Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SSC last won the day on May 30

SSC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,127 Excellent


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!!
    Also, unofficial YC Discord server:
  • Gender
  • 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

Recent Profile Visitors

9,889 profile views
  1. Yeah that's the thing I said. These "debates" usually go nowhere because the beginning arguments are pretty flawed, so it turns into a game of semantics and personal feelings and opinions, which we can SHARE, but necessarily debate. I'm all for sharing opinions, sure, but to have an actual discussion there needs to be something that can be argued without falling into those previous trappings and with art that's nearly impossible. We can discuss musicology, theory, history, all that, but if someone thinks that X composer is trash, well that's not conducive to a discussion. Also, why discuss at all? So, to get anything out of a discussion you need to want to get something out of it too, and that something can't be just the inherent competitiveness of it. No, it needs to be a desire to actually examine your own statements vs those of other peoples and see if yours hold up. Believe it or not, I became an atheist due to debating religion, and I have changed many things about my self and my opinions by contrasting them with others. It's a crucial part of trying to assess if what you believe is at all close to something resembling "truth." You gotta be honest enough to know that there are a lot of things that go nowhere even if they may feel like they're discussion topics, since they end up just being either excuses to rant on about stuff you don't like, or the opposite, looking for legitimization for things you already do but aren't sure. But the only way to get any better at any of it is actually trying and failing, just like anything else. That's why I think it's worth it to discuss things, even if the discussion may seem pointless, you never know what others may actually take from it that is valuable to them.
  2. The toccata could have used a lot more variation and solo-like instances. There's also too much comfortable counterpoint repetition (I mean, typical fortspinnung but you could've done more with it,) so it doesn't really have the explosive energy you'd expect from a toccata. I guess if you played it faster it would be better, but I don't know. I think it sounds pretty but it doesn't really say much (which is sadly a fault a lot of baroque music actually had haha!) Also, D minor should be bolder, faster, in the norm those pieces are usually pretty aggressive, with plenty of solo moments and changes in texture (plenty of examples for this, I'm sure you're aware.) As for the ricercare, historically a ricercare has no actual form assigned to that name (that's a later thing and when Bach used it, famously, it was his own interpretation of what it would be like. It was a revived term by that point since it was in disuse when he revived it.) But regardless I think it's really boring that you didn't change the textures up at least somewhat. If the intent was to make a fugue, or something fugue-like, it would've helped greatly to vary a lot more how and when the "important" parts appear. It's always the same pattern repeated over and over, which makes it really hard to hear to me. Why did you keep 3 voices running constantly throughout the entire composition? There's also basically no meaningful rhythmic variation of any kind (the 8ths vs 4th typical pattern that run through almost from beginning to end nonstop really kill it.) So yeah, I don't know, I'm not very convinced by the effort here. I suppose it's accurate enough to early 1700, but to me that's neither here nor there since I'm not going to judge it as an exercise since that's not what you said it was. I don't see anything really creative here, only a bunch of patterns we've seen a thousand times before and I can't see where you, as a composer, actually put your own view/creativity on it. Your technique has improved vastly since we did those lessons so long ago, so that's very nice, but that's also why I know you can do better than this.
  3. Reminded me of Janáček's string quartets a whole lot. That's a good thing tho. On the other hand it's a little too busy. There's a lot of ideas packed too densely and only very few moments where you use solos. I guess that's why you called it a fantasy, but I think if you "unpacked" this into something more long form where you had time to work each idea out it'd be pretty good. Even 10 minutes I think would be better than just 5 in this case. Great performance tho!
  4. I think you could've used more stuff during the breaks, cuz the robotic noise thingy could've used more, well, rhythm noise. Or something, right now it feels like it's too naked imo.
  5. Or not. You can assign that label to basically anything, which is why I don't like it. It's a semantics discussion which is pointless because it always results in the same thing: People have different definitions and they are not reconcilable, so the conversation goes nowhere. That's a highly personal opinion, I'm sure you recognize that. I know plenty of people who think the exact opposite, as well. Ah, well, no. Chaos is an actual thing, and many people do things and don't know why they did them. That's not even talking about art, just in life in general. You can try to say things have a role, but sometimes they may not. You even say yourself: So, what's the difference between not getting an answer and there not being one to begin with anyway? Plus, this is already on shaky ground when talking about aleatory music, process music, AI-made stuff, etc. Sure, you can say there was still a person with the intention to do something, yeah, but their influence can be minimal or negligible at best. I think that you can look at human history and see more than enough actions and things that people have done that have no purpose and were not even conceived with a purpose. Again, chaos is a real thing in our lives, like it or not. This is also ignoring things people have done in altered states of mind (drug, sickness, etc) which will give you a pretty unsatisfying "reason" to exist, when one is given at all. Thinking that people are that logical and reasonable at all times is giving humanity way too much credit.
  6. Why, to be created by the artist of course! Why does art need to have a "purpose"? Do clouds or the ocean have a "purpose"? We can fit them inside a chain of events, OK, but they themselves are just acts of nature that don't have a "reason" to be, or a "role" to play. I posit that people's creations work in the same manner, and that asking if it has a role is solely dependent on the person who made the individual work since, as a whole, they're just like a force of nature that doesn't need a reason to be or exist at all, it just does. I mean people can get moved emotionally by a nice looking sunset or any other randomly-generated nature vista, why is art any different? In the end the most important part is the person experiencing the art itself, not the work in a vacuum.
  7. I'm not going to quote the entire thing, but I originally came from OCR too, which I joined in 2004 or thereabouts. I was mostly lurking, but I did eventually want to make a remix of my own, but I ended up making it way too original to the point where, well, I ended up having played in a concert in 2007 detached from its origin as a "remix". I think making remixes is nice, but I could never bring myself to spend so much time on something that isn't ever going to be really mine. I don't want to talk badly about people who do remixes, but to me it would be a waste of my time. Really f!ucked up the deal with the monetization, but that kind of shady stuff is pretty common in this kind of thing.
  8. Nah it's just my own opinion. I think it's a word to describe people's work, and for that is fine. Just when people start questioning "what is art" and "role of art" is really the wrong mindset, to me. I think it's much more important to look at it in the individual level. Yep, that's part of what I'm talking about. But crucially, what people's creations mean to other people is important. I think you can't generalize the topic in a way that "gets you somewhere," let's say, because we can only speak of personal individual experience. I mean we talked about the massive shifts in ideologies, aesthetic paradigms, etc, but in the end it comes down to how people react to the works created around them. If they want to champion them or tear them down, or are indifferent and soon forgotten. So when it gets written as question like you did here: I think that's a trick question because you can't really answer it beyond it being something we inherited from previous generations. Additionally, I don't think it's necessary for something like "classical music," whatever that may be, to have a "role." You can say it has a place, and that people enjoy it, teach it and practice it, yeah. That much is true, but Beethoven's music is quite alien to us, we can't help but view it through our own modern lenses despite studying history. We can't know what it is like to sit under the night sky of 1830 europe and look at the stars, with virtually nothing to get in the way of the light, sound, etc of just nature and the experience. The bond between, let's say for the sake of this example, the romantic period and the conception of "nature," is huge. Works like Winterreise from Schubert (1827 for the music, 1824 for the poems by Müller), up to stuff like Das lied von der Erde from Mahler (1908-9), and just about a ton of things in between and a little earlier, all talk about a very strong connection and admiration for nature. In Winterreise's case the connection is a twisted one of mirroring the protagonist's emotions, but also of delusions and hallucinations up to the very end where one of the first instances of musical realism appear (Der Leiermann.) We can study it, as such, through our modern sources and read the texts and the things written back then, but that world to us is actually lost and quite alien compared to what we have now. And I'm not talking about not knowing details about the historical aspect, context and influence of those works, but the simple fact that that's the ONLY way we can experience it. We need to build our own image of what it was like to be in that world, and from there we can try to piece together what kind of things inspired those people to do what they did. People make the mistake to think that because they can buy or download a score from Bach and play it and it sounds nice, they have somehow a "connection" to it, but in reality it comes from a completely different world in just about every sense of the word. It probably doesn't even sound remotely like what it did back then, despite the huge effort in attempting to recreate historically accurate performances, it's still very debated how that should be done. So, having said all that, isn't it ironic that the music that would most likely actually speak to us of the actual world we have now, is some of the least "pleasant" one? I'm not implying that 1700s europe was some utopia, far from that, but I am very thankful to the people that opened my eyes to actually seeing music that is about the world I actually understand. A very complex, very out-of-control, battered by world wars, proxy wars, mega-corporations, extreme new global ideologies, etc world. And of course, out-there crazy music has always existed in some manner or another (see: Heinrich Biber - Battalia à 10 (1673) but not to this extent. But it may not actually be that the music is "out-there" or crazy, just that our world just became that crazy and out-there, and we're just seeing the inevitable byproduct of that.
  9. I think it's inevitable, so stuff like that isn't "good or bad," it just is. I'm not saying it's beyond judgment, but I don't have an opinion of it being good or bad, just how it works and what it affects. That's not my position. To me the most important things is that people do things. Everything after that, who cares? People can criticize, judge, hate, love, ETC, who cares? It's going to happen anyway so who am I to say anyone "has no right" to do any of this? The artist isn't some deity, and I pretty much loathe the word "art." It's a stupid catch-all term and it means essentially nothing without a lot of context. People have every right to their opinion and can criticize everything they want. A composer just has to have thick skin and stand behind their work, end of story. Can't do that? Afraid people are going to say your piece for marimba and vuvuzela is garbage? Maybe you should be in a different field then!
  10. Not exactly. Value judgements are still VERY important to most "normal" people. They aren't very important -TO ME- (in music), but that's down to ME being an anomaly. I think that at large people make very harsh value judgments about art constantly and that informs other people and causes a chain reaction that makes people's careers work or not. The point is, I think that the average joe still has quite a respect for "classic art," if anything due to cultural baggage, that is very very hard to erase (I'd say almost impossible.) Obviously the effect of that baggage is lessened when the individuals don't actually experience that art regularly (as is the case with classical music in general. It's a niche genre at best in the large world of music.) Children can learn more than one language, and that same process is true of other cultural products like music. If you expose your child enough to modern music (as I have seen in person with multiple friends' children, etc,) they'll think it's just "one more type of music," and be done with it. It's quite simple really! They may like it, or not, but that's an issue of taste, not language. And it also varies greatly from piece to piece. The brain structures aren't negotiable (though they are flexible to a degree,) but just like any tool they can be used in many different instances with different results. No, I wouldn't think brains would change at all. Not anymore than they have changed through the last 300 or 500 years, etc. But what may change is the cultural baggage that is in inherited and which languages are taught as being "normal." This normalization allows for a wider range of options, obviously, as I've stated before. Again, though, value judgements don't have anything to do with this, as they'll form automatically when people judge things (and they will judge things.)
  11. It's perfectly fine if we both have different opinions on that exchange. Yeah, but I don't know which came first. To me, it seems more likely that modernism (inter connectivity, instant communication, etc.) have triggered many ideological shifts, if not created entirely new ideologies. I think that much is evident, as something like "globalism" would be a nonsensical term in 1800. Yeah, I also would tend to see it the same way to a degree. From a matter-of-fact point of view, it's undeniable that the so called "moral zeitgeist" has changed drastically in the last 100 or so years, and that the 20th century has left a huge scar across our culture, in many regards not just artistic. I don't think there's a singular cause for this, but a group of factors that happened to appear within close proximity to each other, such as the result of industrialization, technology advancements, economic models being refined and higher standards of living being achieved (sometimes.) All of those things are very significant and modern art does reflect them to a great degree (La Fabrica Illuminata from Luigi Nono, 1964, is a good example of a piece that reflects and explores some very modern territories.) I think the issue is this: as I mentioned our brain likes "candy music", which is what you usually find with pop music, etc, which has been designed in such a way to excite the hypothalamus through a well crafted syntax-expectation manipulation. This is why music written intuitively by, say, Bach, does many of the same things that music written intuitively by, say, Michael Jackson, would do. It's our brains being, well, our brains. Now, when we start to get away from that, for whatever reason, it's obviously not going to be immediately popular or appealing. However, judging music just by how much of a brain-candy it is, is to me quite shallow. I'm not saying it's without merit, as I also tend to like a lot of pop music, as I think everyone does. But the fact of the matter is, pieces like that one from Nono that explore "elsewhere," are a direct reaction to the time he lived in. Modern music, with all it's millions and millions of POVs and stylistic variations, is a mirror to the sudden realization that we are millions and millions of people, all different in many ways (and yet very similar in others.) In the end, you can think it sounds like garbage, or not, but value judgements are to me really boring. We can sit around and talk about how we like this or that, or don't like this or that, but that brings really nothing. Additionally, when I was talking to a cognitive scientist from the Max Planck institute in Leipzig years ago, I actually asked him this exact question: If emotion in music is linked intrinsically to our ability to recognize the language elements within musical syntax and process them as we would language, does this mean that something like Xenakis' music is never going to be perceived in the same way as, say, Mozart. To which he replied that the issue is not that it's impossible, is that the "language" is not something we are "fluent" in. That is to say, due to the individual styles of a lot of modern composers, it's hard to establish a common "language" that the brain can latch onto to form deeper emotional connections. In such way, the way we react to that music ends up being very superficial (with only base emotions being expressed, rather than the nuance we feel when listening to music that is made in a way that we're familiar with.) This is also why, the more you are exposed to "modern" music, the more you actually start to get more out of it. It's by virtue of learning the idiom of that kind of music so your brain actually moves on into further interpreting nuance and depth. This is very similar to hearing people express emotions in a language you don't understand, and then being able to understand what they're actually saying. The first allows you to see emotions, yes, but very superficially. The second opens way to a whole different level of interpretation.
  12. Yeah, that's the main thing isn't it? I think we should be able to make our positions clear without needing to treat eachother as actual adversaries as ACO likes to do. Remember: When discourse fails, all that is left is violence. That's really what's slowly happening here. I'm all for discussing things, but the moment terms like "Orwellian" get thrown around, I'm not going to sit around and pretend that's OK. Next thing that usually happens is people start calling eachother hitler, right? So, I'd advise people who want to have the actual discussion (not just parrot whatever party line they heard somewhere and want to advocate) to re-state their points of interest so we can carry on actually having fun and bouncing ideas off eachother. I think that though I may have started off on the wrong foot with Tonskald, I actually want to talk further with him about his POV because I'm curious and want to explore maybe a perspective I wasn't aware of. Who knows? I certainly won't know if we stumble every two posts on "AH HA! You're using THIS Orwellian TRICK to TRICK US!" Because everyone will get fed up with the pointless antagonistic exchanges, and rightly so.
  13. Again, I reserve the right to make the observation that I believe that this exchange (about your supposed ad hominem, which again, you fail to realize how it works DESPITE agreeing with me??!?) has been rather pointless. That you then go and extrapolate that into what you believe I'm implying (again with the assumptions, huh?) is not my problem. You really seem to like assuming and over-analyzing stuff, but it's not going to get you very far honestly if all it does is drag on something pointless like this. That's energy better spent elsewhere. INDEED. Well that's why I added the (maybe) next to your name. I think you're far more neutral and level-headed than ACO who outright just said: Which is a bunch of nonsense since he assumes you need to ACCEPT different philosophies, but you can certainly reject them instead. In fact, like I do! I'm not much of a "centrist", but rather I analyze each individual argument on its own merits regardless of they fall on whatever political compass is popular at the time of writing. Turns out I reject quite a lot of arguments from both the extreme "left" and extreme "right." And of course, I also think some positions from both sides are worth considering! Shocking, I know. No, I get what you're saying. I just think that the diversification and ease of access explains a lot of what seems to have "changed," rather than people themselves being fundamentally different in some way. You actually know those genres exist, which is far more than some guy in some small town in 1780 would be able to know about the world. It's clear that paradigms need to shift, then, as the world itself became incredibly connected in a way that has never happened before. IF you want to say anything is actually new, THAT is actually new, and the result and consequence of that is something we're still trying to understand. What may appear as "change" could be things that have always been there, but because that connectivity wasn't there, you couldn't perceive it and it didn't have as much of an impact. How? That's what I don't understand. Where's the connection there? It's a pointless accusation coming from someone who considers me "their enemy," right? I can also reach for my bag of "culture war-speak" and say most of your statements are dog-whistles, bla bla bla. But that's retarded, as is the context for your accusation: Shutting down a possible interpretation because I choose to use a different word to analyze it is -not- redefinition. I didn't take a word and twisted its meaning, I applied an entirely different word to a situation we BOTH saw was happening. If anything, I agreed with the phenomena, but I chose to view it through a different perspective. This is part of normal intelligent discourse and you may not agree with my POV on the subject. HOWEVER, what you're doing is attacking my perceived "method" of doing this, which is frankly laughable. SPECIALLY the "Orwellian trick" bit. Quinn said it brilliantly, so much so I will quote him AGAIN: In the end tho, what I'm for is very simple: Open exchange of ideas. I may think stuff you do is laughable, but much like Tonskald said: But I'm probably not as nice as he is about it.
  14. Yes, well, an ad hominem exists meaningfully when the only argument I present is an attack on your person. I can call you an idiot, and then proceed to make a 5 hours long presentation based on scientific empirical data, and while you may take offense to me calling you an idiot, you can't call that ad hominem because my ARGUMENT was not the insult itself, it was everything that came after it. You can say I'm rude and be sad, sure, but recognize where the argument actually is. An ad hominem is a fallacy precisely because it substitutes a proper argument with the attack on the person, which is not what I did as I did give you my argument (and then elaborated further.) I never actually said I thought you were offended, but it's interesting that you infer that from my reply. Are we done with this little show now? As does a bunch of other garbage nobody actually reads (even if sometimes it's pretty hilarious.) Case in point: http://www.trecento.com/misc/new_musicology.pl That parody is really funny because it's true. And it's also really sad that it's true, honestly. The state of academic papers in the humanities is deplorable, to put it nicely. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. That entire paragraph has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You specifically talked about individualism, which is why I brought up societal collective "agreements," such as laws and so on, that restrict that individualism as to keep society functioning. That has not shifted into moral relativism, and I don't even know what that would look like because the term is thrown around so much that it's kind of meaningless at this point. I'd like to make an observation: What I gather from these arguments from both Tonskald(maybe) and ACO is that they're really into the whole cultural "war" dealie that has been all the rage since around, what, 2013/2014. It's the same kind of terminology that ends up being anti-"left", etc. What's amusing to me is that artists usually tend to veer into "left" politics by the nature of what they're doing, but composers (musicians in general), like architects, can't really do that too much because there's still a degree of reality that needs to be there. Can't be very "relativistic" when your building shouldn't fall down and kill people, or when you have deadlines and rehearsals and actual responsibilities. Regardless, the arguments have always been there before (and here in the forum too, etc) but now they've got that new coat of paint. So instead of calling things too "subjective," they're "morally relative." Not everything is a moral choice. Deciding to use a violin instead of a goddamn piano is not a MORAL choice. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of art doesn't even HAVE moral choices! Art is much too insignificant a thing to go that far. Absolutely hilarious that I'm getting called out for using "Orwellian" speak. What's funny is I've gotten into arguments with people all sides of this mess and it's always the same thing, it's the result of extreme postures that argue feverishly against "perceived damage" or potential destruction to things they think are important. Since I'm not in with the cool kids and "picked a side," I'm obviously going to clash with people on both extremes, such as these gentlemen. That's inevitable. But they're not very "popular," are they? I don't think Ariana Grande is singing out there in Crunkcore, right? That you know something exists, doesn't mean it's something most know exist. Hell, I had to look those names up myself to even reply, so well. So much for that popularity argument huh? Relatively new? So, you mean to say that you know of every piece of art ever produced across human history and you have come to that conclusion. Of course not, that's silly, but the implication is here, I think, that things are more accessible now than there were before. I think you're making a pretty big error in overestimating just how many things are actually "new," here. These kind of discussions went back more than 2000 years ago, it's not new at all. And the fact that people were killed or punished for making things that were not acceptable does not mean that they didn't get made. That has always been around. Can't contain human imagination, and all that jazz. That we can "accept" them now is maybe newish, but I couldn't say because I'm not that well versed in anthropology to make such a statement. I wasn't arguing that moral relativism doesn't exist. So, uh, okay.
  15. I already said this, but here in Germany and in a lot of other places where I have acquaintances and friends in academia, either as professors or as graduates from conservatories or universities (USA, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Norway, Russia, Japan, Korea...) I basically see the exact same model of teaching classical music, well, as teaching classical music. The majority of the "modern stuff" is mostly either a single lone seminar somewhere or the composer's faculty which, well, isn't surprising in the slightest. The vast majority (99.9%?) of music played in those academic institutions by the students is music written by the warhorses, with the occasional little concert organized by the composition class. Sometimes it's a little more, but barely. But, no, don't just believe me. Want to play a game with me? How about we start pulling up music curriculums from universities around the world to see what they actually teach. I'd be very shocked if most of it (if not ALL of it) was not western music history, theory, and repertoire. So, tell me, how do you come to this conclusion? Unless "the arts" excludes music, of course.
  • Create New...