Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AngelCityOutlaw last won the day on October 12 2018

AngelCityOutlaw had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

17 Good

1 Follower

About AngelCityOutlaw

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My arrangement of the traditional Irish tune. Hope you like it!
  2. Most full orchestra pieces, especially in film music like Williams and stuff, are not polyphonic textures, at least not throughout. The ear quickly tires of that, and unlike a string quartet or piano where the ensemble is largely of equal timbre instruments, maintaining balance with a full orchestra is difficult. For example, balanced counterpoint between a trombone and flute, is so tough to sustain that you may as well avoid it. Because you'll be forced to either put one instrument in a weaker register and thus weight the counterpoint in favor of the stronger-register instrument, defeating the purpose, or put both in dull or strong registers and have too much spacing between them. Instead, you'd be best off treating one as the main line, the other as a secondary line, and putting background resonance (like a sustained harmony in the strings) behind it. So the answer is "not much beyond the basics". You should know how to employ good voice leading in chords, basslines, and melodies, etc. but that's all that is truly necessary. Here are some good orchestral pieces that I think demonstrate this well.
  3. I would not. You basically already have all the building blocks to compose ready. The best way to get started is to just pick a scale and write a melody, then put chords to it. On the most basic level it's as simple as matching a triad from the scale that contains many of the given notes in the phrase/bar/beat. Put a bassline underneath on the root notes with some passing tones in between to smooth it out, and there you go. Try to make each note in a chord move to the nearest chord tone in the next chord. Studying existing music and just mimicking stuff you like is easily more valuable than most books when it comes to learning.
  4. Inspired by the opening titles to the new-old Resident Evil 2 I wanted to make my own "zombie apocalypse" title sequence music. Not really a fan of the whole "ambient" and sound designy music, but it's what works here.
  5. But it's not. For example: Would you say you support democracy? That's an old way of thinking. Very old, in fact. Same with the idea of the senate. Feudalism and Monarchy are much newer. But I thought "Going back to..." was always bad? What you propose here is to treat the audience as idiots. I get it, but that's the exact antithesis of your OP. Nobody has any difficulty "understanding" Beethoven's 5th, Holst (which is often mistaken for Star Wars even today), or any of that. No need to be 40 minutes long, either. Progress for progress' sake is pointless if that progress is not as good as the thing that came before. and what do you propose exactly? Everything you're saying in this part of your post can be solved by exactly what I'm talking about. The entire premise of your thread here is that modern "high quality" stuff for 21st century people sucks. Okay, well — you can only make that assertion if you have some prior benchmark to compare it to. Her composing style is not "dead". If it were dead, she'd not be filling concert halls, getting 100s of thousands of views, etc. Dubstep is dead. It was new. It was different So, we can't go back to the things that were great before that everyone still enjoys because of reasons that no one is quite clear on; it seems to be a "just because" scenario, and we have to "go forward" but no one ever seems to be able to put forth a new standard that is widely-accepted as being better than the previous ones. How is the logical answer here anything but "uphold the prior standard". Look at rock music. There's been tons of rock music made since the mid-90s, but it gets very little airplay compared to all the stuff from the 70s - early 90s, and it's still the big bands from that era that everyone pays to see. Why? Because they were better. They had great songs, good production values, and musicians who could actually play. AC/DC, Aerosmith, Van Halen...they're still as popular as ever, 40 years on. It's still music for "21st century people" and will be for the foreseeable centuries. They are "timeless" just like Vivaldi or Jerry Goldsmith. Music isn't going to die lol When you try desperately to create "new" styles and stuff, you either get: Short-lived trends and/or a Weimar Republic, modern-day "modern art" scenario. Where people just dress up their subpar, inane tat as something deep and meaningful with a lot of florid language and crap. This isn't deep and meaningful. It's just bull$h!t The harsh reality is that there is a finite amount of things that most humans consider aesthetic and we've existed more than long enough to know what those things are. In fact, there is just about no current plight in which history does not have the answers for. The solution here is to uphold the high standards set before us in the past rather than try to re-invent the wheel into a crappier version of what it used to be. In other words: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  6. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Florid language and pretentious descriptions that try to guilt people into appreciating all kinds of "modern art" aren't working anymore. This second, Weimar-Republic-style era, and the absence of objective beauty standards is coming to an end. It's especially being rejected by younger millenials and gen z. You see this in young musicians like JJay Berthume. This kid is graduating college this year and he's already going places. Scored some video games and writing symphonies in highschool and he's very reminiscent of Hollywood's "Golden Age" composers. John Powell is like the go-to for animated movies these days and his scores are just brilliant. Incredibles 2 is also a smash success with brilliant music. Video games like Soul Calibur favour composition that is also of high quality Then there's Alma Deutscher An entire generation is growing up with these kinds of things to look up to. There are young people now who want to write like John Powell or Giachinno does instead of Hans. They're rediscovering Beethoven, John Williams, Vivaldi, and the like. Scholars are taking note of the fact that the world is actually becoming more traditional on the whole; not less. We're currently experiencing the largest surge of religion in history, with secular people poised to become the minority compared to Evangelical Christians and the like in the next 200 years. Russia is increasingly embracing its Imperial past, and basically defying the Romanovs, who were made saints in 2000. So what's the take away here? People will always default back to the ideas of their cultures that always worked. The eternally-good, the eternally-beautiful ideas. Music is no exception.
  7. Jesus...he's still going! 😂 "Guys, I swear I have no insecurity about this stuff but let me write another 5 paragraph rant!" You are suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance. You've spent a number of threads now, several pages each, arguing against the notion that gold standards exist and should be upheld because they cannot be scientifically proven to exist, but then argue one can achieve this kind of work with "hard work, practice" and you even use the word "proper" several times now. "Proper" by definition refers to an accepted "correct" means of doing something. This can only exist if we collectively accept certain things as objectively better than others. In simpler terms: Common practice Seriously man: Check your ego, and spend more time actually practicing music, improving your singing and recording quality, etc. and then maybe these kinds of conversations won't offend you so much. Because for your claim that "you too can do stuff like this with hard work and consistent study" your own work doesn't appear to show you can.
  8. Here we go again. "There has to be someone to make the judgement!" But then you'll turn around, like you are here, and say "Well prove to me that X work of art is greater than Y with empirical data." Scroll to past posts if you've forgotten. I know you aren't because you embrace this materialist/individualism. The job of an artist is to create art, so putting more value on the person creating rather than the stuff they're supposed to create makes no sense. As I keep referring to: The divine economy of goods. You ought to concern yourself with the artistic output. A good example of this is when bands change their style and experience fan backlash and then they're like "oh, you just need to be more open-minded." No, people don't actually like bands. They like music. And if they don't like the new music someone is putting out, then too bad. Your "artist first" thinking, is what leads to this entitlement of demanding your fans accept whatever you crap out because "loyalty" or something. Backpedal harder. You may not have said the word directly, but this is exactly what your posts are about. Let's refresh your memory Our ongoing dispute here originated because when I said that composers should be more concerned with writing good music than desperately trying to be "different", you flipped your sh! t. Arguing that being as good as something else equates to "discount version of" and blasting it as a "worthless opinion". You were previously arguing this with Monarcheon when she expressed her disdain of musicians obsession with "originality". Anyone with an IQ greater than a shoe size can read all this and tell that you have some real serious hang-ups about "rules for good art". No it's perfectly relevant because it demonstrates that you don't actually know wtf you're talking about. The proof is right in front of you. Do you really lack the self-awareness to realize that nobody else seems to agree with your ravings? All the stuff I've mentioned is the benchmark of academia, preserved in museums that people will travel thousands of miles just to see it, have been put into national archives as "culturally or historically significant", are known the world over, are still a regular part of musical repertoire hundreds of years later, people make video essays wondering wtf happened to film music and get millions of people watching because they wonder too, John Williams is the most oscar-nominated living person, it just goes on like this. And your response to all that is "That's an appeal to crowd fallacy lolz" The one thing all this stuff has behind it is someone who shows mastery over their respective craft, obvious in their work to everyone but you apparently. This will be my last post to you on this matter because frankly, listening to someone try and refute that living up to a high standard is more important than being all unique and individualistic when they themselves put out fairly lackluster material, is like a medical student listening to advice from a snake oil salesman.
  9. Yeah, but those are just instincts. They don't mean anything! It's just an act of nature! That's just how we feel about it. Or at least, how most do. But how do you prove the baby is objectively more valuable than the desserts, or a falling kitten, or a plant? Show me empirical, peer-reviewed evidence that a human baby really is worth more than a tuna sandwich. You can't, because it's all just in your head! So let the babies die and grab the falling food! The only reason you might think the baby is more valuable is just because of brain chemicals! You should really sit and think about this sentence you wrote for a while, and maybe you'll come around to realizing how utterly stupid the points you're making in these threads are. If there is no greater standard to be achieved, then how can a "properly-educated" composer even exist? How can you determine what a "proper" education is? If you believe that quality is just subjective, then any kind of or no education at all are equally valid. Buddy, all of your posts here are projection. You feel this need to come into these threads and keeping asserting how "originality" and "experimentation" is so great and there is no objective higher standard because you're insecure about your own music. Which, again, I could take you maybe a bit seriously if you actually were making mind-blowing, totally different, quality music instead of living room recordings of late 90s hipster "indie" rock. It's like listening to a metal edgelord in an "...and justice for all" shirt go off about how "all that pop crap is over-produced garbage". You wouldn't seriously consider that person's opinions. You'd just be like "Yeah, ooookay man, at least I can hear the bass lol". You're really fond of the "fallacy" fallacy. Notice how you completely failed to offer an explanation as to why people prefer the works I mention? Here's an idea, since you're so into psychology, try reading this. It'll be like looking into your own soul. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367 It's called "The Dunning-Kruger Effect"
  10. Yeah and that's what makes you a "post-modern pushover". Can I offer you scientific, peer-reviewed literature that a human baby is objectively more important than a bag of twinkies? No. But if you go running to grab a falling pack of twinkies vs a baby falling to its death, I and the rest of the sane world, are going to think you're a gigantic asshole devoid of morality who should be locked up for criminal negligence. But there's no way you can "prove" the baby is more valuable inherently. Are you implying that it doesn't take more skill to compose like Williams or Mozart than modern trailer music? If not, then why are there so many more trailer or "epic" composers than "golden-age" style composers today? Why are pieces like Bach's still used to teach counterpoint? Why are films like "The Exorcist" chosen by film registries for preservation while other horror films like "Saw" aren't? Why do people still travel from all over the world to gaze upon the Mona Lisa or statue of David? Shouldn't they be able to find just as good of works all around them? I can't offer you any peer-reviewed evidence that Michael Romeo or Santana really ARE better guitar players than Lil' Wayne, but it's the general consensus that they are among student, teacher, or casual observer alike. Why don't you go and ask any of your beloved academic professors why that is, and they'll tell you: "Because they set the standard." The reality is that 99/100 people are going to say that Kohei Ohmori is a better artist, and creates more beautiful works than Matt Groening. Nope, I can't offer you any graphs or lab tests that prove that the top is really superior. But looking at it, I know that it is, I know it's harder to do, and I'm certain most will share my opinion. Like, which artist would you rather be able to draw like if you could just pick one? You can sit here and argue with everyone all you want about "muh science" and how things like standards and common practice are irrelevant, but the rest of us instead will try to live up to the high standards set by our ancestors instead of trying to justify our failures with "subjectivity". You should try it sometime — it'll make you more humble and less of a neurotic dick.
  11. The reason you instantly dismiss my point is because you have tremendous insecurity about the idea that some works really are better than others, and thereby better than yours. It threatens your "trophy-for-everyone" ideology. The Rape of Persephone is a better sculpture than the Venus of Willendorf. The former required far, far great skill to craft, and is far more beautiful. Beauty & The Beast or Anastasia are greater, more aesthetic feats of animation than South Park or HTTYD. And yes, "Flight To Neverland" by John Williams is a better piece of music than "Time" by Hans Zimmer. You're not wrong for liking or wanting to do something more like the "inferior" examples, but again — It's about what we ought to aspire to be. and I know you'll be "Oh, that's just what you choose to impart on it." Well guess what? If left to a vote, I guarantee you the numbers are overwhelmingly in accordance with my position on this matter. It's just weird how the things that require greater mastery of the art in question to create usually wind up being held in the highest esteem around the world. Lastly, I didn't wanna have to play this card, but it needs to be said here: There is nothing deeply-original and ground-breaking about your mediocre-production-quality rock albums (with horribly off-key vocals) that you made in your living room, electronic ambient noises and arpeggios with vanilla synth patches or — rather hilariously — piano sonatas you wrote in imitation of the romantic era. I see that you're actually German? I'll leave you with an old German proverb that you should take to heart: "Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen"
  12. First off, do not engage SSC. (S)he is too caught up in the post-modern self-delusion of, "it's all about how I feel about it". Not worth it. Second, I offer my opinion to your observation here To put it in a nutshell: The kind of education that is dominant post-enlightenment is the idea that nothing in the world has any inherent meaning — it's all just a force of nature — and any greater meaning you see in it is just how you feel about it. Once you understand this, you start to see what's fueling a lot of today's crazy people. Because, if you live your life this way, you stop asking how you can find purpose within the world and instead going about manipulating the world (including people) around you to suit your personal feelings about it. Thus — Michelangelo's work on the Sistine chapel is not really of any higher standard, artistic worth, or aesthetic than any old graffiti on a train car, because I personally think the latter is really cool.
  • Create New...