Unnecessarily complicated scores?

I'd really like to hear what this sounds like.

http://scottwollschleger.com/Concert_Works_MP3/Secret%20Machines%20no5.mp3

Damn, you beat me to it. I was literally JUST about to post the link.

Eh, I was just pointing out how this stuff gets repeated over and over.

Imagine a serious discussion with moderation IRL, if you allow anyone off the street to come in and participate even if they know NOTHING, the people who actually do will quickly leave. This is basically what happens here and that's why moderation is needed. Hell I would go much further and actually ask for personal a CV of anyone wanting to participate in active discussion, as to filter people who really have no education (and such things of that nature.)

I mean Gardener is a real nice guy and he's tackling stuff in this thread he probably finds completely ludicrous. I don't know, but wouldn't it be better if we actually discussed things on a higher level altogether? Sure it maybe would leave out 98% of the forum, but then again these are the people who would probably benefit a lot from being exposed to actual serious discussions by educated people.

And, Weca, before you say any such nonsense about me, why not look up the lesson threads I made when I was doing that service for this community before it went downhill? And yeah, nobody likes contributing stuff just for the sake of it for very long, there's literally no incentive and threads like this here make it so anyone who is actually worth anything stays the hell away from the forum.

You can ignore the problem all you want, but really just look at the fact there's a "Loltastic threads" thread on offtopic, and it demonstrates the result of having any random passerby engage in discussing topics they barely even understand (if they understand them at all.)

Polemics? Eh, it's just pointing out the reality of things in case anyone missed it.

I think that SSC post is partly about me and let me explain:

I feel you mate. I really do. I hardly can find people that I can talk to and feel that we're on the same level! Honestly! This is why I kep contact information of Gardener, Pingu (from another forum), QcC, Mike, and YES MARK! Age is not an issue!

What I get from your latest post is that you're in need of furthering your horizons. Meaning that you want to discuss when you have something to gain. I don't, for example, and I feel that Gardener or Weca don't either. They were having a rather interesting discussion.

You see, the music posted here, the No. 5 piece, is a difficult piece to understant, to explain, to comprehend and ultimately to enjoy. You may feel fine with it, which is perfect by me, but others don't! And I can't judge based on my feelings, since I have spent all my life studying music!

Problem is that contemporary music is unaccessible. And instead of making it come closer, we start fighting. Previous problems? In lesson threads? I don't give a scraggy, in all honesty, and I'm a mod, but not an admin, so the admins can come and shut me off, if they wish so!

Education is the key issue here, and you have decided that you won't indulge to that, but take it away. Let it be it, but other people have decided otherwise. Don't try to reduce the discussion furthermore.

You know how much I value your opinion and voicing, as well as your ideas and music. But in this thread, while I bloody agree with you, I can't stand my grounds if I stand near you! There are other ways to make people understand, and weca is showing much more personal character than you at this point. (Based on your and his and my writings of course. I don't know any of you so anything about personal comments should be taken with a huge grain of salt!) ;)

If you feel anything about the mentioning of your students in this thread, then you should also feel the same about the rest of the members, which you did reduce!

Weca: There is the ignore button for a good reason and I've already used it once (in another forum). It works a treat and avoids getting you taken over the insluting river... :(

___________

This is a wonderful thread, but keep it up and it will get locked and clean, ok?

Actually this is an excellent piece - I like the nonchalance of the piano part - the rests and alternation of Romantic/impressionistic harmonies with pointillism and clusters against the whirs and degrees of inaudible/audible noise work well as an intro. I like how the piano then is pulled back to allow the violin, flute offer lyrical melodious parts - love the col legno high violin part played over the gong.

In other words great synthesis of so many different trends in Western art music over the past 120 years plus some Eastern musics influence (I hear pipa like music in that high violin part and some of the more bright open chords and flute roulades and trills).

I hope in a few years I am as adept a composer as this one is.

Pardon if I derailed the thread a little. But I hope you see where I am coming from - ultimately it is the sound that is most important (yes clean clear scores are very important but they can be amended if they fail to communicate the sound you want - or you change the instrument!).

PSS - One of the chords he uses - especially in the first half is the opening chord of Chopin's Scherzo in B minor I posted in another thread (which is in keeping with his use of 9th and other tertial chords)

PS Nikolas - totally agree. That is why I like YC - the education I get. I miss most QC's masterclass contribution. I wonder if there is some way we could lure him back. Maybe give them a simpler role - just Educator.

Being just back from a seminar and some other things, I have to say that reading Weca's hilariously bad posts

(and he's a reviewer? REALLY?), this forum probably needs a sort of quality-control if it's EVER going to escape the "loltastic" zone. Seriously guys, if some guy comes around and doesn't understand why you tie stems over silences, he needs an education, not posting rights.

That's all.

Woah are you kidding me? You are going to speak like that to one of our reviewers, who dedicates his time, energy and knowledge on this site without expecting anything in return? I believe this thread is open ended, and there is no "right or wrong". And if you disagree with his post, that is more than ok, but state why, and offer your own analysis for some backing.

Woah are you kidding me? You are going to speak like that to one of our reviewers, who dedicates his time, energy and knowledge on this site without expecting anything in return? I believe this thread is open ended, and there is no "right or wrong". And if you disagree with his post, that is more than ok, but state why, and offer your own analysis for some backing.

I think that was the whole point /:.

"(and he's a reviewer? REALLY?)"

Woah are you kidding me? You are going to speak like that to one of our reviewers, who dedicates his time, energy and knowledge on this site without expecting anything in return? I believe this thread is open ended, and there is no "right or wrong". And if you disagree with his post, that is more than ok, but state why, and offer your own analysis for some backing.

Does it sound like a joke? Let's not forget I also dedicated time, energy and knowledge to this site before I realized how incompetent the administration ends up being, or you forget that I was pretty much the only teacher doing ANYTHING for months?

That someone so ignorant is a "reviewer" is hilarious, and if you don't realize it then it indeed proves my point.

Does it sound like a joke? Let's not forget I also dedicated time, energy and knowledge to this site before I realized how incompetent the administration ends up being, or you forget that I was pretty much the only teacher doing ANYTHING for months?

That someone so ignorant is a "reviewer" is hilarious, and if you don't realize it then it indeed proves my point.

Some problems of inactivity we have are due to the fact that YC is still a small and growing community, so we have more students than teachers right now. So I appreciate your time, as much as anyone else's time spent on this forum to learn, teach and network. The problem is, you are insulting an actively contributing member on an open ended discussion. Don't forget, music is a very subjective topic.

Well if someone really doesn't know why you tie stems over pauses, it's not an insult to call them ignorant; it's simply the statement of a fact. But really, I've said quite enough already, haha.

Seriously guys, if some guy comes around and doesn't understand why you tie stems over silences, he needs an education, not posting rights.

I don't understand why you tie stems over silences.

I don't understand why you tie stems over silences.

Think Elliot Carter... and then, not even.

Think Elliot Carter... and then, not even.

Who?

...

I'm kidding.....or am I?

Honestly I don't even get what the whole problem is, really. The score shows the music just fine.

Otherwise it wouldn't be able to be performed in the first place, jeez.

Also Weca lol@you. Conceptual art. It's CONCEPTUAL. Jesus Christ.

As much as I can very well understand the reactions in this thread personally, I have to agree with what Nikolas said. It's pointless to turn this into an argument about the "competence" of certain people, since this is highly unlikely to change anything, but will much more likely just make all parties more entrenched in their positions. And no, I'm not saying "let's all just be friends" - I can perfectly well understand how this thread may evoke some rather hostile reactions (I admit to having been pretty close to them on my own). And I can understand why one might not wish to reply in depth to statements which one personally finds absolutely ridiculous.

But I think in such a situation it might be a better course of action to just think "lol" silently to yourself and leaving the thread to itself, rather than to start a personal flame war. It's probably better for everyone's health.

Well considering Chris went to Yale and Manhattan......

He's probably more competent then you, you, you, you, you, me, you, you, you, or you.

Just guessing.

But I think in such a situation it might be a better course of action to just think "lol" silently to yourself and leaving the thread to itself, rather than to start a personal flame war. It's probably better for everyone's health.

Which is what everyone ends up doing. I just got sort of tired of seeing you try to pound some sense into someone who clearly isn't on your level, not in the slightest. It bothers me you're wasting time like that being so nice (and even getting angry) when really, eesh, look at what you're replying to!

But whatever, the entire discussion forum ends up being "let's lol silently in the background" 99% of the time and it seems that people like it that way.

Thanks to most of you for keeping this convo civil. Nikolas, you're right, I have a sarcastic streak and I shouldn't have insulted SSC :)

---

OK Gardener, I think you made a very interesting point here:

You first make an assumption of what a thing is "meant to be heard as" and when you then don't hear it that way, you dismiss the notation as meaningless - without ever considering that your assumption may not have been the only possibility

By the way:

I just got sort of tired of seeing you try to pound some sense into someone who clearly isn't on your level...

...I mean Gardener is a real nice guy and he's tackling stuff in this thread he probably finds completely ludicrous.

It's not very bright to assume other people's motives.

OK, Weca, so let's explain for the kids at home why what you're saying is silly.

First of all flagging beams over rests:

[image]

Is usually eye-cluttering and pretentious. I can't imagine how it could EVER be helpful in a piece that doesn't have beats.

The reason you would do something like that is because it is a visual indication of the grouping of the notes. It makes it easier to see what notes (even if separate) belong to what group. In the case of things like Bartok where time signatures are divided irregularly it can help immensely to keep the parts in coordination by visually signaling which things belong to which group over rests.

But even beyond that, there are more reasons, such as indicating phrasing in places where using slurs would be cumbersome. There's also the point that grouping this way can make it so the player has a good idea of where the sounds are heading.

In that passage you posted the picture of:

It's 4/4 but divided in 3 groups. It's real EASY to see this thanks to the stems tying over the silences. Thanks to this, the player knows the triplet (even if it's one note) does not belong to the other figure that comes after and can alter his phrasing from the first segment.

I suggest you study Bartok's scores to see how he uses tying to move the phrasing of groups around along with the accents and beats. Other composers just go further for more (and easier to read) emphasis. Nothing more, nothing less~

uh uh uh.

Bart

Weca: First of all, I think the human mind is able to perceive a lot more "patterns" than you are giving it credit for. We may not be able to "pin them down" (or even less so exactly name/describe them, as you say), but that doesn't mean they don't influence our perception.

But you still seem to hold on to the notion that a tuplet "should be heard as a tuplet", even if one can't name it as such. With that notion you seem to be contradicting your own statement that a notation is merely a means of representing a certain sound. Tuplets are merely a way of notating a certain rhythmical sequence. They don't mean "you should hear this as five in the time of four". This notation, like in most cases, doesn't mean that something should be heard in a specific way (that would only make sense if you gave the score to the audience instead of the performers) - but that it should be played in a specific way. And the purpose of a tuplet is, generally, just that: Make the performer play X notes in the time of Y normal notes. Because that's the sound the composer wants at this place for some reason. What it is heard as is a different question. But rest assured, it will be heard as something, and it might even be the thing the composer was going for (as specific or non-specific that may have been)!

But sure, if you don't want to use tuplets "when they aren't heard as tuplets", feel free to write a piece consisting of all quarter notes, each with its own clearly given tempo… It will have the same effect, in this particular respect. I doubt you'll call it "simpler" though.

But honestly, the easiest way to get the audience to hear what you want it to hear is to just tell the performers "play whatever you wish" and tell the audience "hear this as a waltz in d-minor, with a hint of joyfulness and an aftertaste of kumquat".

But honestly, the easiest way to get the audience to hear what you want it to hear is to just tell the performers "play whatever you wish" and tell the audience "hear this as a waltz in d-minor, with a hint of joyfulness and an aftertaste of kumquat".

Someone already had that idea... ;)

I feel it is bullshitting and didactic to directly tell the audience what to think or feel however (and much of conceptual art is just that). For one thing there's always at least one person in the audience who stands up and says "the emperor is naked" or "that isn't a waltz" or "a dead shark isn't art."

Now, now, let's not extend the attack to conceptual art as well, most of which I've ever heard or seen of doesn't "tell the audience what to think or feel" - not even the first one you linked to, which rather seems to exhibit the concept of telling the audience what to think - thus conceptual art. And of course my somewhat sarcastic example would, in practice, fall in the same category if used. But sure, I generally dislike "didactic" art as well.

P.S. The funny thing about art is that whenever somebody says "The Emperor is naked", chances are he either isn't, or he fully meant to be. At the very least, that's what we should assume before making further judgement.