Jump to content

SSC

Members
  • Content Count

    3,581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

SSC last won the day on January 14

SSC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,113 Excellent

2 Followers

About SSC

  • Rank
    LOL Dispencer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://ytmh.bandcamp.com/

Profile Information

  • Biography
    Attack on Alpha Base! Captain Starr's Last Stand!!
  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    The Threat of the inviso-vampires from Jupiter XII!!
  • Occupation
    Amazing! The First Voyage of the S.S. Proton!
  • Interests
    Peril in the Caves of Planet X!
  • My Compositional Styles
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Recent Profile Visitors

9,017 profile views
  1. At least he didn't just burn all of his works except like 17 he thought weren't bad, or something. French huh, am i rite?
  2. Ughhahharghghghg yeah he went around in the woods with a recorder to get stuff on tape so he could transcribe it. Honestly I think those pieces are horribly boring and overly long, but that's the theme with Messiaen to me, he got it in his head the "next big thing" when it comes to form and kind of ran crazy with it, got bored, then found something else. That's in the end how he made "Mode of Durations and Intensities," it was just an experiment and it ended up being really important later down the line for other composers even he himself never used the method again.
  3. I think that there's room to use the concepts, like I said before. If your material fits the old models, then sure that's not the issue, but if you're working with more modern stuff it can be an interesting to reexamine how those things can fit within more vague definitions of "development," or "reprise." Debussy's Sonatas, which he sadly didn't manage to finish, are a great example of how he dealt with the idea. Mind you, his forward thinking probably also inspired Messiaen a great deal, among other composers of the more neo-classical variety.
  4. Messiaen was really obsessed with musical form, it's kind of his whole "thing." I think in general, from my experience adapting "Sonata form" ideas into my own (sonatas lol,) I think there's a lot of stuff you can use in broad strokes, just like he did. The fact he notes the recapitulation is obsolete is interesting, specially since I think it's actually important still but it's something that can be done in so many different ways. With enough variation (see Schoenberg's "similar repetition" concept) you wouldn't even realize it's the reprise even when it's using the same material. That being said, I think Messiaen as well as other composers of his time (like Schoenberg at some points of his life) were really interested in trying to reconcile traditional forms (or the entire romantic aesthetic, specifically) with the freer style of harmony and material. In the end, personally, I don't think it made much difference since, as most of the aforementioned composers realized, it was kind of pointless as all you had was a theoretical guide to the form but you couldn't really discern it if you heard the music itself. In the end, the "structures" that ended up dominating most of the 20th century modernism were just as free and personal as the material it was used to structure. I'm personally not much of a fan of Messiaen's music for most of the stuff I've heard, so I didn't get very far into his books where he explains his method. But that's neither here nor there lol.
  5. You can't seriously take the vast majority of people seriously when it comes to anything art at all whatsoever. It's just a bunch of garbage, the surefire way to do things is just copy what's trending and ignore everything else. Move on when there's something new trending. Everything else is post-facto posturing by people who might as well say all music after February 5, 1753 is hot garbage.
  6. I love it when music I like is not enough like other music but too much like other music! It's the best!
  7. What? I mean, if you're concerned with making the moneys, then copying successful stuff is where the money IS. It necessarily requires you to be unoriginal, as otherwise it's a bad investment of your time if what you're doing is uncertain to be liked by enough people to generate enough money to justify doing it to make enough money to justify keep doing it in the future so you can continue to do the thing you're meant to be doing and also be original at the same time keeping in mind that in the end you should be earning enough to make up on your investment of time.
  8. Oh so that's why I was feeling this strange pain on my right buttock as I read the thread title. Yeah, that's like saying "4/4 in a sonata form what do you think?"
  9. Let me stop you right there Sir or Madam. You don't need to be original at all! Look at almost everything else out there. I think the whole point of even talking about originality is to make some kind of stupid self-imposed challenge that forces you to do something that may or may not be "original." Remember, just because something is original, doesn't mean it's not also insane or stupid. Which may be a good thing, who knows? So next time you're working hard on that Cello triple concerto, how about you count all the yellow cars on a parking lot for your next chord change? Or throw some dice at a moving target blindfolded and only count those that fail to fall where you can easily find them! The options are literally endless! !.
  10. The reason this doesn't show up usually is because even using the word "triad" no matter the language it's almost always to talk about, well, a triad lol. I don't think I've used "tríada" or whatever to talk about random 3 note chords that aren't primary or secondary triads to begin with. Though, according to spanish wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tríada_(música) For contrast, grove: I don't really see the difference, except on the wording. In the spanish article it's said it's usually in thirds, but then both proceed to list the same 4 types of triads... Hell, in fact: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreiklang In German it's the same thing. It says it's the easiest case where it's 3rds, but I guess it doesn't say it's ONLY that. ... But then again, I've not seen an english definition that specifically says it can only be that either. The Grove definition says they CAN be arranged that way. I'm not seeing where's the difference, honestly, between the languages. On the english wikipedia this shows up. Go figure people don't agree on what things are called haha.
  11. What? They're not? Tríade -> Tríada -> Dreiklang -> Triad...? They all mean a 3 note chord, unless there's some secret I'm not aware of. Also, the only references I can find for "vector interválico" are Spanish translations of stuff that's originally in English, lol.
  12. My point is mostly, I've never found myself in a situation where I would need to even think of something like that. Additionally, this, I think, is something that happens almost exclusively in English, since in Spanish, Portuguese and German I have absolutely no examples of anything even resembling "Interval Class Vectors," or whatever. I would go as far as to say that in my experience, talking about music theory in English is probably one of my least favorite things to do since the jargon is fancypants for no real reason, lol.
  13. Did she now? God where do people come up with these goddamn names? I'm serious, there's stuff like "Trimodular block" and so on, I don't know. It's like people want to seem like they're talking about spaceships and lasers rather than some boringass cadence some dead guy wrote centuries ago. But hey, whatever, at least it sounds exciting.
  14. The problem with all of this is that analysis is a tool, nothing else. You can use it to find things out about the music you're listening to, in hopes of "understanding" it better. So, analysis has to be focused and it needs to reduce the material as necessary for it to be meaningful. I mean, sure, it's cute that you want to make your PhD thesis on analyzing the entirety of a Wagner opera, but that's a fully academic endeavor as it is analysis for the sake of analysis. To a composer, rather than a musicologist, I think that analysis has to be as simple and straight forward as possible. The question you are almost always asking is "How do I get X effect I heard in Y piece?" So, for example, if I'm writing a piano piece that's meant to be in a specific language, I'm going to analyze the music I'm trying to use as reference to get all the stylistic points right. This goes double for modern stuff that you have no "system" for, like, say, process music. This is even more evident when you consider analysis methods can be very individualistic. For example, I learned counterpoint by copying music I liked in that style by hand. I had basically 0 "theoretical" knowledge, but I could actually write new music in that style since I developed an "eye" for how it worked by copying so much of it. Later, sure, I got to put names and theories to everything, but also learned you don't HAVE to, and you can pick and choose how you organize and label things. The best example, to me, was the first example I learned of systems contradicting each other, which is the suspension 4-3/6-5 on the dominant, which depending on your system will call the first chord harmony the tonic with the 5th in bass, or the dominant with a suspension. One describes the actual anatomy of what's happening, the other a musical context interpretation. Which system is "right?" Depends on what you want to know. So, to me, the limit of analysis is basically how good are you at asking the questions, basically. Everything else is just stuff best left for musicologists to do, I mean, after all, they gotta do SOMETHING with their degrees right?
  15. Amazingly, that's actually a very interesting remark even if it's meant to be a joke. Peterson's disdain for postmodernism is aimed (imo) at a lot of the rhetoric that dominates it more than whatever it actually produces artistically, cuz in the end people aren't "postmodern" people, they're just people and when they create something they do it in the context of their life and times. They can't actually escape this. So, for example, if I argue that "Anything can be music," it's not to say that I want to destroy the meaning of the word "music," but I want to properly represent what I am doing, which is appreciating things as music that are not commonly viewed as music. I extend this stance to its logical conclusion and make the statement then that if X can be music to me, then Y can surely be music to someone else. Semantics are kind of a big deal when you're dealing with stuff which by its very nature tends to break norms. In this instance, I should be able to represent reality (in other words, my actual stance and observation about the world) with words to a meaningful degree. Someone can argue that I'd be using the word "Music" wrong, but then I could just replace it with "art" and we're just moving the goalpost rather than addressing the point itself. But concerning the thread itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overchoice This is a big deal. A really big deal. I learned when I was studying years ago that limiting yourself consciously in "Language" and so on is a good idea when you're trying to actually study something in-depth. It's a pretty simple principle, if not immediately obvious, you split up the seemingly "infinite" possibilities into actually manageable chunks and work on them individually. I mean, obviously, you can and should have the drive to just "do whatever," as that's the whole point, but you are your own worst enemy if you haven't learned to focus and "zoom in" on what's actually something that you want to do and what interests you. On the other hand, you obviously still end up doing this intuitively to some extent as you will invariably copy what others are doing and, barring radical pluralist stuff, a whole lot of music (most, I'd argue) sticks to a consistent aesthetic line for its duration. All roads lead to Rome, as the saying goes, so you'll get experience no matter what you do if you just keep writing long enough.
×
×
  • Create New...