FUTURE MUSIC

Your music sounds just like something mozart would have written. You are a classical composer hahahahahahahah. you loser.

I enjoy 4'33". It is part of my daily life. When I stop and think that I am listening to it, I am a better person.

I too am unable to open his files...would somebody email at least one to me? (kfarad@email.com)

Asher-you are a fuckin idiot, you know that?

Read what I said to you in the "Music Theory" thread... (especially the part about laziness) I don't feel like repeating it... which seems to be what has been going on here in a cycle for hundreds of fuckin messages.

"You can't sincerely believe that these recent pieces are my own.

Well, of course, I did create them, but that is beside the point."

I take this quote as concrete proof of Ash Pagewizard's insanity.

P.S. Are you George Bush?

No, don't stop laughing! I have more ammo!

You diss scales and arpeggios yet again. With no explanation for why you use nothing BUT scales and arps in you second piece (the one after the endless one).

"I never implied that past composers had no skill."

I'm sorry, but the straight answer to this one is, yes you did. Anyone willing to go back and find the quotes? No time now, must push on...

"I hope that it is blatantly clear for you that I am capable of composing anything that I wish to."

Isn't any composer? However what you *choose* to compose is quite different.

"I see about every classical piece rambling on or repeatedly doing the same little things."

Here is blatant misunderstanding (to borrow your word). The POINT of classicism is those little recaps. This embeds the motive in the listener's mind. Then development expands the motive, revealing new tonal landscapes to the listener. Constant moving from landscape to landscape, without a firm anchor to hold on to, has an unsettling effect, revolutionary or no, and tends to lose the listener's interest....

"Even though I find it monotonous many times to compose works for your favorite style, I do it anyway to prove my point."

You know, I honestly believe this is a straight lie. You did not compose these works "for us". Between this and your so-called "real" music (you quickly made the distinction, I see, to prevent us from picking any more holes in your "fake" music) I detect a certain thread, a certain style in common. These three works are all yours. Disowning them won't help you argument, either :-)

"Hopefully, I will be able to develop more superficial structure to my future works so people like you, and many others, will have nothing to quibble about."

No, please don't! I like quibbling! Anyway, you stated at the beginning that you hated people who fitted their work to a certain "crowd". Yet another disjoint in your logic.

Ash, I beg pardon. As yet I've never posted music on the board. I will soon, though. I'm working on a few modern pieces I'm sure you'll love.

"All your files are titled just like classical works, have the same instruments as classical works, and sound just like classical works."

Whereas the same applies to all your works, except they have modern popular music titles and have modern popular instruments.

I do hope you got that.

Essex? How charming! I'm the Duke of San Francisco (remember when we gave ourselves noble titles! hehehe!)

"All your files are titled just like classical works, have the same instruments as classical works, and sound just like classical works. I agree, my new files do sound like classical works, but I did that on purpose."

Then please do show us some pieces which you didn't create especially "for us". Not only does making these pieces revoke your grandiose philosophy, it also can't possibly shake us out of this dangerous complacency we've fallen into, full of the "filth" of music... :-)

No, seriously. Please show us some of your "real" pieces. I do want to hear them.

Beeri, please don't swear.

2B cont....

I too love 433. I played it once for a group of my musical friends (mostly vlns and clrnts.) They were, to put it mildly, very shocked. They had quite a gap in their musical history between Beethoven and Blink-182. Cage was a new name to them. However they instantly (like all good musicians) saw its possibilities and strengths. As "thinking" music Cage is actually one of the best composers. (I distinguish "thinking" from "playing" music - IE Mozart etc....)

OK people, I know Ash's posts are ridiculously and unnecessarily long, but please read them carefully before you respond so that we avoid confusion.

Ash, I'm sure you realize that if you are trying to convince us or make us see something, you most work within the framework of our viewpoints. It makes no sense to tell us what you see repeatedly (from your viewpoint) because we cannot see that. You say that the two pieces you posted are not at all like the other. Well from our viewpoint they're not much diiferent from your first one, with the exception of length and instrumentation. None of them carry 'depth' (once again from our viewpoint). Your attempt to practically prove something has failed because, I hate to say it, you are somewhat one tracked in your viewpoint, and you refuse to see anything else another way.

You also say that we judge you from one sample of music. Sorry hon, but we are judging you on eveything you say in relation to that one piece of music. And frankly, they are quite contradictory (once again, from our viewpoint).

Another thing you say is that the message conveyed in your samples is very clear. Well, I hope I'm making you see that the message is clear FOR YOU, but not anyone else.

Like John Bouz (who's really cute BTW :-)), I respect your opinion, but what is making people hostile is your ignorance to what you don't agree with. It's OK not to agree with something, but it helps to know what that something is. And honey, ya don't know much!

and Cage is jam packed with coolness

[This message was deleted]

Everyday, this website becomes less about music. When I first came here I learnt so much but now, in most messages, I dont think that anybody is learning anything. There are a few people here that are ruining it. Can you please try to be a bit more considerate? Many good composers are leaving this website for that reason and the only people who will be left will bWaltere the people to treat this site like entertainment not an opportunity to learn from others.

Ash, thanks for sending me concept I enjoyed it. It is difficult to explain but here it goes: It is the type of music that university professors wouldnt like. Of course, since university professors teach the music of the past, they get so bogged down in their way of thinking that they can not recognize the great new music. It is a beautiful composition but people will expect it to be in a certain style. They will pick out the differences between the styles (between the style of this

piece and that of a baroque piece) and use that as an excuse not to like it. To enjoy it you must

not be overly involved with any period of music and you cant expect to hear what seems to be predictable. It doesnt follow the rules, and because it doesnt, the listener makes a remote connection with other music (in this case I think it 125is baroque music) to enjoy it. Because this is a remote connection, the feelings we get from it are unexplainable, two sided, and abstract. Dont change it at all. Believe it or not, this baroque composition reminds me of some of Cages early work and Erik Saties music. They both arent tied down to any particular style.

Just one suggestion: To make it even more special I would try to liberate it from certain traditional chord progressions, or harmonies, even more. In other words, I would set up more contradictions between older styles of music and this piece. I think that this would lead to the creation of more abstract emotions.

The only problem, as far as I can see, with 433 is that it's a tad long. Why 433? Why not, say, 145?

Sorry, I was rambling. Back to the point!

Chris, I can understand your viewpoint on our discussion - extreme tolerance for everybody. That's the way we all were 133 messages back (except one, but that's a minor point). But when you're in a debate, it's probably not supposed to go like this.

"Other music stinks. Mine rocks because I'm revolutionary. Join me."

"What are your revolutionary ideas?"

"Well, I don't really have any but I'll cover up by spewing a whole message full of garbage about "rejecting" a past it's obvious I know absolutely nothing about besides guitar training. Cool, no?"

"Well, can we see your music?"

"Sure, here's some."

"Dude, this is not music. It's a chord progression repeated 99 times. If you think you can fool us into thinking this music has depth by repeating it endlessly, you're wrong. Maybe you have some revolutionary message, but we doubt it. Most of us think you can't write."

"That's harsh! You just can't understand my music. You're all like mice, being trained how to write. I reject that because I know nothing about it. Therefore my ignorance breeds contempt. I also reject anything else I can't possibly get my hands on."

"Oh, THIS is why you rejected good music?"

"Ok, Ok, enough sarcasm. I'll let you see two more pieces."

"You reject scales and arpeggios yet your first piece is nothing but. You reject classical styles yet your second might be ANY classical composer."

"I have no answer to your quite well-formed points, so I'll pretend I haven't heard them and repeat, for the 99th time (maybe this is why he writes like that!), a whole spiel about rejecting the past and training mice. I don't give squat that we've already poked numerous holes into my theory. It's my punctured lifeboat in the big wide sea of actual MUSIC!"

This whole debate has been me and others puncturing Ash's theories one after another, and him denying furiously that we proved anything. It's frustrating when you're in a debate and the other guy won't back down when theories look like they were overrun by the Germans at Arles (a bit of poetic metaphor: IE riddled with bulletholes). It's also frustrating debating with a parrot.....

Bouz, you made a great point while I was doodling away composing (haha) my first message. I have no argument with Ash's music. Duddly old anachronism that I am, it's not precisely to my taste, but it does show some skill and effort (I am speaking of the second two). What I'm arguing with is his arguments... which by now are quite argued out..

John- that's actually what I like about this website-- it's not only music but also the issues surrounding it. And all the personalities are great fun.

al- LOL! OK, now I am sure this is a joke.

Yes, it is not the music itself that is under hot lights, but the Ash's philosphies and his music together.

John, what piece did he send you, out of curiosity?

I'd be interested to know how it's a joke... I don't like his music, but really there's no bones to pick with it, except for the first one, and the fact that everything that's come out of his mouth so far is basically schizophrenia if everything he composes is like this...

Christopher, he sent me concept 1.

A few days ago i met someone and talked to them for quite a long time. At the end of our conversation i started to notice that person making facial expressions very similar to the ones that I did previously. That person mimicked me. I have also done this. Sometimes, i will catch myself using the same words or phrase as someone else. This probably meant that i, subconsciously, wanted to be a part of a group, be normal, or accepted (although, now i consciously try not to do this and i couldn't care less who thinks Im normal). Other times, if there was someone that i wanted to be like or whom i respected i would mimic them slightly.

well it's a joke cuz it's so fuckin funny!

I appreciate what John has had to say here since he seems to be the only one interested in talking about music rather than arguing in some pointless debate. I get so sick of coming here and dealing with people who do not care about creating music. You kind of people would argue with anything for the sole reason of arguing. You have no basis to criticize me or what I posted on the website. Originally, I came in here to look for real composers and musicians. It is obvious to me like most of you are not these. All of you seem to be people who enjoy being difficult for no reason at all. You were the ones who criticized me first of all. I am glad that John is truly interested in the music. The rest of you should leave this website, seriously. You have no place here insulting everything for no reason. That explains why people like myself leave this site because they are sick of talking with jerks like you. I am about to leave also. There is no point in sharing ideas with people who will always reject them. This is not a social gathering which you seem to think it is. It is about individual composition, ideas, and concepts. You belong better in some courthouse instead of here. All you have done is discourage and treat me badly both personally and musicially. You disgrace all that music was meant to be. You do not deserve to be a part of it at all. If you don't appreciate what others have to offer and you insult whatever they attempt to share, you have no purpose being so negative.

God you guys are SO SO SO PATHETIC.

Ash NEVER got personal but Beeri and Al DID AND I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID.

Just coz Ash's ideas are different to yours doesn't mean you should be so sarcastic horrible and mean.

Ash "never got personal"? No, besides incontinently labelling my music as filth when he never heard a beat of it, among other things. I'm also shocked to hear that I have no original ideas, that I copy other composers, etc etc. I don't know how Ash found all this out (sarcastically) He must have been stalking me for quite a while...

As for Beeri, I never swore or was insulting, to my knowledge. Please don't group me with him (no offense, Beeri).

This debate is not pointless. It relates directly to your music. In fact most of this debate has been me and others pointing out to you that your music doesn't follow your philosophy and you hotly denying it in full flaunting of everything you said. I suspect the debate is suddenly "pointless" because you sense (almost five days after the fact) that you are losing it.

See? Now Ash is saying I'm not a "real" composer/musician, whatever that means. I NEVER said anything like that. All I told Ash was that in order to make sense he'd either have to change his music or his philosophy. In return, he tells me I don't exist. Wierd guy.

I suppose "difficult" translates as "not agreeing with you". I told you already, come on this board with a set of ideas, however right or wrong, and be prepared for discussion and debate. You must learn that not everyone will agree with you all the time, and that sometimes those dissidents will have a *good* *point*, which you would be wise to listen to. When we criticize we usually have a good argument behind it.

Whereas you call me a jerk.

"There is no point in sharing ideas with people who will always reject them." There's no point in sharing ideas with people who will always agree, either. If your disagree-ers have been louder and more long-winded than those who agreed with you, perhaps there is a reason for that.

Ash, goodbye and good luck, and do continue to compose. I hope our debate has solidified some of your ideas and principles in your mind, so the next time you come across a promising composer you will be able to get your ideas across better.

Out of the goodness of my heart I'll ignore your parting shots. You have a right to be angry. You don't have a right to be bitter. I said, and will continue to say, that those criticisms we did make are extremely valid. Please ignore the people who yelled or swore at you, but do store away in your mind the advice and criticisms of those who were more calm. Either you had some great ideas and were completely incapable of getting them across, or your music was hypocrisy compared with your philosophies and principles.

Some examples:

I still don't understand why you hate composers who "please a crowd" when you supposedly composed some "classical" pieces just to please us.

I also don't understand why you supposedly reject "old" styles, yet your "Celebration" is nothing but a very typical chord progression repeated 99 times.

Or why you hate "rapid arpeggios and scales", while your second piece consists of nothing but these.

Or how you could possibly judge my music if you've never heard it.

Or why you don't think we "deserve to be a part of it all", yet you come on to this site and try to indoctrinate us with your "originality".

Or why you have such a hatred for old styles and for theory, when we gave you valid reasons for their value and worth.

I suppose these questions, to which I don't have answers, will remain unanswered. Some of them have already been pointed out to you, and you evaded answering each one. I don't know why and I won't voice my thoughts on this subject since it's obvious my words are wasted.

Good luck.

I see what you mean sort of ... I think I will not visit this thread any longer as its turning ugly.

Nor will I. This is my last post. Goodbye, all. We'll leave this one to posterity.

P.S. Do you realize I have to wait half a minute for my scroll bar to shrink when I open up the whole discussion? We wrote way way way too much... my computer half freezes... :-)

I do not care if you do not visit this thread anymore. I did not write "classical" compositions to please you. It was only so that you would respect my ideas. "A Celebration" is not an old style. "A Celebration" is more than a chord progression and addresses more ideas than you think it does. Maybe you should look deeper into something you dismiss as superficial and repetitive. I never have any "style" in mind when I create anything of my own. I never said I hate scales and arpeggios,I only said that they are the only thing which makes up any classical work therefore causing many classical works to be predictable. Why don't you supply some of your music so I can listen? I never tried to indoctrinate any of you, I only posted a message. The fact that you object to everything leads me to believe that you do not deserve to be part of it. You gave me no reasons for the old theories value or worth. All you have done is ramble on about how they have been used before. And no your questions were not unanswered. It is obvious to me that you do not pay much attention to what you read. You seem to assume things which I have never said or reinterpret what I am saying. Your words are wasted when you insult and degrade others. No, the point of this site was not to mock and upset others. The purpose was to share ideas and concepts of composition. That was what I originally did. That is not what you have done since the beginning of this thread.