Leaderboard

Stravinsky didn't start utilizing atonality into very late in his career.

Quatral chords, Qunital chords, extended chords, augmented chords, diminished chords, moving chords arround in non-diatonic patterns, quasi-modal progressions (or just modal), progressions based on scales like Melodic Major, Neopolitan Minor, and Double harmonic, etc. the list just goes on, there are so many cool things you can do with harmony, you just need to get out there are research them! Analyzing peices with interesting harmony is always a good idea.

Please tell me you are joking. >.>

Umm, I have never met anyone who had a problem with understanding the usefull-ness of the term. "Athiesm" I don't understand your logic. What is so hard to understand about "A lack of belief in supenatural beings/gods."? By your logic, does the term "Perfect Vacuum" make no sense? How can you define something as "The lack of matter." And before here, the only gripe I've ever heard someone have about Atonality was Schoenberg: Now, the question is, what exactly is Schoenberg getting at? Is he saying; The term Atonal isn't acurate, because it still has tones. (implied by his comparison of calling a painting 'aspectral') Or is he saying; The term Atonal isn't acurate because it is impossible to have music that lacks a tonal center, it can just be highly ambiguous and quickly morphing. (implied by; "The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone" Assuming that the "Nature of tone" means tonality. His original intent may have very well also been lost in translation.

Wow.

Mistake #1 If people don't want to look at a site that's pretty and effective when it comes to layout, it doesn't matter how brilliantly intuitive the features are. Right now, as it stands, I would not use the site on the sole basis of the look of the site. I realize some of the new features are very cool and interesting, but I don't want to look at the site for more than 30 seconds. So I don't care. Mistake #2 You don't make new products without fixing the old ones. This is a common problem of software companies who don't know what their doing. *cough* *cough* HP *cough* Fix the old stuff, build a following, THEN make an entire new site if necessary. But I don't think the current site needs a complete makeover like you say. I think some fundamental navigation things and CSS fixes, but that's the most of it. The current site is ok, but not perfect. Regardless of your thoughts on it, it is ok now, and most importantly, functional, for the most part. Hope that advice helps. :)

I think that I would be disappointed with using a site that functioned as that one does and looked as that one does. I really like the look and function of the current YC. The visual of the other site is ugly and the layout and function is ugly as well. Why don't we just incorporate the extra something that this new site adds into the one we are using. We already have a good foundation of a forum. Hmmmm . . . I don't know.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I just hate notes, period! Same goes for value!

Let me just state it simply for who don't understand: atonal music is bad, tonal music is good. That's also how you tell the difference.