Jump to content

SSC

Members
  • Content Count

    3,595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

SSC last won the day on January 26

SSC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,116 Excellent

2 Followers

About SSC

  • Rank
    LOL Dispencer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://ytmh.bandcamp.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/ytmhcubed/

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

9,499 profile views
  1. hi i made a server for stuff. This is a cross post from the other forum post which I think is less visible. https://discord.gg/mGWknNT have fun see u ther
  2. hello sir or madam, i went and made an unofficial discord server, dunno if there was one, but y'know whatever. here's the invite link https://discord.gg/mGWknNT
  3. That reads like a press release, and it's really strange that you're writing in the third person since, well, I'm assuming you're the one that made the thing. Either way, I think that etudes are all fine and dandy, but personally I try to keep my technique exercises as anti-musical as possible so I can concentrate on counting and everything ELSE that's not music. To me they are basically like doing pushups or squats or whatever, it's something that needs to be done well, but since you're repeating it every day it needs to also be very efficient. So, with that said, and with efficiency in mind, a good warm up would make both hands work with equal workloads, as to immediately prepare them to work on equal level (which is pretty important.) Besides the symmetry being important, it saves time. Obviously you could just invert the exercise every few bars and swap the left and right hand parts, but honestly the cool thing about Hanon is how efficient it is in working immediately on finger independence symmetrically right from the first exercise. Yours is a little too much music and less, well, pushups. It's cute and all, but honestly you could think more in terms of efficiency rather than musicality and it will help the purpose of the etude greatly. I'm not saying it has to be entirely void of musical thought (if there's such a thing,) but a shift in focus would go a long way.
  4. Yes. The biggest problem right now is people getting sick all at once and collapsing the healthcare system. This is what's happening in Italy, but hopefully this example is not going to be followed.
  5. Death is part of life, no matter how it comes. That being said, if you compare this to the, say, Spanish Flu that killed like 50 million people in 1918 (or so,) then this is kind of a non-issue. The problem is that these days people can't tolerate just "getting sick," they expect to be 100% fully treated and survive, compared to back in 1918 where people just shrugged stuff like this off (and then died because healthcare was, well, 1918 healthcare. Nevermind the first world war.) The massive media circus and collective panic is a direct result of this. It says nothing about the virus itself, which is kind of pedestrian at best, but says a lot about the modern day mentality and how high our standards of living have become. Just take the same exact measures you would against any influenza-type virus and you'll probably be fine. Much more important than the virus is not letting the collective panic get to you, but it seems now we're quarantining entire countries and the global economy is taking a huge nosedive into a multiple-year recession, so eh. Makes me wonder what will happen when a REAL deadly virus shows up. Maybe all this will be a lesson, but I really don't have much faith in people's capacity to learn from their experience at all.
  6. I've done basically everything from metal to fluxus-style performances with copymachines and dancers, so I have no idea. In the last few years I've been writing a series of long-form neoromantic-like sonatas and slowly I'm making them more and more "modern." Right now I'm finishing an Oboe sonata that's pretty big on quartal and extended harmonies. I'm also working on my second rock(?) album. Either way, I really don't like to think of my music in terms of style or whatever. To me the biggest and most important thing is: Do I think it's cool? If YES, then I consider it mission accomplished. IF no, then nobody gets to see it until I think it's good enough. And it turns out I think a -lot- of things are pretty cool, hence my music ends up being all over the place, as a quick trip to my youtube channel or bandcamp page would demonstrate.
  7. That's precisely where it fails tho. If, within the context of describing something, you're using words that are not related to the thing at hand (e.g music has nothing to do with clothing or anything textile), then it's unclear what you mean with them at all. Saying the "texture" and "fabric" of music is meaningless unless you specifically describe what you mean with those words and why you chose exactly those words. Additionally, they are very similarly related enough that without context they might as well be synonyms (my entire point.) The shirt example is what you SHOULD have done with your description in the first place so that the words become meaningful. If there is a reasonable chance that I may misinterpret your position because of the way you're describing something, then your description is lacking and you should rewrite/reformulate it, that's all I'm really saying. Not really. Analysis can be a large number of things and done in a large number of ways within a large number of different system and frameworks. That is to say, analysis depends entirely on the objective of the analysis. Like when you analyze anything, you can't analyze "everything," you usually focus on interest points and those depend on the person doing the analysis. In other words, the degree by which something is complicated or simplified within an analytical framework is entirely dependent what information needs to be extracted. For instance. If I'm analyzing Ligeti's Artikulation, I'd be pretty ill equipped if I used a framework based on functional harmony to analyze the disposition of vertical sounds in his music. Instead, I may be better served by forgoing any existing system and crafting something out that works better with the material at hand. Or let's say I'm analyzing large form structures in a Strauss opera. I'm not going to sit there and map out every single harmonic change and counterpoint nuance, because my objective is not that. Instead I'd be much better served by synthesizing what is important to my objective into elements I can directly observe (for example, observing only the cadences for type/direction/modulation.) It will still be "complex," but it will have significantly less pointless information than if I went through every little detail that is not relevant to my objective. So, I kind of see what you're trying to do, but it falls into a lot of mistakes that I've seen very often, specially when it comes to terminology and methodology. Sure, you can split things into elements if you want, but it's only meaningful if there's an actual objective behind that. This objective also will inform how exactly each element would need to be broken down and presented, so as to not overload the analysis with pointless information. Being able to recognize and focus on specific elements is a much more important ability than simply making a general "break down" of what you think music is composed of, specially when the divisions are very arbitrary. That's why the basic breakdown is usually just pitch/rhythm/dynamic because those elements are concrete and actual physical phenomenon disconnected from any specific use-case, with everything else coming down to individual objective and needs. But yeah, maybe it's a language thing, but that's no excuse at this point, right?
  8. Good thing the article is talking about your shirt, then!
  9. The author seems to be from Argentina, so that means that english is their second or third language. I'd imagine if they wrote it in spanish it'd be easier, same with the other one which was frankly nonsense. I think this may be the reason (or maybe not, English is my third language and I manage to do just fine. Dunno. Benefit of the doubt and all that.)
  10. Oh, but wasn't that your job? Case and point, Texture and Fabric are synonyms to which you said: But, see, here's why you're wrong: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fabric and https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/texture?s=t Strange how that works, eh? It's easier to say crap about me than to check something so simple as that. Now if you can show me somewhere that says they are NOT synonyms I'll consider it, but good luck with that.
  11. Honesty can seem that way to the untrained. And I'm harsh specially because I hate stuff that makes attempts to turn stuff that's otherwise simple into nebulous and wordy for no good reason. It's pretty anti pedagogic.
  12. Oh wow. This is pretty messy and redundant. It's also horribly organized. Here, let's tear down this first part: Well we're off to a great start. After all music is usually a kind of sound, right? Let's see where they go with this-- Oh. Oh no. It's one of these people huh? A and B are pretty standard and, well, quite objective to measure (Timbre is a physical phenomenon as are decibels.) C is, I guess, "using" A and B? OK, I guess, but then there's a bunch of other stuff in the description of timbre (shouldn't it be sound, as the title suggests?) that just go off the rails. Either they should be their own little bullet points, or maybe their other entire sections? I mean, if "idiom" is defined as Isn't that basically the actual composition itself? Why the hell is this part of SOUND, then? Might as well put everything else into SOUND too, then! Or you're telling me that something like a frullato isn't a rhythm AND color/timbre technique? Or how about dynamic? Cuz of course different dynamics sound different (different timbres) in different instruments, so you can't leave that out of SOUND, right? I mean, hell, you even added range, so why not dynamic too while you're at it? And last but not least, you do know that fabric is a synonym for texture, yes? BUT WAIT, THERE IS MORE!!!!!!111 I'm going to skip the redundant melody and harmony bits because they could've just been lumped into "pitch" and be done with it (with bullet points for finer details, but as we shall see they totally drop that idea right after the first point. Maybe it was too much work.) OH so this person is NOW acknowledging that stuff may be ambiguous? Seriously, ya think? Also, I love the wording. Let's talk about axiomatic conditions, sure, let's do just that. I love how none of the other segments get A-B-C style bullet points, even when they should considering the amount of crap this person packs into each. However, I'm willing to cut them some slack because rhythm/time is a pretty concrete and well understood musical element, so whatever. That's not to say I'm giving this nonsense a pass: The what's it now? See, this is what happens when people purple-prose stuff that doesn't need it. I'm thinking they kind of wanted something like Star Wars' "Force" but for rhythm, see? Cuz really, otherwise this "consciousness" makes no sense to even consider as it's not tangible in the slightest nor does it really mean anything. What the hell is a "multidimensional structure of motion" again? Remember kids, please define your terminology before you start talking about crap because otherwise it means nothing, SPECIALLY if it's super high-concept like this. But the last point is probably my favourite. Behold. I've read it probably ten times, I still don't understand what this person is trying to actually say. What the hell is a "sense of achievement something permanent"? After thinking about it for a great number of seconds (probably the amount of time the author had to come up with this crap), it occurred to me they may be talking about the fact that music is written down but it also gets performed across time? But I really don't know. They also keep introducing new terminology without defining it and no, for those playing at home, "Growth" wasn't defined at all. They just offloaded the meaning into two other poorly defined terms (Shape and movement.) Well done. Yeah, no. Skip this nonsense and just actually listen to music while reading scores. 100000% more effective and a lot more fun than trying to understand whatever rambling this is.
  13. I'd say this depends on what kind of tastes you have and how easily you tire of repetitions. The reason I can't physically listen to 80% of the old warhorses' music is because I literally turn my brain off after hearing most of the musical material since what comes after is usually so predictable to me that I don't need to listen to it. As a matter of fact, I've fallen asleep listening to a lot of music (In concerts no less!) precisely because sleeping is more valuable than hearing the same god-damned T-S-D-T cadence structure for half hour. I suppose I'm just very easily bored. The other 20% that I can listen to is where the composers actually decided to, you know, compose. That's the thing with forms, they're meant to make your music longer. Quite literally, they're meant to make it so people tire LESS of hearing the same things over and over, but still make it go for as long as you want. This is of course why music that can't use those structures tends to vary so wildly in length and those that do end up being pretty homogenized in length. As for things being predictable, that really depends on your experience. I think anything can be predictable if it's a musical vocabulary that you're familiar with, and that's including all the modern crazy stuff you can think of. If you're constantly exposed to it eventually even John Cage's stuff is pretty predictable and sort of boring. The exception here of course is that contemporary composers can choose to be arbitrarily different so that could be why I'd much rather listen to contemporary music. I don't usually know what I'm getting and honestly SOME measure of surprise is appreciated after dissecting the last 500 years of music for years. Then again, I get bored very easily, so maybe that's on me.
  14. I think it's a connection between what you think is "music" and what someone is doing. You can, I don't know, make any kind of noise "musically." That is, musicality is something you can apply to anything that has sound to it, even if it's not actually thought of as "music" from the start. I think it also means a certain deliberation on the part of the person doing the action, rather than "whatever," so yeah it's basically something that has some clearly concrete aspects, but I think it's ultimately kind of subjective just "how musical" something is. Is the term pointless or the concept meaningless? In some aspects it is. Saying something within "music" itself is "musical" is quite redundant. If you already decided that something is "musical," then by that definition it's just simply "Music." I think it can apply if someone is, I don't know, hammering nails in a "musical" manner, like some bad prose on a cheap romance novel. You can understand what that means, even if it's not exactly going to be the same for everyone. Would that be "music"? Sure, why not. Not very good music, maybe, but sure. It's in the end just a label that is meant to communicate the idea that you find the thing "musical", whatever that may be to you.
  15. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...