Inversion synthesis - a groundbreaking new composition technique

You are not generating a new idea: your "fresh" material is just diatonic scales and chord patterns that you could have sat down at the piano and played yourself. They have no aurally recognizable relation to the source material either.

Saying that your approach "generates new ideas" is like saying if I take a Shakespeare play and mix up all the words in it, and rearrange them on a refrigerator, some of the worlds will form sentences, and I can use those sentences to write my own play.

What complete nonsense! Actually have a listen to any of my pieces and then comment. Take for instance my piece "Us Prisoners" which is based on an inversion of the opening to the Radiohead song "No Surprises". The inversion provides an idea which forms the basis for my piece, which essentially is some variations and expansions on the opening theme. Even though the intro to my piece is an almost exact inversion, the rest of the piece is my own work, expanding on the intro into a full piece.

What some of you guys clearly don't seem to understand is that this technique primarily provides ideas and inspiration, and in only a very few select cases are the actual inversions left unchanged. In the vast majority of cases, alterations have to be made and the technique as a whole allows loads of room for personal expression.

Although you do make a good point: "They have no aurally recognizable relation to the source material either." - exactly, this is the huge advantage of the technique!

What some of you guys clearly don't seem to understand is that this technique primarily provides ideas and inspiration, and in only a very few select cases are the actual inversions left unchanged. In the vast majority of cases, alterations have to be made and the technique as a whole allows loads of room for personal expression.

It's the other way around, boy. Any composer should know they have to explore their thematic/motivic matial. Using inversion is nothing new. What you seem to do is somewhat shabby on two fronts:

- You disguise your lack of creativity by exploring thematic material of 'others', while bragging it's an "huge advantage of the technique", that is, not to be found out.

- You present something of halve a millennium old als "new", "groundbreaking", "revolutionary" or "interesting". Well. The latter is true, it is interesting, and that's probably the reason it is so old.

I am glad for you you discovered some music theory. Keep up!

Well yeah I only changed one word - "revolutionary" to "interesting", as it seems to have stirred up a lot of negative and sarcastic people into posting...

My memory tells me otherwise and I'm not inclined to have any trust in you at this point. You stirred up negative, sarcastic people into posting in the same way a post calling females stupid and inferior to males would stir up angry people into posting.

Instead of adding any more arguments to the list of ones you are ignoring, I'll just post this picture of a puppy.

It's adorable. :3

In my opinion, this process would be more interesting if the material used actually somewhat resembled their source.

I must seriously be missing something.

a) the point of using any source material is to distort it.

(probably because you are at the mercy of the material you are using)

b) how the F*** can one simultaneously condemn the fact that the music doesn't resemble the source while condemning the source material as inferior. Whatever, it's all for the lulz amirite?

Maybe both suck?