xRisingForce

i wrote this piece off a deep-seated inspiration from the star ocean series and sakuraba's work on it, and maybe even a little phantasy star. any kind of crits would be very appreciated, particularly production thanks and happy listening~ link:

that's a bunch of bs. the songs aren't even in the same relative keys (i.e. major, and minor, respectively). freeze has a whole lot more modulation going on too.

oh come on no "a snow light" or "rheiards"? those are the two best tracks on the album

metaknight

i'm not saying remixers think, "this song sucks and i'm gonna make it better," i'm saying, "damn i kick so much ass i surpassed the original work." so.. what is the elusive auditory quality that constitutes humanization? why isn't it replicate-able through samples? yeah i'll definitely look into it, thanks. i was just gonna point this out; i thought that it was kind of interesting to note that since jazz's academization with the establishment of berklee, the people that flock to study jazz want to play it more than compose it. back when jazz was a fairly underground form of music, there were a lot more composer-performers. it's kind of in line with the classical tradition as well: a lot of composers during its formative years, but following the academization a lot more people are building careers as performers. i don't really study music history so that observation could have, and probably does have holes in it. kind of interesting, anyway.

these things never grow into something bigger. they are kids entertaining fantasies. even doujinshi in japan is FAR from mainstream. quite in contrast to music. the book itself is not being rewritten, it is being adapted into a visual format. entirely different. of the people who've seen both, it is almost unanimous that remakes don't live up to the originals. the ring and the grudge don't even come close to how scary the originals were. these are not reinterpretations done by someone other than the creator. this is your only example that holds any water, and it is still more of an adaptation since west side story is a musical, not a play. the catalyst behind a lot of remakes and adaptations are to modernize antiquated ideas, beliefs, and cultures for modern audiences, or many even to bridge cultural gaps (like with ringu)- that is, to satisify curiosity rather than some expressive need. i'm not invalidating either approach, but i guess it's a okay reason as to why so many remakes/adaptations of/into movies have been sprouting up lately.

this is in part why i think of interpretation the way i do. art is the physical manifestation of one's essence, and to just mess around and distort someone else's piece is the zenith of disrespect when accompanied by certain attitudes. you are distorting someone's very being, often with a complete unawareness of the consequences of the activity itself. this is a cool thought. this implies.. that there's some quality you can't get out of just listening to a song, you have to play it, you have to experience the song on a higher level to understand that higher meaning. this is exciting haha i completely agree with this. it is the highest order of appreciating music. well yes people do do these things, but there are many pursuits of knowledge dedicated to unearthing what drives human choice and action, pursuits like sociology and psychology. psychology itself is purely a study of behavior! you may not hold these interests, but it is by no means a "little thing." what is art if not artistic? ahh.. i do play other people's music. the point of this discussion isn't to categorize these activities as things that should or shouldn't be done, but the discussion is an honest inquiry of WHY some are driven to perform. it is fascinating to me, and perhaps not to you, but don't think for a second it's something insignificant and unworthy of honest attention.

oh, please enlighten me! what other artistic scene is even comparable to the level found in music? keep on making these claims with no supporting evidence. iirc, you, much like darkesword did that in my last thread too. an excellent way to prove a point. it's obvious. the awesomeness of this thread produced animalistic responses and he was tired of constricting his friend. but you did skew them. see, i don't believe interpretation is "wrong" and that musicians aren't "allowed" to perform others' pieces. i believe outside interpretations are lesser than interpretations from the composer, because by nature an artist understands his art better than anyone else. then, why was no one in my other thread able to concede that their interpretations were lesser? rather, some viewed them as equal and some as even greater. there are clear displays of that attitude all over OCR. this proves my point- it is not nearly as present in other artistic cultures as in music. i'm interested though, what books have been rewritten? although they are somewhat related, in this thread i do not make statements of composing being higher than performing, nor have i belittled the performer's role (other than in pretty specific situations). i am just intrigued as to what would drive a preference of performance over composing, a preference that in many cases completely pushes out compositional interest. yes, with particular conclusions drawn here, we could apply them to the other thread, but that's irrelevant to the here and now. yes, but my argument wasn't a catch all. i said in certain circumstances, such as in employing aid of a studio musician after the part has been written, or employing the use of an orchestra after the score has been completed, is that not analogous to the role of a tool as replaceable? every characteristic producible by an instrument can be sampled, and there's nothing dehumanizing or less human about using those samples in stead. sampling is a relatively new technology, and it'll only progress in years to come. i have to call bullshit on this. where are you pulling this from? i know this, and i also know what royalties are, and that virtually every famous artist will receive them. however it's not a very good reason for validating performance to an artistic end, which is the point of this thread. and which famous composer opts to make albums of others' pieces as opposed to releasing original work? i understand that everyone likes to cover, but in professional circles it is done sparingly. even in jazz circles, people like arturo sandoval, maynard ferguson, john coltrane, sonny rolins, write tons of original material. you are misinterpreting me. performing because it's fun, which cobaltstarfire and many others have iterated, or because they merely want to, is nothing more than a surface desire. the "urge" that you speak of is exactly what i am trying to identify through this thread; what constitutes it, how deep it is, and things like that. i apologize, i didn't know you were being genuine. i clarified my terms in the first paragraph, terms which i want to stick by, ironically, to avoid confusion/misinterpretation. because, by appreciation i don't mean just listening, by conceptualization not composing, and by realization not just performance. they are more than that. last time i'll say this- this is NOT a criticism, so stop perceiving it in the wrong way. there are plenty of others here that have given me great responses, but you insist on viewing everything i write with narrow eyes. my question is genuine, so stop trying to infer any accusatory undertones.

examples to back up your claim? you don't have to learn a piece to achieve that; you can pick up on whatever harmonic/melodic ideas by listening if you have perfect pitch. i totally agree with you. i'm not talking about small differences that don't change the overall work. those examples are more analogous to cover bands. when you interpret a song in the context of ocremix, you are using the source but extensively changing it as well. so the analogy still holds- why aren't paintings interpreted in this way? poems? books? choreographies? plays? nothin'. i appreciate your input is all. i'm sorry but i really don't want to. there's a whole 28 page thread about that, and i don't want to digress. you can check this out, if you want.

you want a german girlfriend.

i need to weed out this useless, unproductive conversation before i can respond to the good points raised by others. you two share a remarkable propensity for skewing viewpoints. my stance is that a composer possesses the most valid interpretations as natural entailment, and interpretations by others aren't inevitably bad, but lesser by nature. what i think is "wrong" is this absurdly arrogant mindset that permeates ocremix which believes in distorting, morphing, or altering others' works and championing them, with inflated chests, as equal or even superior versions. that's what i think is "wrong", not interpretation itself. in considering all art, only music is home to a scene in which this kind of attitude is so popular. do poets alter existing poems? do authors rewrite published books? do artists repaint famous works, changing colors and shapes along the way? and have careers ever stemmed from this, as have with classical performers? it is a ridiculous notion to be sure, but for some reason, musicians exclusively among artists of other disciplines feel as if they have the creative license to do so. having said that, i don't want to dwell on this any longer. the intrinsic worth of classical musicians really has nothing to do with this particular subject matter. ----- orchestral pieces perhaps? in such situations where a composer enlists performance (not compositional) help, aren't such roles comparable to that of a tool? with the advent of sampling technology, that's pretty evident now than ever before. i heard klaus bedalt produced the pirates of the caribbean soundtrack purely with samples. right, it would seem that their innate capacity allows them to only perform. however, i don't think i've ever heard of a musician excellent at improvising never write a piece or two. lol, so yngwie malmsteen makes money off of people who cover his music? i think this is only true for classical composers, but they're so long gone they're not benefiting anyway you're attempting to analyze the purpose of appreciation, something i, personally, do to experience art. this thread isn't really concerned with that though; i want to know why different people realize others' works yeah that's exactly what i'm talking about. what drives that kind of decision? what makes them elevate performance over composition, especially performance of pieces that aren't even theirs? you'd think it'd make for a much more personal, and arguably artistic, experience to perform your own pieces. in light of what Gario says, it seems like a pretty good reason is that they choose not to, as opposed to not being able to. it in every way is, but this doesn't necessitate realization, only appreciation. hasn't this been done? like a million times? possibly by german psycholgists? yeah, this looks to be the most common impetus. see, i'm not sure that art is about "wanting".. expression is way more than that. it's a need, i think. if performance is driven by just surface desire, in my mind that disqualifies it as art. i don't think that's the case though. the "type" of person i am requires a rational impetus before action, and in other cases, a rational impetus to continue an action. decisions aren't really decisions if they aren't outcomes of shaping factors. i feel like performance could be a natural function of the musical experience itself, something we are inherently driven to do, so it's interesting to wonder what drives it. fun is good, i'm just looking for a different kind of answer. i didn't want to mention improvisation, but under these categories, i think the essence of improvisation is realization, conceptualization, AND appreciation all at once. to think of it that way is pretty weird, but at the same time, it's pretty insane too. and yeah, i think i definitely agree with you; realization itself seems to be a function of appreciation, like a a higher order or something. appreciation that goes beyond listening. ----- you've got to be kidding yourself; a thread that starts with a triple post with huge, emboldened letters, and an overt argument against a thread that starts with a genuine question are similar to you? the only thing similar in both threads is your provocative language. the "thesis" isn't making an argument at all, otherwise i'd be presenting some sort of stance. the thesis is clearly a genuine question... ...which i'm asking so i can attempt to understand various spheres of thought. don't assume stupid stuff- it makes complete sense to clarify myself so those who don't quite grasp it yet, can give valid responses. i love how, right off the bat, you make these off-hand and insulting statements, rather than contributing a useful answer or two. oh well, it's not like i really care for your opinion at this point anyway. thanks to everyone for the great responses, keep them coming! oh, and DHSU JOIN THIS THREAD SO WE CAN TALK

sorry if my terms are a bit confusing, but by realization i somewhat mean manifestation. when you play an instrument, you are manifesting notes, and when you play a song, someone else's or yours, you are realizing a song. when you dance, you are realizing a choreography, cooking:recipe, reading aloud:book, etc. painting and sculpting don't have these real-time equivalents. well this can certainly explain why an artist would want to have his work performed, but the question i'm asking is why you would want to perform it this pretty well answers why you appreciate/listen to videogame music, but i'm asking why you would perform it, play it back well sure, but realization isn't a theoretically necessary compositional tool; it just speeds up the process for those of us afflicted with relative pitch. why do you realize others' pieces, with realization as something distinct with its own artist end and yes, this is a daily ritual of mine

i stumbled across something while thinking today. i think the experience of certain artistic disciplines can be accurately summed up in three distinct areas: conceptualization, appreciation, and realization. applying this to theatre, you get script-writing, attending plays, and directing/acting. likewise, you can choreograph, attend a show, and dance. you can write a book, read someone else's book/attend an oration, and orate your own book (words are not physically manifested until spoken). (on a related note, it's worth pointing out that realization can only be applied to disciplines whose respective appreciations exist in time, and otherwise is absent, like with sculpting, painting) with music, the equivalents would be composing, listening, and performing. in my musical experience, composition is most practically realization alongside conceptualization, although it can be independent of realization as evidenced by the pieces Beethoven wrote far into his deafness. here is what i'm wondering: why we are compelled to experience music through realization. i feel like i can justify the other two; i compose to express myself, i listen to songs as a means of experience, but i'm at a loss as to why i play other's pieces. for the artist, i understand realization is necessary in order to commit songs to a lasting format, and a means to make money by touring, but even then, what is the artistic end? is the realization of a song, written by you or not, a more submersive, and higher order of appreciation in comparison to just listening to a song? appreciation, done through realization, so to speak? anyway, i'd like to know why you all play other people's (or your own) music, so please, share your thoughts (and on everything else too, if you'd like).

witnessing this magnitude of epic completes me

qfmft 10char