Odd time phrasing, how does it really sound?

Music is supposed to sound good to everyone.

Wrong-o. I don't even get this.

Wrong-o. I don't even get this.

Well you can argue about this but this is just my point of view. My dream is to make music that everyone will like.

You don't like music that sounds good?

Well you can argue about this but this is just my point of view. My dream is to make music that everyone will like.

You don't like music that sounds good?

I like music that I think is good.

But good is subjective and different for every person, so there's no way of saying "this music is good" or "this music is bad"

There's no way to make music that everyone will like. You can make music that is accessible to a large percentage of the population, but that's as close as it can go.

I like music that I think is good.

But good is subjective and different for every person, so there's no way of saying "this music is good" or "this music is bad"

There's no way to make music that everyone will like. You can make music that is accessible to a large percentage of the population, but that's as close as it can go.

Good point. But you rarely hear someone say something bad about Mozart's Rondo Alla Turca, or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata... And that music is accessible to large amount of listeners.

I can find you millions of kids that would rather listen to Ludacris than listen to Mozart. In fact, Ludacris may have more mass appeal.

Cool.

But I don't think that anyone of those kids that like Ludacris would say that Mozart's stuff is bad. Catch my drift?

I'm not saying which music is better, I'm just saying which music is good.

Cool.

But I don't think that anyone of those kids that like Ludacris would say that Mozart's stuff is bad. Catch my drift?

I'm not saying which music is better, I'm just saying which music is good.

actually, yes, you WOULD hear them say it's bad.

I have, repeatedly.

"classical music is boring"... a statement that equates quite well with "classical music is bad", since "boring" is not a quality but a defect.

I'm not even going to touch your statement that you want to "write music that everyone will like".

actually, yes, you WOULD hear them say it's bad.

I have, repeatedly.

"classical music is boring"... a statement that equates quite well with "classical music is bad", since "boring" is not a quality but a defect.

I'm not even going to touch your statement that you want to "write music that everyone will like".

I have heard kids say they will build a robot that can fly in their bedroom...

Anyway... I can say that lots of classical music is boring.. but still I can't say that it's bad.

And nobody asked you to touch any of my statements. If you don't like them you can ignore them.

I have dreams. I gravitate towards them. I want to make good music. Music that people will like. Not music that professors suffering from academic constipation will review as good or bad.

I have heard kids say they will build a robot that can fly in their bedroom...

Anyway... I can say that lots of classical music is boring.. but still I can't say that it's bad.

And nobody asked you to touch any of my statements. If you don't like them you can ignore them.

I have dreams. I gravitate towards them. I want to make good music. Music that people will like. Not music that professors suffering from academic constipation will review as good or bad.

Boring is not a quality, ergo, by definition it is a bad thing.

As for your statement, I changed my mind after reading your arrogant remark about "academic constipation".

Wanting to write "music that everyone will like" is the equivalent of artistic prostitution

You will NEVER be able to write music that everyone likes.

And just so we are clear here, you obviously know very little about the academic world if you think that those within it don't have SOME hope that some people will actually appreciate their output.

Come back to us with your views on writing "music that everyone likes" after you've been through a BIT of your academic training.

Well, I am undergoing my training, but believe me, I don't think it will change my view on things in life and music, at least it hasn't in the last 2 and a half years.

I don't have your experience and I believe you know about music much more then me (currently) and I respect that and your age, but I don't think that your mind is in the right place concerning this here given subject.

I do believe that it is possible to write a piece of music that everyone (and by everyone I mean intelligent forms of life that consider music something to be enjoyed outside of nightclubs) will like.

Edit: As for your remark about artistic prostitution, I suggest you read some books on 13-18 century Japan.

Miyamoto Musashi is a good place to start.

Edit: As for your remark about artistic prostitution, I suggest you read some books on 13-18 century Japan.

Miyamoto Musashi is a good place to start.

Why don't you just tell us what you are talking about. Its a lot less condescending, which is a quality worth having if you are going to broadcast an opinion that most people around here won't agree with.

I am not saying you can't have your opinions.. but you should be aware that the majority around here doesn't agree with your 'music for the masses' attitude.

I think that it might be possible to write music that nobody dislikes.. but that very few people actually prefer.... I like spicy food.. but not everybody does. you could make me a sandwich that was just a little bit spicy, but not too spicy for everyone and everybody would be OK with it, but no one would love it. OR.. you could actually make it HOT, and I (and a few others) would be ecstatic.. a lot of people won't like it, but they can have something else can't they? (and probably enjoy it MORE that the half spicy sandwich anyway)

... My vote is to write the music that YOU like.. who cares what everyone else thinks, unless you are desperate to get rich off of it.. and if that is the case... well.. good luck.

I do believe that it is possible to write a piece of music that everyone (and by everyone I mean intelligent forms of life that consider music something to be enjoyed outside of nightclubs) will like.

So people who just enjoy music in night clubs are not intelligent? Are you actually reading what you type?

(and by everyone I mean intelligent forms of life that consider music something to be enjoyed outside of nightclubs) will like.

for someone who just spouted a very offensive view of academia, you are in the above-quoted comment espousing an astonishingly arrogant and elitist opinion.

Good, Bad, Better, Boring, .... all those are subjetive words someone may use to call some music, but, who can say with complete authority "This is Good, that is Bad" ??? while those terms depend of "personal tastes" it won't be easy to make everyone agree...

if someone here believes that some music can please every single one who hears it .... let me tell you.... that is not possible.

no matter how "good" may be, how "excellent" may be... it will please many people yes, many many people, but not all. (it's like politicians who try to satisfy every single person alive..... poor fool)(no offence please).

The original topic was talking about making enjoyable* music in not so common time signatures, (*I repeat, it won't be for everyone), and I think is quite possible yes.

Some have mentioned "Sacre du Printemps" by stravinsky, I think that's the perfect example, is "excellent" for many people, but for others....mmmmm....no.

I also want to tell something I found is "Sacre du printemps"....

One thing is writing a very complex segment, which is "complex" by itself, and...

One thing more is complicate the things are not necessary to be complicated (just to pretend writing an "advanced" segment.

Stravinsky himself said:

"I find many bars of 'Sacre du Printemps' very interesting, but many others are complete indifferent to me" (and that's recorded on video, so don't tell me it's a lie).

speaking of time signatures......when I studied that score, I did find the "complex" and the "complicated" differences on many bars.

In "no.11 Glorification de l'Elue" when the Timpani is playing F Gb F F, F Gb F F, F Gb F F, i find some 5/4 6/4 3/4 changes which "I" consider complete unnecessary. That is "complicating" the things, (but you'll note that does not affect the sound

Personally I think that time changes are awesome, but should only be used when necessary. And for the most part should sound either INTENDED or UNNOTICEABLE. If it sounds like a mistake you're in trouble.

As for the huge argument between Qc and Phantom, I have a couple things to say.

First of all, I think this dispute is extremely childish. Especially you, Qc, as a mod! I mean no disrespect at all to anyone but the way you guys are taking blows at each other is absolutely uncalled for. I know you're trying to get your point across, but the way you deliver your words is more blunt than it needs be. What is it with everyone and busting chops around here? It's not necessary.

Also, Phantom, writing music everyone will like is a very big undertaking; I'm not convinced its possible but I believe in miracles.

As I was saying, I think this whole quarrel should cease. Or at least be taken elsewhere. YC is a forum in which comppsers come to share ideas, not to fight over them. Unfortunately, this is what I'm seeing.

Again, I meant no disrespect to anyone at all. But if Qc feels he should suspend or ban me for whatever reason, go ahead. If this is where YC, or the musical world, on a larger scale, is headed, then I'm very concerned. Let's all try to be mature, okay?

Good day to you all.

Thomas

As for the huge argument between Qc and Phantom, I have a couple things to say.

First of all, I think this dispute is extremely childish. Especially you, Qc, as a mod! I mean no disrespect at all to anyone but the way you guys are taking blows at each other is absolutely uncalled for. I know you're trying to get your point across, but the way you deliver your words is more blunt than it needs be. What is it with everyone and busting chops around here? It's not necessary.

you're absolutely right.

there's no need for me to react when someone accuses academia (in other words, ME) of "academic constipation". I should not take offense at that.

Please, save your righteous indignation for another argument.

There is a sad double standard being demonstrated in this thread.

It is OK to bash "academics", but god forbid anyone tell someone to start by getting some formal training in music before MAKING those derogatory remarks.

I may be a mod, but there's absolutely NO reason for anyone to stoop to attacking my chosen profession, or attempting to demean it with loosely flung insults.

*sigh* It's threads like this that made Marius and Saiming leave. Or rather, what these threads have turned into.

Anyway, I really do not believe it's possible to write music that every single living human being will like. The examples that Phantom provided (Mozart's Rondo Alla Turca amd Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata) I find to both be terrible pieces. Well, not terrible but I do find them to be very grating to listen to in their entirety. And by no means would I say I "like" them (well, besides the third movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata which I do enjoy... but I'm guessing you meant the first movement which is damn near unbearable). So there. I've proven that there does not exist music that EVERYONE likes. And no... I have never frequented a night club. If you'd care to provide other examples then go right ahead. I gurantee though that (if not me) there will always exist someone out there who does not like any given piece of music. If you want to write music that can appeal to a LARGE amount of the population then sure, go right on ahead. I'm certain that that is possible. Hell, it's been proven numerous times that it can be. Though, I think you'd find a larger mass appeal by choosing any random "masterpiece" off a Nickelback album than any classical piece.

I can't say I can personally condone a composer ever writing music for mass appeal rather than own artistic expression but that's just me. I won't belittle your views there. I suppose it is quite the skill in its own right though I'd be hesitant to label it as an "artform". I'd consider it more of a marketing skill. And it certainly has an audience. A much bigger audience than any "art" music piece will ever have.

And as far as the ORIGINAL point of this thread goes, I like time changes. A lot of the time, I prefer pieces with constantly changing time signatures to a piece one steady rhythm the entire time. And yes, I've even liked time signature changes that sound like "mistakes". Sometimes, it can have a profound effect. Again, I'd say you shouldn't worry so much about what the audience thinks so much as what YOU think but I guess that would defeat the purpose of what you're trying to do. Anyway, best of luck with writing music everyone will like. You've certainly set the bar high for yourself.

for someone who just spouted a very offensive view of academia, you are in the above-quoted comment espousing an astonishingly arrogant and elitist opinion.

I'm entitled to my opinions. You seem to have a problem with them.

I'm not trying to insult anyone here. And I sure as hell aren't trying to act elitist.

I will also be academically educated in a couple of years. But I wont go around thinking that I got God by the balls because of it.

I find it ridiculous that some people think their opinions worth more simply because they spent 4-5 years of their life at some university.

And for Cody Loyd: Why don't you spend a few hours doing your own research instead of waiting to be explained. If nothing else, it's worth learning a bit about different cultures.

So people who just enjoy music in night clubs are not intelligent? Are you actually reading what you type?

Yes, actually I am.

Do you have a habit of putting words in other peoples mouth?

And for Cody Loyd: Why don't you spend a few hours doing your own research instead of waiting to be explained. If nothing else, it's worth learning a bit about different cultures.

Its a bit ridiculous to tell a busy person to 'read some books on 13-18 century Japan'

That is an extremely large topic, especially for someone who doesn't have time to be chilling in a library somewhere looking at books about Japan. Especially when I don't even know what the hell I'm looking for.

Its a bit ridiculous to tell a busy person to 'read some books on 13-18 century Japan'

That is an extremely large topic, especially for someone who doesn't have time to be chilling in a library somewhere looking at books about Japan. Especially when I don't even know what the hell I'm looking for.

Well if you don't have time to learn something new, you should really be worried about yourself.

If you don't know what we were talking about I don't understand why you even bothered to participate in the discussion that Qc and me were having.

you're absolutely right.

there's no need for me to react when someone accuses academia (in other words, ME) of "academic constipation". I should not take offense at that.

.

And I feel I should make this clear: I haven't accused or insulted you, I said "some professors", if you found yourself in those words it is your own doing. (might I also add that referring to yourself as "academia" is just plain weird)

My point was that I don't care about what some highly educated music critics will say about what I write as long as the people who hear it like it.

Anyway, if you still feel I insulted you in any way, I apologize.

...I don't care about what some highly educated music critics will say about what I write as long as the people who hear it like it.

Those "educated music critics" are often going to be one and the same with "people who hear it" ... unless there's some "highly educated music critic robot" out now writing papers for Perspectives in New Music.... :whistling:

Also, in my experience, many musicologists and academics of the highly educated type are very open and well-receiving of ANY creative music - be it Classical, Jazz, Pop... Once one compromises their creativity in lieu of "popularity" or "cash-money" THEN Academics (and I) will be the first to criticize.

Those "educated music critics" are often going to be one and the same with "people who hear it" ... unless there's some "highly educated music critic robot" out now writing papers for Perspectives in New Music.... :whistling:

Also, in my experience, many musicologists and academics of the highly educated type are very open and well-receiving of ANY creative music - be it Classical, Jazz, Pop... Once one compromises their creativity in lieu of "popularity" or "cash-money" THEN Academics (and I) will be the first to criticize.

Well.. maybe... but in my free evaluation I guess 1 in 100 will be musicologist... which still leaves 99 persons to enjoy music for what it is.

Right. Sorry Qc. I understand.