Lifeforce Of Musiotics

I don't think what marquez wrote as unintelligible but facile and a dressing up of an old concept of music composition, Reading my response to another topic, Marquez is like the doctor who professes to his patient the wonder of leeches because he read of a recent experiment where it had broad recuperative effects. So, he dresses the benefits of leeching in modern technological fluffery to convince the patient all his or her ills will be cured with leeching.

Simply put Marquez is saying greater complexity means the disposal of a greater variety of techniques to create conflicting emotional states in music. Greatness is seen as how well one is able to keep up this game. One way to keep up this game and make it sound convincing is to do as the doctor did about leeching in my prior metaphor - fluff it up in unnecessarily complex, obfuscating language. Too bad, because I like some of Marquez little experiments once in a blue moon.

You know this may sound off-topic but it isn't.

Writing music is oft times like the motivation and how we visit a sick person we know and, possibly, care about in the hospital. Despite all the noble altruistic reasons or how wonderful we are adhering to social convention by buying a card, flowers or some inspirational text or music, you are doing really for yourself. In the best case, it is done without insecurity or guilt and just because you love the person and enjoy the positive feelings you get from being there and "supporting" them - even though your visit could have the same effect as a dog trained to comfort patients in a hospital. At worst, you are doing out of duty or to emulate what your peers and family are doing because it is the right thing or to reinforce how great and valuable you are to the universe.

So you can approach the computer or paper with a dutiful adherence to your models - those you were drawn to or inculcated in you - or you could approach it as an activity you enjoy very much and not get too caught up in what historical figures or contemporaries have done and avoid unnecessary anxiety and insecurity. The best you can hope for is some people like it and even better some people want to perform it.

In sum, that is all artistic creation is - a visitation and possible communing with other people , beings, and/ or things and the intangible (and sometimes tangible) rewards you get. It will be brief, less than the time you blink an eye in the context of time, but I guess it is up to you if that moment truly, continually sucks or is quite often wonderful and engaging.

Formal training in itself has little bearing - rather it is the person's attitude and how they handle whatever training they receive as well as pursue. It can either aggravate or enhance the composition process.

BTW - The science of music is quite in its infancy - most music theory is just botanical classifications and descriptions of style divorced completely from significant socio-economic influences ( I am not a fan of the separation of musicology and music theory, but then again my knowledge of musicology is very little, please correct me if I err.

I don't think what marquez wrote as unintelligible but facile and a dressing up of an old concept of music composition, Reading my response to another topic, Marquez is like the doctor who professes to his patient the wonder of leeches because he read of a recent experiment where it had broad recuperative effects. So, he dresses the benefits of leeching in modern technological fluffery to convince the patient all his or her ills will be cured with leeching.

Simply put Marquez is saying greater complexity means the disposal of a greater variety of techniques to create conflicting emotional states in music. Greatness is seen as how well one is able to keep up this game. One way to keep up this game and make it sound convincing is to do as the doctor did about leeching in my prior metaphor - fluff it up in unnecessarily complex, obfuscating language. Too bad, because I like some of Marquez little experiments once in a blue moon.

You know this may sound off-topic but it isn't.

Writing music is oft times like the motivation and how we visit a sick person we know and, possibly, care about in the hospital. Despite all the noble altruistic reasons or how wonderful we are adhering to social convention by buying a card, flowers or some inspirational text or music, you are doing really for yourself. In the best case, it is done without insecurity or guilt and just because you love the person and enjoy the positive feelings you get from being there and "supporting" them - even though your visit could have the same effect as a dog trained to comfort patients in a hospital. At worst, you are doing out of duty or to emulate what your peers and family are doing because it is the right thing or to reinforce how great and valuable you are to the universe.

So you can approach the computer or paper with a dutiful adherence to your models - those you were drawn to or inculcated in you - or you could approach it as an activity you enjoy very much and not get too caught up in what historical figures or contemporaries have done and avoid unnecessary anxiety and insecurity. The best you can hope for is some people like it and even better some people want to perform it.

In sum, that is all artistic creation is - a visitation and possible communing with other people , beings, and/ or things and the intangible (and sometimes tangible) rewards you get. It will be brief, less than the time you blink an eye in the context of time, but I guess it is up to you if that moment truly, continually sucks or is quite often wonderful and engaging.

Formal training in itself has little bearing - rather it is the person's attitude and how they handle whatever training they receive as well as pursue. It can either aggravate or enhance the composition process.

BTW - The science of music is quite in its infancy - most music theory is just botanical classifications and descriptions of style divorced completely from significant socio-economic influences ( I am not a fan of the separation of musicology and music theory, but then again my knowledge of musicology is very little, please correct me if I err.

Did it ever occur to you why the authors of the Bible's New Testament used parables to communicate multifaceted observations and postulates about potentially better ways of loving? To avoid the drivel you just wrote which simply says - "I may be right or wrong in my method but only the passing of time will tell."

I strongly suggest you read Hemingway and cease the infatuation with Jung's esoteric writings.

May you compose ably and with joy Marquez!

Did it ever occur to you why the authors of the Bible's New Testament used parables to communicate multifaceted observations and postulates about potentially better ways of loving? To avoid the drivel you just wrote which simply says - "I may be right or wrong in my method but only the passing of time will tell."

I strongly suggest you read Hemingway and cease the infatuation with Jung's esoteric writings.

May you compose ably and with joy Marquez!

This is actually funny.

Amen=So be it! :nod:

Figure 1:

Happy-Earth

Anger-Fire

Sad-Water(Tears)

Fear-Air(Wind)

We owe much to pythagoras & the pythagorians for classical music & music in general would not be what it is today. But the pythagorians not only contributed science like the discovery of intervallics but at times presented analogies that perhaps one could assert were so advanced that logic could not prove them without a doubt nonetheless made some sense that although they could not be proven they also could not be ruled out either. The above figure 1 perhaps in it's purified view falls into a skeptical position regarding more intricate combinations of analogical science, nonetheless in it's purity there is a fundamental lesson to be learned as to the elemental &/or generalistic doctrine. Music seems to present itself as an unphantomable enigma of indivisible proportions when one is attempting to explain it whole, but nonetheless one can draw specific formulas throughout time even to the point of constructing an entire composition without an instrument or mental sound with pure mathematics with a certain degree of manual control almost proving that music is a soundless matrixial logic that listening to music is nothing but an unecessary luxury which we enjoy but not necessary to make what is refered to as music classifiable as the language of emotions per constant coordinate modulatives. Take for instance the illustration above, we know there are far more than four elements but out of the multitude of earthly composition these four are the most outspoken so i decree that the ancients were hitting on a concrete argument partially in a certain matter of very unique universal ambiguity. Figure 1 offers the most purified form of cohesive analogy regardless of the impurities possible, the atypical & complex pollutions or not pure conjuctions & intricate alignments that nonetheless present themselves as normal natural phenomenae. :musicwhistle:

You're forgetting the Coordinate Emotionality Matrix whereby deviation can contribute its factor with layers of infinite density which result in infrastructures of high levels of complexity which deviate from the default coordinate modulatives thereby creating a multitude of values with respect to the degree of variation present. I suggest you refine and redistribute your 'purity functions' via Boolean organization and/or seek immediate help. Derp.

Hey! Don't abuse your creativity by painting rainbows everywhere!! :angry:

Rainbows remind Justin of evil doers from San Francisco.

No, they remind me of this:

:horrified: :( :mad: :toothygrin:

I can only think of nyancat as an evildoer

I can only think of nyancat as an evildoer

Marquez - egad you really do not know that much. The question was not about ethics, parables were just a mode to teach something. That is all. parables exist outside the Bible.

As for you other tangents, I wonder how you even compose. Oh wait I have to write in your language.

With existence as a homop sapien due to our slopw maturation we are esconced in a family unit for the longest time for any mammal. AS time has proceeded, there has been a web of relationships formed wherein one has responsibilitiers and we have created societies wherein we have responsibilities to others. What consititutes the four basic emotions are predominantly taught as we are esconced in this web of responsibilities. There is no mathematics to this other than biochemistry (for example females it has been found in biology respond with neural and chemical impulses to touch that differs from males) and a few other fields. If you do figure a mathematics for your emoption I do hope you knopw something of the following:

anthropology

social dynamics

biochemistry

genetics

Because otherwise you are just one of many gasbags of presumption that have littered the arts for centuries.

Marquez - egad you really do not know that much. The question was not about ethics, parables were just a mode to teach something. That is all. parables exist outside the Bible.

As for you other tangents, I wonder how you even compose. Oh wait I have to write in your language.

With existence as a homop sapien due to our slopw maturation we are esconced in a family unit for the longest time for any mammal. AS time has proceeded, there has been a web of relationships formed wherein one has responsibilitiers and we have created societies wherein we have responsibilities to others. What consititutes the four basic emotions are predominantly taught as we are esconced in this web of responsibilities. There is no mathematics to this other than biochemistry (for example females it has been found in biology respond with neural and chemical impulses to touch that differs from males) and a few other fields. If you do figure a mathematics for your emoption I do hope you knopw something of the following:

anthropology

social dynamics

biochemistry

genetics

Because otherwise you are just one of many gasbags of presumption that have littered the arts for centuries.

Now since it's within the bounds of musiotics, i want to share one of my personal discoveries which ofcouse is not new but perhaps new to awareness & special emphasis. There is the Tritonus(77), The Diminished 7(444), & the augmented(555). All these 3 on C have something in common being some of the chordal fundamentals in music. They are all (& the only so far i've discovered) numerically definitively in the sense that the tritonus for example: C-F#-C reaches a very soon ending in the chromatical ascention or descention of only 2 distinct dimensions until repetition like the dim 7 there are only 3 distinct blocks or dimensions each with 4 inversions naturally total of 12 dim 7s & the + or augmented on C=C,E,A-flat, & back to C therefore only 3 dimensions. So, we have the Tritonus=2 dimensions, The + or augmented=3 dimensions & The dim 7=4 dimensions. Now, i've included these in a journal of mine in a section of the secular demonic because of the demonic tritonus & having a commonality ( numerically ) with dim 7 & the augmented as perhaps some of the harmonic fundamentals of the devil in music. Yet, these numbers are the only similar in the western chromatic spectrum in that they repeat with the same number otherwise the chordal formula 767 is atypical to my argument unless the formula was 666 but that formula does not fall within the bounds of my criteria because the expansion factor literally covers the entire chromatic spectrum progression. I believe this concludes my argument as complete & sufficiently brief & with the utmost precision. :D

You didn't count 2, 3, or 13, even though you counted 7; and forgot the fourth 4 in the dim. 7th thing; and are stupid. Essentially, your discovery is that 6, 4, and 3 are factors of 12. You need to step up your crazy if you're going to fool the likes of the dangerously insane fetishists who lurk around here - especially Phil, who is known to have once eaten a person's entire face just to see what it tasted like.

You didn't count 2, 3, or 13, even though you counted 7; and forgot the fourth 4 in the dim. 7th thing; and are stupid. Essentially, your discovery is that 6, 4, and 3 are factors of 12. You need to step up your crazy if you're going to fool the likes of the dangerously insane fetishists who lurk around here - especially Phil, who is known to have once eaten a person's entire face.

Amen brother. And allow me a minor addition. To extend this to the realm of scales.

Divide the octave in 6 equal parts and you have the wholetone scale. And when you add to a dim 7th chord that chord a semitone higher you get an octatonic scale. Nothing new here.

I press the importance of the scales here, because you seem in your language somewhat bound to diatonic implication as major and minor. at the same time you break loose from them in claiming what is to be your discovery or complecated result of your highly individual thought proces (ahum) and discover scales and modes that are at least a century old.

I wonder why I shouldn't just ignore you...

You didn't count 2, 3, or 13, even though you counted 7; and forgot the fourth 4 in the dim. 7th thing; and are stupid. Essentially, your discovery is that 6, 4, and 3 are factors of 12. You need to step up your crazy if you're going to fool the likes of the dangerously insane fetishists who lurk around here - especially Phil, who is known to have once eaten a person's entire face.

Amen brother. And allow me a minor addition. To extend this to the realm of scales.

Divide the octave in 6 equal parts and you have the wholetone scale. And when you add to a dim 7th chord that chord a semitone higher you get an octatonic scale. Nothing new here.

I press the importance of the scales here, because you seem in your language somewhat bound to diatonic implication as major and minor. at the same time you break loose from them in claiming what is to be your discovery or complecated result of your highly individual thought proces (ahum) and discover scales and modes that are at least a century old.

I wonder why I shouldn't just ignore you...

2 & 3 does not follow because you would go through the entire 12, but 13 does since it has one dimension or 88, i just thought the octave was not substancial enough. My little discovery is 77,444, & 555 not 6,4, and 3 & yes are mathematical factors of a spectrum of 12 units. I think it helps to play it on the piano to understand it better. I even made a composition utilizing only these 3 distinct chords in many traspositions which uniquely turned out as a marching band orchestration just to illustrate their uniqueness which i think i will post just for fun & feedback as to what YC members think of it's experimental approach. I call it "Secular Demonic". :shiftyninja:

Heh... derp...

cool

no?

Y'all be talking to a crazy person.

1=C3,C3=(unison)1

8=C,C=13 or 88=2

6=C,F#,C=77=3

4=C,E,A-flat,C=+ or Aug=555=4

3=C,E-flat,F#,A,C=444=5

Wholetone=11111 or 22222 or 33333=6 :D

http://www.youngcomp...ecular-demonic/

Wrong; you would not go through 'the entire 12' had you count 3 - you'd only go through 6 of them. You've neglected to include the fourth four for the diminished seventh yet again, and you've included an additional 8 for the octave - surely you know your own nomenclature? Also, your precious '77', '444 [sic]' and '555' are really 6, 3 and 4; that your numbers are shifted upwards by one is only because you've counted the first note of each interval as one, see?