Ferkungamabooboo

I would say, at this stage: Bork theory. That sounds a little silly, but bear with me. Play with your guitar, as if it were a toy. Try to make weird noises, see what the instrument can do. Make melodies devoid of scalar thought and harmonic motion. Record them or write them down. Then, go back and figure out the theory behind it all. Figure out why you felt something was good/pretty/whatever. Believe me, there's a name for every thing you can think of.

Because it's a basic function of a music upload site? As for downloading, I try to link to something that one can download from.

I'm pretty comfortable with saying that my music is a direct result of me personally. The things that you gravitate towards certainly show up, if abstractly; maybe not so much on the interests/personality side.

Most schools have a music program. Most of these schools don't require a whole lot to get in, and though won't wow someone with their prestige, will learn ya a thing or two. My school required nothing of me but a willingness to learn. EDIT: But to be 100% fair, it's not hard to be able to get by with chords and whatnot on piano or guitar or whatever your poison is, and being able to follow what's going on on a given instrument is pretty key.

Not my own, but have guided me immensely: "Two musicians coming together to play a piece of music has to be interesting, even if the results are not in themselves a great piece of music. The way they find to work with each each other say something about music....Even if it's not working in completed music terms, the process is one of the most interesting listening experiences you can get." - Derek Bailey "Here we are: Kagel, 'Improvisation Ajoutée.' I bought this when I was about 15. Still marked: got it at Sam Goody in September, for 98 cents. And it's a really crazy piece, with the guys screaming and hooting, something that attracted me. I was over at my friend's house, and he really liked the Rolling Stones. And I just got this record, and I put it on and he looked at me like... who the hell are you? Are you out of your mind? And his mother was there, and she was like [puts palm on cheek] my God, take this off... and right then and there, I decided: this was the music." - John Zorn

Late to the party. Criticism is what it is. Clearly you can't sit there and pore over every minor thing ("oh, well, you missed a note here and that just RUINS the piece") but taking it into account is always wisest. The worst criticism to me is "I don't get it" or outright dismissal. If someone won't play in your sandbox, why are they looming over it? On the other hand, I don't "get" a lot of music, and some people might want to hear that. Also, I'm all about getting detailed, biting criticism, even if I'm done with the piece -- if they put that much time into it, the least I can do is hear them.

They're accepting until 11/25 http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6f8b7ba57c036104cb5d36c75&id=46127ae1a3 They accept all music, but know they're hipsters and are looking for fully-formed works, basic MIDI of a symphony may not cut it. Free submission and they actually tell you your status. They don't have too much to base off of, but here's their link http://www.interrobangzine.com/music-video/.

Nice find. Satie has always been a bit of a trickster, and Dada was a great way to own some of the complaints about modernistic music.

Just having a website isn't enough. You have to, OMG, market it. Also, a modicum of SEO knowledge probably would help. An ad (which is what your website is) is great and all, but if an ad is great and no one sees it, does it make a sound?

How does that describe it, though, if you don't know about Debussy's music by name? Yes, labels glom things together that might not always mesh. Genres are imperfect, and subject to having a solid argument to keeping them together that may or may not be true. Histories aren't perfect, interpretations are worse. I think of the concept of "blue notes" in ignorance of similar things in Appalachian folk in the standard history of blues/jazz is a bit bunk; that doesn't mean that it's not a solid history to start from. Same thing with any general term.

TIL: Penderecki is still doing shows. WIth Aphex Twin and that guy from Radiohead.

I'd say form isn't just notes, though. Using other aspects as structural elements is muy 20th/21st cent.

Every major show, 4/year - 1 big crowdpleaser. 1-2 Local contemporary artists. 1 "deep album track" from a 2nd or 3rd tier great (Scriabin, Sibelius, Les Sixes, Big Five etc.), 1 lecturer on unifying theme of show. (2-3 hour show.) Monthly - Large chamber show, 2-4 pieces to reinforce the themes from past/future major show, focusing on one big name and one local artist. (1-2 hr) Weekly - Local artist night. (45-90 min) Oh well i guess that's not quite the droids you were looking for. Cut that in thirds for 6-week schedule.

I must seriously be missing something. a) the point of using any source material is to distort it. b) how the F*** can one simultaneously condemn the fact that the music doesn't resemble the source while condemning the source material as inferior. Whatever, it's all for the lulz amirite?

What are you defining as "pop?" My course on American Pop centered largely on folk music, which might not help. Also, Lady Gaga and Frank Sinatra are two totally different things (or are they?). Based on this:http://www.soundjunction.org/popularsongsince1960.aspa?NodeID=321 it sounds like its the "blues & jazz" history they're teaching. Basically, make some stereotypical "rock" music and you're set. I'd say mine what you know about music outside of music classes.