Jump to content

AngelCityOutlaw

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by AngelCityOutlaw

  1. There is a bit of both involved in it. It kinda creates a feedback loop. Incoming longpost: I kinda talk about this in my thread on here about the deification of Film/Game composers, and I have had a number of (disappointing) discussions with composers, even very successful ones, IRL and online. On a number of occasions, I have talked with trailer music composers and the like who literally cannot fathom the idea of music not simply being a "product" but something more important than just a tune that fits the latest Marvel trailer. I have had many conversations with musicians who believe that a musician's skill can purely be measured in how many soundcloud or youtube followers you have, unaware of the fact that the most popular music YouTubers are often just hot girls with patreons and modest musical skill. Everyone wants to be an "epic" composer because that's where the money is and having your track in the trailer/game/movie is like this big status booster, because so many people are hooked on these products and even incorporate it into their identity. For example, for years I was a part of another forum called OCReMix, and I have a few remixes that were on their albums and YouTube channels and such — some of them have 10s of thousands of views, I think. Some guy even made a guitar hero play-through of one. While I really liked the community there, the one negative thing I can say is that a lot of people had too much attachment to "video game music" in particular (because they were super attached to video games) and it is my opinion that the site frankly has leveraged that consumerism against the musicians. Like, a few years ago, I remember there was this big blow up when it was found out that the owner of the site monetized all of the thousands of remixes on their YouTube channel (a service they do not pay for) and had intentionally avoided telling the community about that change for 3 whole months and his defense was "nobody noticed." As you might expect, at first, this sent the community into a rage, but the Admin was able to easily dispel by spinning some yarn about how it was going to make the site better and enable them to better realize their "mission" in spreading the love and cheer of video game music (I guess) and that he intended to file for the site to become a non-profit organization. They have since become a non-profit, going about whatever their crusade supposedly stands for, and that means that any excess money not used for "operating costs" (of which they have very little) goes back to furthering that cause. The Admin, who just finished admitting he deceived the entire community, expects you to believe that he does not make any money of this endeavor he's been building for most of his adult life. Now, all of the remixes past and present, which were created for fun by fans and do not generate them money, are pulling in ad revenue not just for OCReMix (via a platform it does not cost them to upload to) but a portion also goes to all of the video game publishers who own the music, and are multi-million or billion dollar, global corporations all while the musicians make nothing. The community is now not just fine with it, but many champion it as something virtuous because they see these games as a part of their very identity as a musician, but in reality — they're just being exploited. Giving once free but now paid advertising to global corporations via music remixes that can never truly be theirs. I once got into a heated argument with the community about why we should place more value on our OWN compositions than on covers of video game tunes. Music which, while certainly has a lot of good stuff, was ultimately made to be attached to something that was meant simply to sell, sell, sell. It is not of the same origin as something like Beethoven or Grieg, and their connection to PEOPLE. The one musician who first brought this whole monetization fiasco to the community's attention, and was a respected member of the community with more posted remixes than anyone for a long time, was quickly turned on by the community and banned for opposing the Admin's decisions. To most of those people, music is at its best when it's a part of a consumer product; consumer products that their fandom of, forms an integral part of who they are as not just musicians, but people. It's sad. When you say "composer" to most modern people, they think of all the mini Hans Zimmers working on the next movie or they think of old guys who make a bunch of weird, abstract art music they don't like and doesn't resonate with them. But when you sit in on say, a really-great Celtic folk music performance: And you just are awestruck by the performances, the catchy and soaring melodies, how well crafted the whole piece is, how everything falls into place so perfectly and both layman and expert alike are inspired by its beauty and genius — it is the same as one feels gazing upon the Neuschwanstein Castle or one of the Japanese castles while the cherry blossoms are in full bloom, at the Chapel in Notre Dame, or standing before a Bernini sculpture or Bryullov painting — even though the name of the composer of the piece may be lost to history, it's beauty endures and it still burns with the unique spirit of the people who created it, and still brings them together and inspires them forever. THAT is what it's supposed to be about — and avant-garde noise and drone music, or meaning/formless splatter paintings, and a cross dumped in urine will never be able to be that kind of positive force.
  2. That...doesn't really have anything to do with it, no. But you don't deny that you are? Centrism is ultimately not sustainable because it involves a fairly-equal acceptance of two diametrically-opposed philosophies. So you wind up being an enemy to both sides of the coin. Inevitable, as you say. I don't think that's irrelevant at all, and that's kinda my whole point. The way things were in the past, the "role" of artists and such, as they were, were upheld up until a very recent point in history, and they were upheld for very good reasons and the bad things were frowned and kept out of certain places in culture for good reason as well. It didn't really have to be "enforced" either.
  3. Weimar Republic, which we resemble more every day. The part of his post that you quoted is an extremely common, perhaps the most common, Orwellian trick. Redefinition, and that is also what has happened to the arts and music. The modernists redefined it as something nonsensical. "Anything is X" and therefore nothing is. Freedom is slavery, war is peace. Don't think of it like "X"...think of it like, "Y"!
  4. Well, yes, in that post I was mostly speaking about artschools and architects, but The subject of (post)modernism in music education has often been the subject of academic papers https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195394733.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195394733-e-021 and some actually lament there is not ENOUGH modernism in music education https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/postwar-modernism-and-the-music-classroom-2090-2719-1000113.php?aid=69695 So this kind of thing definitely exists in music as well and you see it a lot in communities like this where people love to argue about how "subjective" everything allegedly is. There is also the matter that a lot of the biggest relativists in music today are those who went through these programs. JJayBerthume, popular music YouTuber, appears to have been a casualty too. He recently graduated with a degree in composition, but his music has become inexplicably worse. He used to compose a lot of really colourful and fun tunes; strong and memorable melodies that one could identify just by its rhythm (as with so many great tunes), tasteful wind flourishes and runs, busy but never in-the-way accompaniment, etc. Since graduating though, a lot of his uploads appear to be a lot more meandering string pieces that form a lot of weird harmonies and don't necessarily sound "bad" but would no doubt most impress Mahler and Shoenberg-obsessed professors. As many of the professors I know in the music faculty in Canadian colleges and universities are. There are also plenty demanding that Western Music Pedagogy be purged from universities because it is "white supremacy". https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/teaching-inequality-consequences-of-traditional-music-theory-pedagogy/ I recall as well, several years ago on OCRemix, a music student going on a hilarious rant about how the definition of "chord" is racist and needs to be purged from his school so that it can be "more inclusive to other cultures which did not have tertian harmony"
  5. Except for what you say about all of this is objectively false. I don't know specifically who you are, but "we" as in white western people, the people whose ancestors created the bulk of the art we're specifically talking about right now, are absolutely not more numerous in number than 200 years ago. Birth rates have been negative for decades now. We used to have 4 children per woman, now about 4 cats per woman. The population growth is only due to foreign immigration and they usually have above-replacement rates...though like I said, it affects everyone. East Asia, South America... The other aspect is, as I have pointed out in those surveys in those posts that Monarcheon deleted, as much as 80% of people agree that modern art and such, really sucks. The main thing here though, is that modern relativists control literally all of academia and political power. They are the people making the decisions and the ones "educating" all the future generations, and have been for the better part of 100 years now. I'd recommend everyone in this thread to read "The Decline and Fall of Western Art" by Brendan Heard, who has a master's degree in art. In it, he explains the history of all this modernist nonsense and how, during his studies, students who showed real artistic skill was berated to the point of tears for showing said artistic skill. This mirrors the experiences of most art students I know, and also my own experiences in college with their music programs. People who are going to get educations in the arts and architecture are not learning the kinds of skills and aesthetics of our ancestors. If you want to learn how to paint as well as the renaissance painters did, you will have to learn mostly on your own, because a lot of this stuff is just a couple pages on a text book now that are treated as things that "had their time" and we're "better™" now. In fact, great works of art are openly defaced by academia because they're "racist" and represent "colonialism", apparently. Abstract expressionism championed in their stead. https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/university-of-notre-dame-christopher-columbus-murals-trnd-style/index.html And as I said: No one goes to artschool wanting to paint like Kandinsky. They go because they want to become like the great painters of old. They are not getting this. Where I live, all the houses in this new(ish) bloc — I remember when they were built. If I wanted to build a half-timber house or something cool like that, I legally could not because the city planners are all modernists. The houses all had to be built with either stucco or siding, only a certain amount of brick on either sides of the garage, no more than about 3/4 meter high, and only certain colors allowed. So first off, it would not be even permitted to build a house that goes outside of those schematics. Even if it were, I could not find a construction company that could build something traditional around here because architects are not taught how to do it. Once again, old, ornamented buildings are delegated to being a part of architectural history that is now an irrelevant dinosaur. If there is a company out there who could build older, European houses in my area, they would specialized and charge tons of money. People in the media, academia and politics freaked out when Trump said he wants new government buildings in America to be built in the classical style, something which the Atlantic considers a "bizarre" desire and, of course, said was "fascist" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/trumps-plan-make-architecture-classical-again/606286/ There is also, once again, the matter that in the past, why were artists, musicians, etc. not competing against abstract nonsense? Because everyone knows it was garbage and not worthy of being integrated into the architecture, hung up in art galleries or played in concert halls. Bad bards and street musicians were booed off their makeshift stages and told to practice more. So to say to the effect that the standards haven't "really" plummeted is just so obviously not true — we're surrounded by the truth of our decline every day — that it's kind of comical. You were worried about "authoritarianism" to uphold standards. Except the reality is: There is an authoritarian suppression of them.
  6. Yeah, it's just literature. Artspeak meant to dazzle and confuse; to turn one against their instinctual reaciton. Indeed. I remember Alma popping up on some other forums and she triggered some serious boomer rage. The main criticism was the Greenbergian Jargon favorite of "it has nothing to say™" a meaningless statement unto itself, but these people can never seem to explain exactly how music is made better by these trite games of trying to figure out the puzzle of what the composer is "saying". The best part of that, I notice, is that it is generally the same people who believe "good and bad" are subjective, who will denounce composers as bad for not having enough "to say", because while quality is supposedly subjective, the "meaning" of a piece apparently is tangible, we're all just too dumb to see it, and therefore it must logically be objective... It's almost like those people are relativists when and where it's convenient for them
  7. It's not that people don't believe in objectivity in general, the pervasive nature of scientism proves that. Science supposedly deals with the objective, and so it has taken the place of religion for many today. You see this every day now to the point it's a meme: A guy in a labcoat or someone with a degree on TV can say literally the most insane things, and people believe it because of the objectivity of "science". What this leads people to believe is that no objective value judgement can exist, because everything is just brain chemicals and neurons firing, and so none of this really matters; the consequence of viewing everything as a mechanics of nature is a complete lack of standards and even morality. Don't feed your kids because you want to just play video games? Perfectly valid choice, because nothing really matters and it's just biology that makes most people value kids more. Paint some lines and shapes in a random pattern with period blood? Just as good as anything else, because our reactions are all in the mind and so none of it is really real anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9637619/young-brits-life-lacks-purpose/ That is ultimately what feeds this idea of "there is no good or bad" and art and music are made to reflect that as well now, because aspiring to high standards and the aesthetics of the past civilizations tends to pull one out of that nihilism and appeals to people's higher spirits and idealism. and that's the last thing the corporate elite want you to have, because people with a sense of pride and seeking something more and better don't make for good consumerist worker drones.
  8. Nice. My great-oma could speak 8 languages but I think if one can learn to speak Polish, they can learn to speak anything. See, the fundamental area where we're simply not going to agree is the idea that work itself is "superficial" What about disgust? Disgust is very much an emotional response. Jars of human poo, paintings with menstrual blood and a cross thrown in urine are disgusting to most normal people, but it counts as being emotionally moved. Just out of pure shock value. Do you really feel that such criteria is enough to bestow a jar of human excrement with a title once reserved for the likes of the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, The Fifth Symphony, or Notre Dame? Further, under this idea, it is possible for literally anything to be art. You actually have a Schrodinger's cat situation whereby something is only art if it is reacted to. Must the reaction be visible? How many reactions must it get, and from whom, before enough have been moved to say "this is art now"? I understand that, but your idea goes against all of our ancestors ideas on art. How can we be sure that your idea is a better one, in light of that?
  9. Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache. More like noise, right? Serialism is essentially the musical embodiment of the authoritarian egalitarianism found in all of modernity. It is essentially seeking to make all of the notes of equal importance.
  10. This is an aside, but I always find it interesting so: Most linguists agree that Norsk (modern Norwegian) is the easiest-second language for a native English speaker to learn and vice versa, as the the syntax and grammar are very similar and a lot of the English vocabulary is taken from old Norse. My own experience with it would seem to confirm this is true. I suspect if one even put six months of serious practice to it, they could speak conversational Norsk. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/easiest-languages-for-english-speakers-to-learn
  11. Again though, there is just nothing about this which is fundamentally different from modernism. Also, what you describe in the bolded part is again "conceptualism" So then why should "art" made by humans that can also be made by monkeys (who cannot have ideas on art) be seen as having any value? Does that not indicate that the person would also be absent-minded? Beauty is often born out of high-concept, but concept alone is not beautiful, though. To quote Aristotle: "Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high-intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution." Well, there are two things about this: First, is that it seems to resemble artspeak. What exactly does it mean if a piece "moves"? What must it "bring about"? How do we know if a work has done this? The second is that, the idea that art should be beautiful and culturally affirmative were the ideas that were prevalent across cultures since the beginning of time. It is only around the 20th Century that, thanks to guys like Greenberg and Kandinsky, that this idea was rejected and art itself was redefined into these more abstract concepts like "to move". To accept that your opinion is the correct one is to accept that the entirety of our previous civilization was invalid.
  12. I do not believe we are talking about subjective judgement at all. Picasso's inferiority to Bryullov, for example, is quite visceral and apparent. Music and art are not supposed to be ugly. To champion the deformed, the ugly, the abstract is to be anti-art. That is a perfectly sensible claim, as only the skilled can make something beautiful but even monkeys can make the ugly and the nonsensical https://gawker.com/5776710/1-in-3-art-students-cant-tell-famous-paintings-from-paintings-by-monkeys
  13. It's not. Modernism only showed up around the 20th Century, and truly began with Kandinsky and then spread out of painting and brought this abstract expressionism to other arts. As I said earlier, modernists in academia assimilate some earlier movements into their definition in an effort to make it look like these squiggles with paint, serialist and expressionist noise, and monolithic glass towers were an organic movement and the natural evolution of the arts. However, when you look at guys like Clement Greenberg (who invented this Artspeak stuff back when), you realize that all this was a consorted effort to undermine local traditions and standards. We are taught to believe that our ancestors would look upon us with envy for these glass towers, kiddie paintings and noise music as though it were some achievement that built upon what they started, even though it is entirely antithetical to, and dismantled everything they did. Kandinsky was literally the first modernist. All modernism is derived from abstract expressionism and conceptualism. John Cage's 4'33 or "Lights off and On" are examples of conceptualism because they put concept above the work itself. In fact, there is no work — you're supposed to be in awe at the "concept" of it all. A great deal of now-old composers' works (and many contemporary ones too) are abstract expressionism. There is no real theme or melody, no obvious rhythmic flow, etc. just meandering lines, stabs, swells, trills, clusters and chords which don't even really resemble music but rather directionless orchestral noise in some kind of soup, and it's all supposed to "mean" something; it allegedly represents some vague, abstract concept. Both of these ideas are the polar-opposite of tradition. How does it decrease quality? Because it eschews all the craft that we know makes an aesthetic piece, and this was perfected after hundreds, if not thousands of years. According to any research I can find on it, the most-performed composers by Orchestras are, in order: Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky. Mahler, Schoenberg and his cronies don't even make the top ten lists. Interesting that these three composers are also the most-popular among the average person, around the world, centuries after their deaths. In the same way that, centuries after they were built, people from all across the world still flock to the great castles and cathedrals of Europe. They still pack classical art museums to look upon the works of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Donatello and the like, while modern art museums are laughed at the world over and usually sparsely populated with art students, hipsters and money launderers. I can absolutely deny both of those things, just as I can deny Kandinsky or Van Gogh's skill in painting. If one is incapable of creating something beautiful, then it is because they do not have the knowledge and practical skill to create it. Modernists are, by necessity, enamored with Scientism The logical consequence of the destruction of objective beauty standards. Which is exactly what modernism (abstract expressionism) did. All three of the above are exactly the same thing: Modernity. "Post-modernism" is not real; it was a term invented in the 60s to make it appear as though there had been an advancement in modernism. "Post-modernism" claims that it deals with the idea that no objective value judgement can be made "because all is relative", but it is this very solipsism which characterizes all modernists works. Anyone who claims this is not the case should be asked to provide examples of "post-modern" works and compare them against "modern" ones and see if anyone can actually spot a difference. How come in the Renaissance, and for centuries, musicians were not competing for public performance against those who just made noise? How come the painters weren't having their works strung up next to "paintings" made by monkeys, or abstract lines and shapes? How come Bernini's sculpture was never next to a pile of metal poolnoodles arranged in a random order into a block of cement? Because everyone in their time knew that such "works" were of low-quality and not worthy of the exhibit or even the label of "art".
  14. Modernists seek to "progress" past traditions and revel in the "new" and the movement that defined this was abstract expressionism and by extension, conceptualism. So the modernism definition isn't vague. Anything that deals primarily in expressionism and conceptualism are modernist. Mahler? Definitely. Also disagree about concessions in quality. Would take most of his predecessors over Mahler any day. Strauss? Depends on which we're talking about. There is also the fact that modernists, in textbooks, often try to assimilate earlier movements which were visibly/audibly "different" from the norms of the predecessors' works, but still rooted in their traditions, as "modernist". For example, art textbooks will tell you that Art Noveau and Romanticism were "modernism". Absolutely not. Art Noveau Romanticism Kandinsky. The first true modernist, and abstract expressionist. The difference here is obvious in that the first two examples are great and require no explanation to recognize the artist's skill and beauty of the works, which clearly are in line with the previously established craft and traditions: and the last is meaningless blobs that a child could paint, although to be perfectly honest — children generally possess greater artistic talent in that they can at least make something that resembles the world around them and which adults will recognize. It is those which are like the Kandinsky work which are modernist. Likewise in music: Mozart and Vivaldi's works are much like the former two examples, where as Schoenberg's noise is the auditory equivalent of the Kandinsky work.
  15. The goal of all modernism is to destroy European culture by redefining it as something nonsensical. Well, they intend that for everyone, but they especially hate European culture. There is actually no such thing as "post" modernism. That was just a term invented in the 60s to make it look like their was some actual development to modernism, instead of stagnation. What most people alive today do not realize, is that this "modern art" stuff is over a century old, and is basically the same as it ever was. These profiteering middle-men showed up in the late 1800s and early 1900s and sought to replace local traditions with mass-produced goods and free trade. Nationalism, the existence of different peoples and cultures with their own identities, and objective quality differences between and within them is bad for international business because nations will be self-reliant and attached to their own output instead of yours. High quality standards mean that the thing takes time to learn to even make in the first place. "Modern" anything is easy to make a lot of quickly, and does not appear to have been made by any people in particular. The fact that everywhere has its own unique, local, home-cooked cuisine is bad for McDonald's; the fact that Iran, Germany and Norway all have their own traditional clothing made by locals and passed down through the family means it's difficult for Adidas and Nike to make sales...unless they can tear out those peoples' roots. This permeates every aspect of society now, to the point that major cities in the world are no longer easily-distinguishable from each other. Ideally, they want people to be indistinguishable from each other entirely, so that no one will have any loyalty to anything — because there's nothing unique among them — but consumer products. The modernists have made it so that "fascism", "sexism", "racism", and the other -isms and -ists are understood to be the worst labels that can possibly be applied to anyone (even though our ancestors never seemed to cross-examine themselves in this fashion) and so they can use it to browbeat anyone who expresses and interest in upholding the high-standards and uniqueness of our past cultures so as to dissuade people from rejecting their modernist, mass-produced junk. You will notice that most "Individuality" today is totally determined by loyalty to certain brands. Do you ever notice how all of these hardcore YouTube "individualists" rooms they film in are adorned with action figures, movie posters, video games, plastic figurines and they're always wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with some corporate logo? Perhaps a metal band logo or Captain America shield? The weakest people of society eat all this stuff up because it is sold to them as "equality"; which doesn't exist in nature. If we accept the obvious truth that Bryullov really was a better painter than Kandinsky, it means that our work may be judged to be inferior to someone else's too. It takes a lot of effort to be good at something, and not everyone has it in them to BE good at a particular thing. So, when you offer to lower standards/the playing field, when you say that some paint thrown at a canvas is "just as good" as Bryullov, or some random notes on a keyboard is just as good as Mozart because of "it's all subjective" solipsism — the least-skilled people in society will eat that up because it offers them a chance to play too in a field they otherwise couldn't compete in. But as we see, the result is ugliness, sameness, and cultural decline.
  16. Adding chords to an existing melody will usually result in a stronger melody because it's not being affected by a pre-determined harmony. Start with a harmony first and you will tend to follow the chord tones already there.
  17. Frankly, it is about politics as much as it is about money. I think that the "money" aspect is more prominent in music, especially instrumental music, though. The more artspeak caters to liberal politics, the more praise you will get. Just look at the Hollywood film industry and the joke called "The Academy Awards." The award for best picture purely is given out based on what has the most self-elating political themes. One thing a lot of people don't remember, but I do, is that in 2016, there was this massively complaining about how the Academy Awards were "too white". At the end of the show that year, the president of the Academy, herself an African-American woman, came on stage to say that next year, they would "do better". What film won best picture at the 2017 Oscars? A film about homosexual black men, that nobody even in the audience even seemed to know (judging by their lack of reaction to it), I have never met anyone who has seen this movie, and they actually made a blunder where "La-La Land" a movie which was a musical that appears to have had superior costume design, production values, and was by most accounts a well-made musical, won initially, but was then retracted because "Moonlight" allegedly actually won... Is there anyone who actually believes this "Moonlight" film was actually a better movie? It seems to me like the Academy made good on their 2016 promise of making sure black films would get more awards. So winning an oscar comes down to just how much your film caters to Hollywood's politics, and not whether or not your movie is actually any good. Similarly, the more "subversive" and loaded with "Social Justice" your painting is, the more medals get pinned to it. Same with that Russian band "cat Riot", who have admitted they're more about protesting than actual music. Lauded by plenty of music "journalists" for their efforts... This is an essay unto itself. The thing I am most grateful for in my musical development, is that when I started, all I had was my guitar and sheet music. I did not know that DAWs and all this other stuff existed, and even if I had, there is no way that I or my family could've afforded it anyway. I had to learn how to write actual melodies, and couldn't just hold down a key in Action Strings to get an "accompaniment". I did not get my own home recording software, and virtual instruments until 2009, not long after I discovered it — and I have generally been disappointed ever since. This is why I get in so many arguments with people about how a lot of these (generally orchestral) sample libraries suck. I started writing for instruments under the expectation that real people would one day play it (and often they did in my bands), and so I have a much higher expectation of what the samples should be able to play than many people today do. Because those people have only ever known writing for samples, and therefore cannot understand why their $600 library that cannot cohesively play so much as the melody from "Jingle Bells" is over-priced and almost totally-useless, musically. Their expectations are very low. Oh, it gets worse than that. Get a load of what East West has coming out. Create "award-winning compositions in seconds" you say? Well, thank God! I was getting worried that I might have to spend more than 2 minutes to do that! This is reflective of the fact that we are now a consumption-based society and don't really do anything for ourselves anymore. To reference my earlier point about starting with just an instrument and notation — being good or eventually becoming an expert is directly tied-in to actually having to DO things in the first place. It was much the same before the fall of Rome, which — despite the tortured wishes of all those who are posting memes on Facebook right now about how "Just remember that after the plague came the renaissance" — is much more relevant to our present times. It is once again simply being a realist to point out that our present times much more closely-resemble the preceding civilization collapse into the dark ages — the Renaissance didn't happen until a thousand years later...
  18. The role of composers is supposed to be, as all the arts were before modernism, to create beauty and cultural affirmation. Today, the main thing composers are seeking to do is be a part of corporate machines and like modern artists — churn out mass-produced junk, that doubles as anti-European propaganda pieces. Unfortunately. Now it's all abstract expressionism and conceptualist nonsense. You just lay on a drone or throw some paint at a canvas, and then try to tell everyone what it "means" with some florid artspeak — it's not even music or a painting (John Cage 4 '33 anyone?) at all, it's just literature meant to dazzle and confuse until the viewer believes that their instinctual disgust is "wrong" and that they just "don't get it". The fact that this is a question shows you how far it has fallen — as in the past, the social purpose of art, music, architecture, dance, etc. was obvious. But we live in an age of the meaningless, the inane, and the ugly. One might turn to the fact that those in the hard sciences no longer see the value of art and the history of how this came to be, for answers. In the past, most men of science we also skilled artists. It was understood that just like knowledge of the sciences, skill in art and music were real things that could be taught. Christopher Wren made important contributions to meterology, astronomy and as an anatomist — yet he is most known as the architect of St. Paul's Cathedral. Though he had many other impressive works of art. In Wren's time, being a skilled architect, architects were expected to have mastery of sculpture as well. Today, they are taught that such sculptures are monuments of an evil, colonial and "oppressive" civilization that must never exist again, and instead, they are taught to build hideous glass towers and gray, Soviet Apartment blocs. Such men either do not exist today, or are extremely rare and left to passion projects. Modern scientists — with science seeking to deal in logic and objectivity — look at art today as something meaningless, largely because that's what it is; void of logic and now devoid of objective standards, opting instead to wallow in "subjective" solipsism where "anything is art" (and therefore nothing is) and so scientists now see little value in it. It depends on how one is defining "new". In the past, new works were ones which hadn't been seen before, but still fit within the established aesthetic framework of tradition. Art Noveau was new. Beethoven was new. The electric guitar was new. Since 1900, most of what is "new" in the arts, however, is that which rejects tradition and standards entirely, because where standards and traditions are to be found, so too will one find a hierarchy, and if there is a hierarchy, there is discrimination — but without such discrimination, good from bad cannot be differentiated and improvement or quality cannot exist. Do people still want new and interesting pieces to listen to? Yeah, but they also want those pieces to be good. I'm sort of repeating myself here, but it's necessary. Much contemporary music is just to serve as or aid the sale of a product. Think of all the assembly-line pop music that plays in the shopping malls. Much like with Kandinsky, Picasso, or Shoenberg's avant-garde noise music, it's all about churning out product as fast as you can, getting youtube subscribers, getting it in the next vapid Marvel movie trailer, slaving 12+ hours a day in Hans Zimmer's music factory, etc. so you can (hopefully) fill your coffers. Obviously, there is good pop music, there are still great composers for the orchestra and folk bands, but much like painters, sculptors, architects, etc. who are still good — whose works are the result of real mastery over their respective crafts — are usually banished by the elite into the realm of hobbyists. That's my answers to your questions. Hope it helps
  19. Speaking of, it definitely seems to be the case that most established composers in hollywood and the like make a serious effort to stifle any competition. Assistants basically have no chance of going anywhere anymore. There's no progression of "I started as an assistant and then became a composer in my own right" anymore, because these composers have no intention of retiring and don't want even one client to leave their grasp. So many people get to be just nameless ghost writers or Hans Zimmer factory workers at best. No matter what you do, credit goes to "the composer" and you are in a position where you will never take on any high-paying hollywood clients yourself. That has happened to everyone I know who wound up working for the big names. You do your job, and then when you can't take it anymore and quit, you will have no real career in the business. Definitely by design and i've seen some composers intentionally give n00bs "advice" that, if followed, will make sure you never move past indie-projects at best. The entire market is basically controlled by a handful of old guys.
  20. Definitely captures that early 2000s Harry Gregson-Williams vibe. Well done
  21. A new tune I composed inspired by "New Age" composers like Yanni, whose music I've long admired. Let me know what you think! Thanks.
  22. Absolutely not necessary. The speed at which samples load has less to do with PC itself and more with the drive. You'll want to use an SSD to store the sample libraries on, and stream off that. If not using an internal SSD, then you can buy external ones for ~100, just make sure it's USB 3.0 I stream all my samples (at one time the composer cloud too) from an external SSD and it all loads pretty quickly. 16 gigs of RAM and any quad-core processor from the the last five years should be all you need. However, since you're going with East West specifically, you may want to max out the RAM because, at least since I last used it, PLAY was notorious for not having a Kontakt-style "sample purge" feature, you'll basically have to load all the sample from any given instrument. In Kontakt, you can set it so that Kontakt will only load in samples as you play them. You should be able to build a PC that can do what you need for less than a 1000.
  23. I think that most people don't really remember the incidental stuff and more so remember the big themes. If one listens to even the bulk of John Williams' or Goldsmith's work on films, most of it isn't terribly memorable aside from the moments where the big themes come in or the suites at the end. I think the reasons for that are twofold: One is that there has been a serious decline in standards for all things, and music composition is one of them. The other, is that a lot of the "epic" music and such is basically because that's all the samples can really do. Probably 2 generations of composers now have grown up never really writing for real instruments (not just orchestra). I get into a lot of debates with people where I say that "these $600 sample sets actually really suck and can't handle basic repertoire", then, they get into the "I must justify my purchase" mode and fervently defend why their expensive purchase that can't even play "hot cross buns" cohesively is actually worth the money somehow. In time, I've come to realize that, their expectations of what samples should be able to do is totally different (lower) from someone like me because they don't actually have any experience with what the ensemble they're writing for can actually do. The failings of most orchestral samples is why I've begun to just avoid writing completely orchestral music entirely. I rarely watch films in the last 20 years because they're mostly just 2-hour copy-paste propaganda pieces to be honest. 😀 A mentor of mine's friend worked for Zimmer's factory and he had some horror stories. It was like, the first day on the job. He was desperate to make an impression and do good at his "dream job". He didn't want to be the last one to leave, so he waited until all the other people in the offices were gone (which took him until 6 AM). So, he packs up, and when he goes out into the parking lot, he sees that there's still a couple other cars in the lot...so he turned around and just went back to work because he was so afraid someone was more "committed than he was". Turned out the cars just belonged to the janitors. Another friend of mine worked for a very famous composer (I will not say who this composer is) and by the sounds of it, the guy was is a total psychopath. He gets angry over the most innocuous things and screams at people and throws things. He full-on plans out how every single meeting will go with a client. Like, he plans what he's going to wear and how people will react to it. What he intends to say, what he thinks they'll say, how he'll reply — total control freak. A lot of the videos that he posts online of recording sessions and stuff are actually fake and just PR things... and my friend wears all the abuse he took by this guy and the industry as a badge of honor...
  24. A lot of people out there seem to put film and game music on this pedestal; they seem to see it as like, the highest of musical honor. Everyone down to Axl Rose has gone on record saying about how much he respects film composers and wants to be one himself someday. https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/axl-rose-film-soundtracks/ As someone who has actually composed for some video games, has worked and studied with some successful film composers, etc. I don't really understand it — at the end of the day, you are just writing music for consumer products. You really are just another person in the chain, and actually pretty far down the list of production priorities. It's not like sitting in front of a screen, slaving away for 10+ hours a day and not seeing your family, or whatever else you're sacrificing on the altar of success to meet the insane deadlines is somehow "virtuous" or that your music is somehow of greater worth and "validated" because it is written for or featured in said consumer product. Even John Williams has said that he doesn't see what he does as "all that important" and says that it shouldn't consume your life. Obviously, there is plenty of great music written for films, video games, and such, but the older I get, the more confounded I become by people's deification of this music. Not from some classical elitism or anything like that (I'd much prefer most golden-age Hollywood music to most classical), but just because it doesn't really make sense. I can only assume it has to do with the out-of-control consumerism that permeates all of society; the rise of "fandom" and that pop-culture has taken the place of most authentic culture. Let me know your thoughts on this subject.
  25. Okay, well maybe not YOU specifically, but everyone who wonders — we see the topic of "originality" very often on forums like this and in composer/musician communities. Glenn Fricker recently put out this video He often laments that, specifically within the metal genre, that all the bands are sounding the same. He and his followers typically blame this on using the same gear, drum samples, and growls instead of singing. In this video Glenn argues that the next big revolution in metal is coming and people just need to wait for someone to innovate it, as they did with Sabbath, Pantera, and so on. One way, Glenn argues, that bands can sound different, is by having all the members sing and harmonize. I do not believe this will work, and is the same kind of flawed reasoning that electronica "producers" and "epic" composers use. If you take metal songs from 1980, 40 years ago, from bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden (all considered innovative for their time) and compare them against the works of many metal bands across every sub-genre since then, many pieces sound like they were all written by one person. Because the distorted electric guitar is the key ingredient in the genre, and it forces you to play in that dyadic, palm-muted style, the reality is there is only so much you can do. There is also the fact that the pentatonic scale, aeolian and Phrygian modes encompass almost the entirety of the genre. Many songs have accidentally wound up with ostensibly the very same riffs because of this. Every single song uses the same palm mutes and powerchords (very limited harmony) in the same 3 positions on the fretboard, and people actually think the reason they all sound the same is because of Superior drummer and death growls? Please. Apparently Lou Gramm and AC/DC sound terribly "different" because they have different singers... Like I said, this is the epic composer cope applied to a different genre. I've been telling guys for years to stop worrying about what samples they're using, because when you're using the EXACT SAME string osinati (alternate between third and root in sixteenth or eighth notes), the very same song-structure, legato melody, etc. it just doesn't matter who or what is playing it: You've written the same piece of music as a thousand others. Same with electronic guys: Stop worrying about using "preset" synth sounds if you're afraid of sounding like all the others. The reason you sound like all the others is because all your songs have the same four-on-the-floor kick drum pattern, the same off-beat bassline, and the same i-VI-VII progressions. For the record, I don't personally care about super "original" pieces as long as they're good and obviously, a certain amount of familiarity and tropes will exist in genres. However, if you're about the fact that your music all sounds like it could've been written by a large number of others, then it's got nothing to do with "tone" or gear, and everything to do with your composition — you're using the same rhythmic, harmonic and melodic ideas.
×
×
  • Create New...