for a straight definition from Webster's). The other adverb listed, "deceivingly," is much more appropriate. "Deceitfully" is not as a good a choice, as it has the connotation of malicious intent.

And with that, this thread has metamorphisized from a guy posing honest questions to an English workshop.

/Sigh.

[Dhsu]

Well, would you rather have me let you keep wandering around mistakenly using the wrong words? I'm all for getting back on topic, I just wanted to finish clearing that up.

[JJT]

I don't intentionally pick longer words, and I don't pick them to impress people. It's just the way I write. If people are turned off by it, it can't be helped.

It can be helped though. That's the thing. It is NOT hard to phrase your arguments in a direct manner, without using 4 syllable words incorrectly. You just have to put some effort into communicating.

If you really care about what you're saying, say it clearly and concisely. Otherwise we're going to ignore you (at best) or mock you (at worst).

Or alternately: If you're attempting to present the essence of what you're trying to possibly communicate to the rabble of this archaic collection of attenders of a multitudinous forum full of a purveyors of a form of collectivist media known as an internet community, then you should attempt to present your fantastically, melodiously, sound arguments in a manner befitting the poignancy that you direly wish to convey.

[Fratto]

Hahaha, true true. I'm not saying elitism is exclusive to the classical realm, just that it's a bit more synonymous with its advocates than any other genre. Rockers are out getting buzzed/hammered, and Jazzers are off smoking hooka, talking about world peace, and the latest hollow bodies. And remember: we're not discussing casual fans, but people who define themselves as musicians of a respective genre. A casual classical fan's knowledge of classical music's probably altogether defined by "Fur Elise" and "Minuet in D." Some brownie points if they're aware of "The Well-Tempered Clavier."

Inaccurate stereotypes. This whole paragraph is a waste.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. At any rate, this orchestra isn't a good experimental control because they are so involved in orchestrations of these poppy, mainstream tunes. That in itself is probably a modern occurrance, reasons for which I'll list below. Concering the musicians, getting to that point entails a lot of the criticism I prior assesed. And with such a classically cultivated/trained mindset, they probably approach pop music in much the same replicative and emulative mindset they approach classical with.

Yeah, only the very serious orchestras are worth looking into. I know Boston, London, and Chicago are all too caught up in the pops movement. Also, these guys can't play pop music very well because they're trained musicians. They would want to emulate the pop songs too much. Pop music is never emulated or replicated like classical music is.

By the way, the point he was making is that you said all classical music is performer driven and that no one cares about the composers. This statement is false and his ad with only the composer's name and not a single performer name is a good argument against your original post.

**NOTE**

I just want to make clear the usage of the word interpretation. Because the direction of classical music is outlined so explicitly, I constrained the word's definition to "Control over fluctuations in speed, dynamic, and articulation." Because interpreting videogame music is by nature more lax due to the lack of classical teaching and conditioning, the far more liberal restrictions have ultimately given birth to what we refer to as remixing.

So for the sake of clarity, please don't use remixing within a classical context and please don't use interpretation within a videogame music context.

Okay, let's use the word arranging instead, since that's essentially what remixing is. Video game music is so lax that we can arrange it any way we want. Classical music, however, is never arranged due to the restrictions placed upon classical music.

If you're a composer, then performance is just the other side of the coin. Thing is, when you're a performer, the inverse of the prior statement isn't so true, simply because of the fundamentally different necessities of execution.

Playing the trombone and bassoon was just another side of the coin when Beethoven wrote the 5th Symphony.

[Fishy]

And with that, this thread has metamorphisized from a guy posing honest questions to an English workshop.

Well I hope you can appreciate from the number people who have now made points similar to mine that the way you discuss the topic harms the core of the discussion. Its hard to have a debate with someone who isn't getting their point across properly.

[xRisingForce]

Well, would you rather have me let you keep wandering around mistakenly using the wrong words? I'm all for getting back on topic, I just wanted to finish clearing that up.

I could've preferred the correction another day. Nobody's going to sift through all this garbage.

[Fishy]

I could've preferred the correction another day. Nobody's going to sift through all this criticism.

*Ahem* Fixed

[xRisingForce]

*Ahem* Fixed

The purpose of this thread was not and is not to seek literary aid.

[Tensei]

I could've preferred the correction another day. Nobody's going to sift through all this garbage.

So wait, you're referring to Dhsu's posts (or rather the 3 or so sentences where he corrects you on the use of 'deceitful/deceiving' AFTER YOU BROUGHT IT UP YOURSELF) as garbage, while you did a goddamn OCTUPLE POST of pretentious crap that nobody probably will even read on the first page? You're a very funny guy.

[Shadow Wolf]

I personally think that a great composer composes with specific intent regarding every subtlety and emotive emanation, so if your emotions are different from what the composer intended, suffice to say you felt wrong.

I think you're absolutely correct up until the word 'emanation,' then it kind of begins to go downhill. Never underestimate the sheer, staggering RANGE of human experience and emotions. While it is true that each composer has their own 'emotional soundtrack' for a composition if you will, mine may be entirely different when I hear the song. A wonderful example of this is music videos. I usually hear a song on the radio before I ever see a music video, because I don't have MTV. Regardless of your opinions on whether or not MTV runs actual music, each video is a look into the mind's eye of the band creating the song, a window into what they wanted you to feel when you heard it. When I hear a song on the radio, I develop my own mind's eye video of what I think is going on, based on how that song makes me feel. Invariably, every time I have ever watched a video for a song, my ideas about that song have been utterly different from the band's. Does that mean I felt wrong? No, it simply means that I applied my own experiences to that song. In fact, to go on a slightly political rabbit trail, I would be terrified if everyone felt exactly what a songwriter or composer intended for the to feel.

The very concept of interpretation is flawed because ideally, there should be room for none.

This is intrinsically linked to your statement above, and if you don't agree with what I said there, then you won't agree with this. In essence, what I'm saying is that emotive meaning is in the ears of the listener. I may hear a song and truly appreciate what the original composer did with it. The composer may have brought their point across absolutely perfectly. 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.

...How many of you have heard remixes that you've liked more than the actual song itself? And incredibly, if for some odd reason the remix is better, that's the most tremendous shame for the composer.

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

There's a very fine line between interpretation and bastardization. So many "remixes" on this site have crossed that line.

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

So long as you stay within the boundaries of what emotion(s) the original is supposed to evoke, then remixing is alright.

It seems by what you're saying that you've completely closed your mind to any interpretation of another person's work whatsoever, and if that's true then I'm sorry for you. 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.

[xRisingForce]

So wait, you're referring to Dhsu's posts (or rather the 3 or so sentences where he corrects you on the use of 'deceitful/deceiving' AFTER YOU BROUGHT IT UP YOURSELF) as garbage, while you did a goddamn OCTUPLE POST of pretentious crap that nobody probably will even read on the first page? You're a very funny guy.

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

[Fishy]

The purpose of this thread was not and is not to seek literary aid.

I didn't say it was, I said that during the thread myself and others noticed that you have a tendency to cloud your points and you ended up making little to no discernable sense, and you have thus far refused to accept it.

You claim we have to sift through garbage to find the relevant posts, irony being we have to sift through a load of pointless vocabulary flexing to find your point.

Whether or not that is your intention, it is how it comes across.

[Shadow Wolf]

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

a.) He was asked to start this thread.

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

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

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

and finally,

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

In essence, this guy is doing pretty much everything we've been begging Bluefox to do for months now, without being asked more than once. That said, please count your blessings and don't chase him off. Good writing doesn't happen in a day, and your points have been made. Give the Padawan time.

</soapbox>