|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Nov 29, 2011 8:16:15 GMT -5
Apparently what I said was skipped over... 3: Copypaste tiem
Hmm...
Again, I've never disagreed with you. Not at all. I simply stated my opinion. lol
If you go on your own thread, yes, your own thread, the thread that has the music theory on it, on about the second to last post, or a post above Zach's, you'll see mine, and it clearly says "Doug's got me pretty interested in theory, so I've decided to take a course on it," or something extremely close to that lol, and again, I never rejected theory, I just simply stated that it isn't a necessity to make great music.
Like I said, music theory isn't something needed to make a great composition nor a great musician. It's sort of just a plus and gives you that sort of edge, and the fact that you think we don't want to be a musician because theory isn't something we are all completely interested in... that's just ridiculous, in my opinion. lol We ARE composers... whether we use the techniques given in theory or not; last time I checked, the definition of a 'composer' wasn't "One who writes music strictly using music theory." Also, I don't want you to stop replying. This wasn't supposed to be something to get you to leave the forum... not at all. I just wanted to simply know why it seems as if you don't like any composition made by someone here? Is it because the music isn't up to your standards, or you simply just plain don't like them? lol I don't know, but honestly, that's all I'm here to find out. :/
|
|
|
Post by tobinus on Nov 29, 2011 10:37:18 GMT -5
I think most people's problem is that Doug's post didn't say "in my opinion" anywhere :/ ......aaaand when it comes to my opinion about this song, I think more coherence wouldn't hurt, but that may come from the fact that this is a piano piece. I also think it lacks something that I can remember; something special.. at the same time, that may be because of the general style of the piece and not the piece itself for all I know - not every single song in the world needs to be memorable
|
|
ohaiduhg
Trainer
The Omnipotent
Posts: 119
|
Post by ohaiduhg on Nov 29, 2011 12:10:09 GMT -5
2. Music is 100% SUBJECTIVE. There are subjective elements and artistic decisions to make it interesting, but it's based off music theory at it's core. No, it's not because if you only used theory then you wouldn't be doing anything yourself and you can argue that for a piece. Of course, better to only follow guidelines than disregard them completely. Weird you bring up remixing. It isn't your song. It's still someone else's, that someone almost certainly being someone who used music theory a lot when composing that song. @sl You still say theory isn't needed and that's the point I'm trying to get at. It's more important than you realize. I understand you are getting into it, and that's good that you are, but your general perception as of today is what I'm talking about. I hit a few chords on a piano. Doug = Chopin now. @tobi There isn't much to have an opinion on with his piece. If he actually used guidelines to his piece, then I could have an artistic disagreement and he could argue "Well in this case I like this chord here even if it doesn't function as properly as this chord. Gives it the feel I wanted." That would be perfectly okay. Have some sort of reason for it. I wouldn't mind arguing things like that, but when the whole piece is aimless, where do you start? It just wanders. But really arguing on the internet is just pointless and I'm trying to avoid being extremely repetitive. I'm going to lurk and die off here.
|
|
|
Post by TheGuitahHeroe on Nov 29, 2011 12:54:10 GMT -5
You obviously have no idea what OCRemix is about.
Quoted from djpretzel, founder of OCRemix:
Listen to ANY track on OCRemix and compare it to the original track remixed. Some of them stay pretty true to the source, and some of them you can hardly pick out the elements from the original. What they have in common is that they all are infused with original material by the remixer. It's a requirement for the site. Don't say that remixing on OCR requires no musical skill, because it does. djpretzel coined the term "ReMix" (as opposed to just 'remix') to define not only a re-instrumentation or re-mastering, but a total interpretive overhaul, and, at times, complete re-arrangement of the original piece. A good portion of the mixes on the site are actually of more than one song (possibly from more than one game as well). Don't tell me that OCRemixers aren't sufficient composers just because they remix other songs.
It seems like you're the only one who really cares. I'll say it again, people like my music, and I have fun doing it. That's good enough for me.
I really couldn't care less that you dislike my music. You have a right to dislike my music (just as I have a right to dislike yours).
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Nov 29, 2011 13:13:12 GMT -5
It's amazing how my question still hasn't received an answer. lol Anywho...
You can't necessarily say that for sure, although your argument is valid there.
I realize how important it is, but it isn't the most important thing in music. Not at all, and if it's as important as you claim, then why is it that I'm successful today on YouTube? Why do my compositions end in the thousands on occasions? Why do I constantly get comments on my videos telling me that my music sounds great? I can state a few more, but I think the point has been taken. I'm not going to say theory isn't important, but you make it seem as if music can't be made to sound great without it, and that's not true at all. Here's something... let's take Vincent van Gouh for example. He's considerably one of the greatest painters to ever walk the face of this earth, but he's wasn't trained in art. He took art classes to develop his works, but he completely ignored his teachers, and followed his own path, and continued on with his own style. Now tell me, he's not formally trained in art, but yet he's widely recognized for his works, he's one of the most influential artist of the 20-th century, and he's considerably one of the best, but that obviously debatable... so, he's not trained in his profession, but how did he rise to his fame? I think I know how... time to quote JC:
Also
That's just ridiculous. I mean, tobinus just gave a legit review of the piece, and you're telling me you can't do the same? I feel like you're letting what you've learned cloud your judgement.
|
|
|
Post by pkmnamaranth on Nov 29, 2011 18:10:22 GMT -5
I have a soft spot for piano music, this definitely doesn't disappoint!
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Nov 29, 2011 19:29:14 GMT -5
Now, I don't get this. This is a forum where [mostly] everyone is a "musician" but no one knows anything about music theory. Whenever I bring up an actual musical discussion I get called a closed minded elitist by a bunch of people who have never learned theory. I don't know if I should try and help you understand theory or get angry for how stupid your replies are. I do like discussing theory and I thought "Maybe people who claim to be composers and don't know anything but how to enter notes would like to understand how it works" I get insulted and then nobody cares. It's so backwards. I'm not trying to be elitist. It's more like assumed you would know what I'm talking about. It's weird and confusing. This is a lie. An outright lie. Absolute fallacy. You think NONE of us know anything about music theory? That's a bit outrageous, and I for one, do. You may be taking a college course or whatever, majoring in theory perhaps, idk and frankly I don't care. That doesn't give you the right to blatantly say that their piece is not music when there is clearly thought, motivation, and structure. There is no question that TGH knows theory--and I know theory, and so do TONS of others. Just because we don't have the same "depth" (call it what you will) of yours doesn't mean we don't have. And to be honest, rules can be broken. The first rule of music is that there is no true rule--there are guidelines, but hey, if you don't follow them, that's your thing. Sure, people won't always consider it music, but if you're proud of the idea and the purpose behind it, most people won't question you. Take 4'3" by John Cage--although silence (and containing no theory), it contains the core idea of music: music is a feeling, sensory, and evoking. It's not a structured format that you must copy-paste and duplicate for every peace. And not everyone is a Bach, or Chopin, or whatever, but honestly that doesn't give you the right to insult anyone else's work, especially when your own is rudimentary itself. You're not Chopin either, and despite your talk I have yet to hear an evoking piece from you.
|
|
|
Post by OverpoweredSocks on Nov 29, 2011 21:37:38 GMT -5
Reposting without some crudeness, apparently mods don't care for it </3 Y U NO LOVE ME?!
A wise man once said, Music is music, music theory is just patterns that make music gud.
YOU HAVE TECHNICIANS HERE MAKING NOISE NO ONE IS A MUSICIAN THEY'RE NOT ARTISTS BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PLAY THE GUITAR!
|
|
Pokeneon7
Trainer
[AWD:04]
70%
apprently no one gets my sarcasm on this forum...[k4r]
Posts: 192
|
Post by Pokeneon7 on Nov 30, 2011 5:02:31 GMT -5
I'm going to lurk and die off here. Do this.
|
|
|
Post by WillRock on Nov 30, 2011 18:18:36 GMT -5
TheGuitahHeroe alerted me to this thread, and I thought i'd post. I know a fair bit of music theory, up to grade 5, and although over the years my knowledge has washed out some, I know enough to understand what I need to understand in my line of work. ohaiduhg, I've been told that you're a music major, I don't know how that translates to your knowedge of theory but i'm going to assume that your knowedge of theory is more advanced than mine. Now, from what I can gather, you told TGH that his mix lacked a clear musical structure, in so many words. Each to his own on this - I personally believe there was some structural merit on the track with the dynamics of each section of the music, which helped distinguish each section, as well as the fact the transitions all flowed together very well. I do understand that much music has a basis on repetition which this piece seems to lack somewhat. However, there are many more aspects to music theory than that which he's used in his music, as you know. I'm guessing that calling people "non musicians" isn't your intent here since all you've said is that you'll help anyone understand theory to improve their music. However, just try to give people some more positive feedback as well, rather than just stating the faults because there are many proud musicians in the world who might take constructive criticism as "this sucks" Now to try and nip this "non-theory composer isn't a real composer myth some of you guys have seemed to come up with.... Music theory at the end of day is people examining music and making rules for scales, modes, stuctures etc. However, just because someone doesn't follow music theory blindly doesn't make them any less a musician than someone who uses music theory - I know thats not what you were saying ohaiduhg, but I feel I need to point this out - If anyone is going to use music theory as a means to create boundaries, then you're limiting yourself as a musician. What makes a person a musician is a musically creative mind. Perhaps these people responded to your post with a little too much hostility, but I think alot of this is just a misunderstanding with communication. However, just because someone doesn't follow music theory rules doesn't make their music any less valid as anyone elses. If you agree with me, then great. If you don't, then I feel bad for you. At the end of the day, you can offer help and advice, but if they don't want to learn, then thats their choice... and their loss. Thats my thoughts on the matter, I'll see myself out
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Nov 30, 2011 23:50:04 GMT -5
TheGuitahHeroe alerted me to this thread, and I thought i'd post. I know a fair bit of music theory, up to grade 5, and although over the years my knowledge has washed out some, I know enough to understand what I need to understand in my line of work. ohaiduhg, I've been told that you're a music major, I don't know how that translates to your knowedge of theory but i'm going to assume that your knowedge of theory is more advanced than mine. Now, from what I can gather, you told TGH that his mix lacked a clear musical structure, in so many words. Each to his own on this - I personally believe there was some structural merit on the track with the dynamics of each section of the music, which helped distinguish each section, as well as the fact the transitions all flowed together very well. I do understand that much music has a basis on repetition which this piece seems to lack somewhat. However, there are many more aspects to music theory than that which he's used in his music, as you know. I'm guessing that calling people "non musicians" isn't your intent here since all you've said is that you'll help anyone understand theory to improve their music. However, just try to give people some more positive feedback as well, rather than just stating the faults because there are many proud musicians in the world who might take constructive criticism as "this sucks" Now to try and nip this "non-theory composer isn't a real composer myth some of you guys have seemed to come up with.... Music theory at the end of day is people examining music and making rules for scales, modes, stuctures etc. However, just because someone doesn't follow music theory blindly doesn't make them any less a musician than someone who uses music theory - I know thats not what you were saying ohaiduhg, but I feel I need to point this out - If anyone is going to use music theory as a means to create boundaries, then you're limiting yourself as a musician. What makes a person a musician is a musically creative mind. Perhaps these people responded to your post with a little too much hostility, but I think alot of this is just a misunderstanding with communication. However, just because someone doesn't follow music theory rules doesn't make their music any less valid as anyone elses. If you agree with me, then great. If you don't, then I feel bad for you. At the end of the day, you can offer help and advice, but if they don't want to learn, then thats their choice... and their loss. Thats my thoughts on the matter, I'll see myself out :P Pretty much this. I'm going to lurk and die off here. Do this. I wouldn't want him to die off from here. I'm not saying his help isn't unwanted, but I'm saying that theory isn't something that solves all problems. lol Even then, that's not what I was trying to get across, although it can be said that it is. I was just trying to figure out why it seems like Doug doesn't like any composition released by any of us from here... I mean, help can be given, but at the same time, you don't have to dislike the compositions because it doesn't have exactly what you expect. :/ I don't know, but I feel as if this conversation is over, and no one is going to put it more clearly, and beautifully than WillRock just did. xP Anyways... good job gh >:ooo im proud 2 haev u as an offishul member of jazzey L nd teh furious tree oh
|
|
|
Post by JC on Dec 1, 2011 1:45:39 GMT -5
Remember, Music Theory is MUCH MUCH younger than music itself.
|
|
streambeater
Random Character
fingering a minor... chord.
Posts: 16
|
Post by streambeater on Dec 19, 2011 21:58:44 GMT -5
That's a pretty nice piece. That's actually done with software, not live? Awesome.
|
|