Jump to content

SSC

Members
  • Content Count

    3,590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

Everything posted by SSC

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 The fact he notes the recapitulation is obsolete is interesting, specially since I think it's actually important still but it's something that can be done in so many different ways.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