The lack of "Common practice"

Your arguments about the temperament is really ridiculous. Why can't hard to discern the GOAL of the tuning system, and its effective application? The temperament was created to pursue a goal, which is the equality of semitones. Stop, nothing more. Nobody here is stating it is the only truth in music. It's just you, so much blindfolded to claim to already know my "criticism" just because you are associating my question to the tonality/atonality thing.  Common language, as you stated, is just a cultural fact ( and I won't tell it anymore, since you really don't want to open your mind to me ).

And once again, you are stating an enormous lie with:

" A "common" language is impossible since it would mean everyone had to think the same way and react the same way to things, which isn't the case. "

For the third time in the thread I ask you to face with the alphabet example  ----> How boring every dialogue created with the old, same letters. Every man thinks in the same way because they use all the same 26 letters!

I have nothing to admit about that. I've been listening, composing and analyzing atonal, tonal and modal music for several years and I am perfectly fine with each one of this languages. Once again, I am not the tonal/atonal guy you think to be speaking with.

Probably you just don't have the mind set to tackle this kind of thread. So please if you are not interested in the original topic, just stop replying, because that's what I wanted to talk about...not your convictions.

2 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

Your arguments about the temperament is really ridiculous. Why can't hard to discern the GOAL of the tuning system, and its effective application? The temperament was created to pursue a goal, which is the equality of semitones. Stop, nothing more. Nobody here is stating it is the only truth in music. It's just you, so much blindfolded to claim to already know my "criticism" just because you are associating my question to the tonality/atonality thing.  Common language, as you stated, is just a cultural fact ( and I won't tell it anymore, since you really don't want to open your mind to me ).

And once again, you are stating an enormous lie with:

" A "common" language is impossible since it would mean everyone had to think the same way and react the same way to things, which isn't the case. "

For the third time in the thread I ask you to face with the alphabet example  ----> How boring every dialogue created with the old, same letters. Every man thinks in the same way because they use all the same 26 letters!

I have nothing to admit about that. I've been listening, composing and analyzing atonal, tonal and modal music for several years and I am perfectly fine with each one of this languages. Once again, I am not the tonal/atonal guy you think to be speaking with.

Probably you just don't have the mind set to tackle this kind of thread. So please if you are not interested in the original topic, just stop replying, because that's what I wanted to talk about...not your convictions.

 

Equal temperament so closely approximates a natural scale that to most ears without a high level of discrimination wouldn't know the difference unless the sound/instrument is rich in upper harmonics (say from the 9th upwards + the 7th) and particularly in chords.  Keyboard instruments would be a bit of a problem without it. However, others do use different temperaments like Just Temperament. In either case notes representing multiples of the lower partials of a fundamental "get by" the more remote one's don't. Sustained tones bring out the worst. It afflicts some wind instruments that at best only approximate the equally tempered scale (for reasons of their construction).

This is why pop music IS popular. It's the scale set in an ultra-conservative structure plus the visceral effect of rhythm that make it acceptable to a majority.  There is no perfect chromatic scale.

It's a subject that interests academics involved with the physics of music and generally doesn't matters to a composer accustomed to the western 12-ET scale. But that is a generalisation. Some composers and other musicians can. Boulez was notorious for this.

As for language - semiotics. There will always be problems about the relationship between sign and signified (words are signs) because meaning is the business of the recipient.  Even concrete words vaguely signify which I suppose is why we have adjectives/adverbs to draw us down the semantic hierarchy a bit. There's common language all right - it comes with the idea of codes - in brief the agreed shared understanding of a set of ground rules but it's thrown off by things like dialect, the limits of individuals' vocabulary and varying interpretation of said codes. 

The written word alone eliminates many cues that exist in face-to-face encounters.  And there's the problem that some things can't be described like our experiences. There's no experiential vocabulary. If I told you I had a toothache there's no way I can describe or you could understand the quality of my particular toothache.  If you've never had a toothache the statement would be meaningless. Likewise try to describe what red is without pointing to a red object. Such is it with the perception of music when attempting to describe it. A common referent is needed and that's usually metaphorical which is hardly better. I sometimes wonder how music critics get away with their bull - trying to describe in words what music sounds like!

The question relating to an arbiter of quality as in, "Who gets to decide?" at first seems a fair one but the more you look at it it has something of a straw man quality to it. If you asked me what makes a piece of music good, I would say something that it compels me to give it repeated hearings. Not just once out of curiosity - I'll listen to anything once. But two or three times? That's compelling. How about over and over? How about forever? That's really compelling, that's transcendent.

Now, if you asked me What makes it so that I want to listen to it over and over, I have to define what makes it good. If I said that it kept my interest, well obviously, but I'm still skirting around the edges. So I might say that it had an effective balance of familiarity and contrast. And if it was of any length I might add that it was masterfully done because of that. The composer set up expectations for me to expect, then fulfilled those expectations someimtes in unexpected ways, and given its length and complexity impressed me as being masterful. And I never get tired of this give and take. It's the same every time I hear it, even if I know every note by heart.

I am describing commonalities here, things that any composer can and imo, should, do. As far as I can tell I'm not dictating anything specific here, just common aesthetic traits. Like a thoroughbred can and will run if you let it, so can music be these essential things that all people will understand, given any exposure to Western music.

If you cheat people out of those things, no amount of education or conditioning will set it right. And there is so much good music out there, why waste your time. (but me personally, as I said, I'll listen to anything once.) So many words here to describe music! It's funny. But it's not just an intellectual thing, it's also very personal and human. If your wife or husband came home and suddenly kissed you in a whole new way, you'd say, What the hell was that? And I don't think you'd execpt the explanation, Don't worry, you'll get used to it.

4 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

For the third time in the thread I ask you to face with the alphabet example  ----> How boring every dialogue created with the old, same letters. Every man thinks in the same way because they use all the same 26 letters!

This a horrible example, you do realize this right? I haven't really addressed it because it's kind of a waste of time, but fine, let's do that. First, I need to you to find me a musical equivalent of the alphabet. What would that be? In strict semantic and linguistic functions, what would it be? Chords? Notes? "harmonies"? What? Second, demonstrate linguistic syntax using these elements in such a way as to communicate ideas accurately.

If you fail, then yeah it's a bad example. Music may be built on linguistic brain functions, but it's not language. There is no equivalent of the alphabet in music because music isn't a means of communication first and foremost and therefore lacks those kind of functional tools.

4 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

I have nothing to admit about that. I've been listening, composing and analyzing atonal, tonal and modal music for several years and I am perfectly fine with each one of this languages. Once again, I am not the tonal/atonal guy you think to be speaking with.

OK, see, that's why I keep asking what you mean. If you are NOT what I'm painting you as, then explain further what you actually propose a solution to your problem to be like. An actual, tangible, solution. I'm really interested now, to be honest.

There is nothing you can do, because you can't force anyone to write music in a certain way. Composers have to see the problem and be willing to do something with it.

On 1/25/2019 at 5:59 PM, SSC said:

because music isn't a means of communication first and foremost and therefore lacks those kind of functional tools.

Well, so what's the point of music? Music is an art and one of the functions of it is communication.

If there's nothing familiar in the musical work, communication is impossible, the work won't be understood

No use arguing with a confronter, someone who argues for its own sake. The person can't embrace the basics of semiotics. Anything that impinges on our senses communicates something as long as in the case of sound, there's a hearer/listener, The issue is the degree with which the recipient hears/listens and is able to recognise and give meaning to the sign/sound/stimulus . It entails reference to their previous experiences of the phenomenon/stimulus. Conventions and codes developed over millennia from probably an intuitive start, that is, sound organised into something recognised by consensus as "music" allow most people, conditioned to accept these codes, to create meaning. Even so, the decision of whether a person classes an experience as music is entirely theirs. They may not go along with the consensus. The neurophysiology of hearing, discriminating and assimilating, complex as it is in total, indicates that communication takes place even if the consequence is rejection.

Arguing the definition of words with meanings colloquially or technically accepted (in the conventions of the milieu) is a scorpion dance but gets nowhere! 

@SSC I am not here to prove you anything. As @Quinn said, you seem to be arguing for yourself.

And, Yes...definitely music has a communicative power ! But communicating does not necessarily mean "dialogue with words", but just impressing something. Every sense communcates with the environment. Please, dont't get off topic anymore...

On 1/25/2019 at 5:55 PM, Ken320 said:

If you cheat people out of those things, no amount of education or conditioning will set it right. And there is so much good music out there, why waste your time. (but me personally, as I said, I'll listen to anything once.) So many words here to describe music! It's funny. But it's not just an intellectual thing, it's also very personal and human. If your wife or husband came home and suddenly kissed you in a whole new way, you'd say, What the hell was that? And I don't think you'd execpt the explanation, Don't worry, you'll get used to it.

 

What You said is really interesting, and probably everything about the topic is here. Some kind of music have an higher grade of "kindness" to the listener ( meaning that they are more gentle and willing to quench his desire for understanding the music ), and others are much more harsh.

But from what I see, every language needs to have a minimun familiarity grade, otherwise it becomes a messy accumulation of sounds. Even if the familiarity is only used to disappoint the listener's expectations.

This is why I think many composers are sticking to a new tonal approach. That's a language that has the highest familiarity grade with pretty much any listener ( and porbably it was a response to the strong harshness of avant-gardes ).

This is the first historical periodo where everything is done, but this is pretty strange, since it gives no direction to music. In the past there's always been something to point a drection, and this has been possibile only because of the common practice. What now? Will this be the multi- directionist period?

4 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

But from what I see, every language needs to have a minimun familiarity grade, otherwise it becomes a messy accumulation of sounds. Even if the familiarity is only used to disappoint the listener's expectations.

 

This is why I think many composers are sticking to a new tonal approach. That's a language that has the highest familiarity grade with pretty much any listener ( and porbably it was a response to the strong harshness of avant-gardes ).

 

 

Dead on. And these are the conventions recognised by any group, community, country, etc., developed through time by shared orientations. When you consider the extent to which popular music dominates western musical culture is it any wonder that tonal music is the most accepted convention. Pop music is ultra-conservative particularly these days when it's manufactured by committee or syndicated imagination and plugged relentlessly. It's more about scene than musical composition: fashion, slang, behavioural gestures so (as a guess) the simpler the music the better but that's beside the point.

Perhaps if music had set out à la John Cage, spattering ink on sheets of music paper things would be different. But they didn't. They evolved intuitively. Disruption of those conventions narrows acceptance because the range of "meanings" (hence communication) narrows in the face of expectations.

If you're expecting nothing then something will be communicated but at a different level. Other factors come into play though. It's a big subject. As Srockhausen said, to impress him a compose has to astonish him - and be original! ....Whether it's good or not that we aren't all Stockhausens, I couldn't answer.

Agreed. Multi-directional and multi-stylistic. Bernstein said as much in the final lecture in his Harvard Lecture series, 1973).  Personally, I look at it like this, giving the broadest, least restrictive, latitude to the composer in his or her choice of narrative, design and language:

Keeping it simple, there's only one rule: Manage expectations, and keep the listener interested in what you're trying to say. Because music exists in the time domain and the listener will be expecting things, and there's nothing you can do about it. I can't put it any more basic. It shouldn't be so difficult, right? But suddenly, now, language is important (which was mentioned here often). Commonalities. The effective composer uses them to his advantage. The iconoclast ignores them at his peril.

On 1/23/2019 at 2:36 PM, ferdi9749 said:

This doesn't want to be the clichè topic "tonality vs atonality".

What I see, and everyone else can see too, is that Composer's world ( those composer who create music meant to be listened, and not accompany images or whatelse ) is so much fragmented that everyone cannot just be a composer, as it was in old common practice period. A " modern" composer even before starting composing needs to find his own language, that always end up being something very subjective...almost ermetic.

The problem today isn't anymore tonality or atonality. The true problem is the lack of a language that everyone can "speak and understand".

Stating things like " anyone must compose what he feels" or "everything has been done so nothing can be new", do not solve the problem. Just make things worse, since they authorize everyone to close himself in a sort of autistic composing style.

Let's face the real thing: Things in "high quality" music are not good at the moment ( As the whole contemporary art world ), and the fragmentation of music world is not a good thing.

What are your opinions about it?

 

First off, do not engage SSC. (S)he is too caught up in the post-modern self-delusion of, "it's all about how I feel about it". Not worth it.

Second, I offer my opinion to your observation here 

To put it in a nutshell: The kind of education that is dominant post-enlightenment is the idea that nothing in the world has any inherent meaning — it's all just a force of nature — and any greater meaning you see in it is just how you feel about it. Once you understand this, you start to see what's fueling a lot of today's crazy people.

Because, if you live your life this way, you stop asking how you can find purpose within the world and instead going about manipulating the world (including people) around you to suit your personal feelings about it. Thus — Michelangelo's work on the Sistine chapel is not really of any higher standard, artistic worth, or aesthetic than any old graffiti on a train car, because I personally think the latter is really cool.

23 hours ago, Pietro17 said:

Well, so what's the point of music? Music is an art and one of the functions of it is communication.

If there's nothing familiar in the musical work, communication is impossible, the work won't be understood 

Not necessarily. I can make art just for the sake of making it and not care about it communicating anything in the slightest. The fact I can do this negates your point since it will be still perceived by a 3rd party as art even if they don't know my intention. This is mostly a thing you decide to do for yourself, which I think is interesting too. You can try to communicate or convey things with music if you want, and try to interpret meaning and message in music you hear. I don't think either of these things are impossible or wrong, but you can as well do the opposite as well and it's also OK.

11 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

What now? Will this be the multi- directionist period?

I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to see what our current era will be "seen as" by later historians, but the pluralist spin is very much a real thing. If you look for it, there's just about an endless amount of music, all very different and going from all sorts of extremes. I think, someone like myself as a composer, could only really exist in this kind of time period since I've done extremely experimental noise/electronic stuff to neoclassical sonatas and fugues and all sorts of things and even released a rock album. The fact that there is no "direction," is for me fantastic since I can take whatever inspiration I have and run with it no matter where it takes me. I'm not the only one that does that, but I think such a degree of freedom is hard to handle.

I think in general it is very hard to come to terms with the amount of freedom you actually have if you want to compose something. The wealth of examples out there for what's been done, let alone what could be even theoretically possible, is more than anyone can handle. I think this is why people are afraid to leave whatever corner they inhabit, be it academic or popular or historical. To do that, you need to sort of re-build yourself artistically every time you explore something and work with something different, since your parameters are going to change as a result. I mean that quite literally, you are going to change as the result of the work you do, as a person. That stuff has some heavy implications, I think.

For example, another anecdote for me was the time I was working on a microtonal piece that used a special tuning system I put together using high partials. I tried to isolate myself from everything else music-related and just work with my own system for about a month (till I finished the piece.) When I was done I just figured I'd flip a switch and go back to "normal," but as soon as I heard "normal" music everything sounded wrong and out of tune! I knew it wasn't, but getting "back to normal" was just as jarring as when I started with my tuning system. If you get the chance to try this, see if it happens to you too, it's quite amazing. This is what I mean with the way you have to "change yourself," and that's a hard thing to do. It's scary cuz you don't know where you'll end up.

I ran a "contest" on this forum 10 years ago that challenged people to write the worst music (to them) possible. I didn't give almost any guidelines, only that you have to hate what you're writing. It's amazing how much people got out of that, specially hearing other people's "bad music" and thinking it wasn't nearly as bad, or themselves growing fond of the mess they made (and in one case enough to actually start composing entirely differently as a result!)

https://www.youngcomposers.com/t22377/horrible-terrible-attrocious-just-plain-bad-music-make-it/

There's something very interesting going on when you go exactly in the direction you "shouldn't", when you explore what you think is "bad." I mean creatively, not just hearing someone else's output. When you create something yourself, you are putting a part of you in that, it is an expression of you in many ways. If you create something you think is bad, it's still your baby, even if you started with the idea it's going to be "bad." At the end you may find that it wasn't so bad as you thought, or maybe it was just as bad as you thought but now you have a more nuanced view of it, who knows?

The definition of "experimental" music is music of which the outcome is unknown, and I think depending on who you are, even writing a 1700s style minuet may be super experimental, just as writing serial music could be to someone who only writes 1700 minuets. It's not so much what the music itself is, it is what it represents to you and how it contrasts the outside reality and your internal reality.

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

First off, do not engage SSC. (S)he is too caught up in the post-modern self-delusion of, "it's all about how I feel about it". Not worth it.

Second, I offer my opinion to your observation here 

To put it in a nutshell: The kind of education that is dominant post-enlightenment is the idea that nothing in the world has any inherent meaning — it's all just a force of nature — and any greater meaning you see in it is just how you feel about it. Once you understand this, you start to see what's fueling a lot of today's crazy people.

Because, if you live your life this way, you stop asking how you can find purpose within the world and instead going about manipulating the world (including people) around you to suit your personal feelings about it. Thus — Michelangelo's work on the Sistine chapel is not really of any higher standard, artistic worth, or aesthetic than any old graffiti on a train car, because I personally think the latter is really cool.

 

 

I pretty much agree with anything you said. But we still have to deal with the tabula-rasa that avant gardes made in pretty much all arts fields. They "destroyed" everything and left pretty much nothing, and This can be seen both as a luck or a catastrophe.

(Exasperated subjectivism is a key that doesn't lock any door anymore. Modern audience knows that whatever kind of modern art is going to see/listen, is gonna be something ugly.)

Now composers ( and artists in general have the power to create everything they want...but at the same time everything sounds so much dull...I can feel that what we really miss is our own language.

Maybe everything we can do is to just pick up the pieces of language that still work, and try to put them together to create a new music "beginning" in human history

1 hour ago, ferdi9749 said:

But we still have to deal with the tabula-rasa that avant gardes made in pretty much all arts fields. They "destroyed" everything and left pretty much nothing, and This can be seen both as a luck or a catastrophe.

I think it's a function of our growing knowledge about art history and the fact that proper musicology (and humanities in general) didn't really get going until the 20th century. It's really amazing how much of an effect that has, when you can suddenly pick and choose what to listen to/study and that choice can span hundreds of years of music. That is inevitably going to have an effect on how people view the world, specially the people with the access to that information. I think that the diversification and fundamental emancipation of musical elements came about precisely because of our ability to view the past, not in spite of it.

People who are unable to view the past only regurgitate common trends immediately available to them. This is quite obvious if you look at popular music and music made in general by people with very little academic knowledge, but it's going to happen in all sorts of places so long as there's ignorance. And here's the crucial bit, knowing is doing, as through doing you change yourself and incorporate that knowledge into action, so hence the whole emphasis in copying historical styles during theory/musicology studies. It's not so you can make some boring copy, is so you actually understand what you're looking at through the only lens you can really understand: your own creation as a part of yourself. This is again applied to any proper examination of any style.

In my opinion, to really understand a type of music or artistic creation in general you need to have done some of it yourself, roughly speaking. I remember I used to write rondos and adagios and so on after my lectures on classical forms, since that way I actually understood what the hell I was being lectured on. I know this isn't what people usually do, but I really wanted to get a grip on the mindset that created those structures and patterns and I saw no better way than to do it myself.

I know I've gone on a tangent related to the composer as an individual in a pretty psychological way, but I think all these aspects inform why people can have such drastic views and attitudes. Specially when what they're talking about is closely related to some aspect of their perceived personality. That radicalizes people usually since they would want to be very defensive of stuff which they think are core to what kind of person they are. Can't blame anyone for that. But I also think composers (and people in general) can transcend this particular point, but it's really more of a "self improvement" deal.

In fact, when people usually ask me what it's like to "teach composition" I usually just tell them it's like being someone's discount psychologist. Cuz in the end what you're doing is untangling a mess of influences, fears, desires, goals, etc and trying to point them in a direction that will make them feel like they're getting "better" at it. That's why I keep some rules around like not put pieces in concerts that you're not willing to defend, even if you see things you don't like about it later down the line, the moment you decided to put it into a concert is when you thought that thing was as good as you could possibly get it (at that time). It's after all artificial, it's art, there's no reason to leave it to random chance. You can be 100% responsible for the thing, so why shouldn't you?

I think also a good deal of misunderstanding and drama comes about because people are unwilling to, well, take responsibility for what they create. I don't mean just what it means in terms of what people will think when they hear it, that certainly is an aspect, but what it means to themselves as composers to write what they wrote. I remember my teacher, after my first-ever premiere of something I wrote, started off presentation I had to do over my piece to the rest of the composition class by asking me if I was satisfied with my work (the concert, rehearsals, everything) and I remember answering hell yeah, to which he laughed. I didn't really see why until way later, but it's one of those little questions that will mess some people up, specially if they have doubts or things didn't go the way they planned. It's still a really damn good question, I think, and it should always be asked, if not out loud then internally.

to be honest, SSC, I think it has really few things to do with our historical knowledge. We simply created the "musicology" defining it a science, which is pretty much a ridiculous thing. The moderne man has this strong illusion that everything can fall under sciences domain. And if this can be true in a certain sense, it is certainly false by a human perspective...and we are nothing more than humans.

In the past, when not everything was called science ( In italy we have "sciences of literature"...just absurd ) masters knew the history and their craft very well...there was no need of something called science.

Once again I think this is an effect of avant gardes and World wars...men desperatly need certainties...and they thought that "scientifing"everything was the solution...needless to say it just made more confusion.

What I see in modern teachers ( just an example, obviously ) are analysts, more than composers....ready to state how grear was Bach, but with so little compositions on their own...Why? Because science ( analysis in music is what is nearest to science...even if it's not a complete one ) is not a creative force...it's just a method to see, observe and make statements about the world.

This is not the right mind set to compose music.

2 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

 

What I see in modern teachers ( just an example, obviously ) are analysts, more than composers....ready to state how grear was Bach, but with so little compositions on their own...Why? Because science ( analysis in music is what is nearest to science...even if it's not a complete one ) is not a creative force...it's just a method to see, observe and make statements about the world.

 

This is not the right mind set to compose music.

 

There's often a "truth" hidden in old adages, one being that if you can't DO it (compose or perform music) then teach it. If you can't teach it become a musicologist, historian or critic.

Attempting to apply science to the arts is a waste of time. For a start it can never be better than a soft science where the researcher heavily influences the outcome/conclusion (you have enough evidence of that happening in this thread). All the so-called scientist can TRY to do is tell us what isn't necessary: why music works, if it works. 

Over millennia, that hasn't mattered. Composers composed and performers performed (sometimes both in the same person). They evolved the material that now feeds these academicians. They deal with history, not evolving theories that predict how the future will unfold. 

They're historians - collectors and analysts of historical data, they're the people who come up with labels. They try to legitimise their activities by pushing into things like neuroscience but with what aim? I can't think of any. (Sure, yes, psychoacoustics is a science because it conforms to scientific methodology. It turns hypothesis into theory that results in applications said to be useful. Like we have digital audio compression based on its findings. But that's about how we receive and perceive sound - and nothing to do with why individuals prefer "types" of music.  When the boffins were coming up with colour television they used our perception of colour contrast to decide how to balance the mixed RGB signals to give viewers the most pleasing experience (within the limits of available technology). That didn't come trying to understand the process of entertainment.) 

And, I suppose, marketeers and record companies have a far greater understanding of what's acceptable to the public based on sales figures rather than pseudo-science. As I asked: do these academic researchers facilitate anyone as a composer (in common terms, make them a better composer)? Truthful answer: No.

50 minutes ago, Quinn said:

Attempting to apply science to the arts is a waste of time.

3 hours ago, ferdi9749 said:

We simply created the "musicology" defining it a science, which is pretty much a ridiculous thing.

I guess this thread is a great example as to why people need an academic, or hell, just any kind of proper education. There are so many threads like this on the forum, I was looking at my posting history from 10/9 years ago, and it's the same damn ignorant stuff coming up again and again, but back then we had more members who were actually educated and it was much easier to argue against this overwhelming ignorance. And the funny thing, it's always the same kind of arguments, the same kind of ignorance and it ends up always in the same place. Resent what you don't understand and champion ignorance as a good thing for you and for others. And it's always a poor argument since its source is ignorance, it's very fragile and as this thread is a good example as any encounter with even minimal resistance makes people get all crazy.

I mean this is why I was instantly dismissive of Angelcityoutlaw's borderline troll logic in the other thread. I mean, to announce in a discussion forum that your opinion is unchanging is just inviting mockery and ridicule. It's like they don't read the guidelines, which of course they don't, so we end up with exactly what I predicted in those guidelines. Like him there were a lot of other posters and it was often pretty hilarious how they'll go on asserting this or that, like a child puffing up their chest and lecturing on things they really have no idea about (otherwise they wouldn't be doing this lol.)

Your thought is exactly the product of science-over-all approach ( even though you have shown to have no real knowledge of frequency theory, since you ignored the "science" behind the universal concept of overlapping ).

To be honest, I don't really need someone to tell me I need music education, since I have a degree in guitar, and currently studying piano and composition. The difference between my thinking style and yours, is that mine is free from all "scientific" trash. Science is something I use...not something I am used by.

I stand very well and every kind of opposite opinion. But they have to serbe to the discussion...not to the person who presents them...and my impression is that you really argue for yourself, for your convictions and for your " academic knowledge".

Let this thread to us poor ignorant and keep instructing superior minds about academic truths...

22 minutes ago, ferdi9749 said:

I stand very well and every kind of opposite opinion.

Oh really?

22 minutes ago, ferdi9749 said:

But they have...

Oh, OK, I guess not then.

I advise that you work on putting your arguments to paper, since you contradict yourself way too much as it is and I haven't really drawn attention to that since I'm nice, but seriously the way you explain yourself is a mess. This is probably in part because english is not your first language, but that's no excuse.

Good luck with your studies, I sincerely hope you interact with all sorts of people and have discussions with them so you can sharpen your ideas against actual adversity, otherwise you'll never grow intellectually.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

I guess this thread is a great example as to why people need an academic, or hell, just any kind of proper education. There are so many threads like this on the forum, I was looking at my posting history from 10/9 years ago, and it's the same damn ignorant stuff coming up again and again, but back then we had more members who were actually educated and it was much easier to argue against this overwhelming ignorance. And the funny thing, it's always the same kind of arguments, the same kind of ignorance and it ends up always in the same place. Resent what you don't understand and champion ignorance as a good thing for you and for others. And it's always a poor argument since its source is ignorance, it's very fragile and as this thread is a good example as any encounter with even minimal resistance makes people get all crazy.

 It's like they don't read the guidelines, which of course they don't, so we end up with exactly what I predicted in those guidelines. Like him there were a lot of other posters and it was often pretty hilarious how they'll go on asserting this or that, like a child puffing up their chest and lecturing on things they really have no idea about (otherwise they wouldn't be doing this lol.)

 

What a damnably stupid and condescending remark. D'you think you're the only person here who went to school? You seem to overlook the number of posters here from overseas who are eloquent enough in English to communicate their message, for a start. And an intelligent one at that even if it doesn't suit your polemic.

What an insult. 

Tell you what - go have a look at those guidelines yourself. You authored them. Read and apply them. 

You seem to think that you need, hell, any kind of secondary or tertiary education to practice the Arts. You don't. Have you even got a "proper" job?

Stop insulting people. Stop insulting the intelligence of many who are probably a lot more intelligent than you simply because they aren't hiding behind academia.

Once again, now, I'll sit out. I didn't join this outfit to watch people being insulted by someone still fresh from their high school. Dialectic won't work when it comes down to personal insult.  

11 minutes ago, Quinn said:

Stop insulting people. Stop insulting the intelligence of many who are probably a lot more intelligent than you simply because they aren't hiding behind academia.

Once again, now, I'll sit out. I didn't join this outfit to watch people being insulted by someone still fresh from their high school. Dialectic won't work when it comes down to personal insult.  

If my comment doesn't apply to you, then why take so much offense? I'm just making an observation since I've found your arguments extremely lacking. It's really all it comes down to, I'm not your enemy. I'm just giving you a chance to argue against someone who can defend their opinions. If you cannot stand that, if you get insulted because I judged your arguments lacking, then well then perhaps it's more on you than on me.

This is a discussion forum, that's the point. We can argue, but there's a limit to much leeway I'm willing to give. If this is too much for you, then oh well.

15 minutes ago, Quinn said:

You seem to think that you need, hell, any kind of secondary or tertiary education to practice the Arts.

And yet, I said (in another thread):

Which is the literal opposite of what you're suggesting. You don't seem to follow my arguments very well, nor understand my position, but that's fine. You be offended if you want, if that's what makes you happier.  I'll be here when you actually want to have a proper discussion about something.

11 hours ago, SSC said:

I mean this is why I was instantly dismissive of Angelcityoutlaw's borderline troll logic in the other thread

The reason you instantly dismiss my point is because you have tremendous insecurity about the idea that some works really are better than others, and thereby better than yours. It threatens your "trophy-for-everyone" ideology.

The Rape of Persephone is a better sculpture than the Venus of Willendorf. The former required far, far great skill to craft, and is far more beautiful. Beauty & The Beast or Anastasia are greater, more aesthetic feats of animation than South Park or HTTYD. And yes, "Flight To Neverland" by John Williams is a better piece of music than "Time" by Hans Zimmer. You're not wrong for liking or wanting to do something more like the "inferior" examples, but again — It's about what we ought to aspire to be.

and I know you'll be "Oh, that's just what you choose to impart on it." Well guess what? If left to a vote, I guarantee you the numbers are overwhelmingly in accordance with my position on this matter. It's just weird how the things that require greater mastery of the art in question to create usually wind up being held in the highest esteem around the world.

Lastly, I didn't wanna have to play this card, but it needs to be said here: There is nothing deeply-original and ground-breaking about your mediocre-production-quality rock albums (with horribly off-key vocals) that you made in your living room, electronic ambient noises and arpeggios with vanilla synth patches or — rather hilariously — piano sonatas you wrote in imitation of the romantic era.

I see that you're actually German? I'll leave you with an old German proverb that you should take to heart:

"Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen"

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

The reason you instantly dismiss my point is because you have tremendous insecurity about the idea that some works really are better than others, and thereby better than yours. It threatens your "trophy-for-everyone" ideology.

Cool then, show me, with scientific peer-reviewed literature, that "some works are really better than others." Make an actual argument based on scientific sources. That's what I expect from such a categorical claim, since it's a pretty big thing to claim as being "the truth." I think it's pretty cute you're trying to play me as a postmodern pushover, but no, on quite the contrary, I do value objective empirical evidence for things quite a lot. In fact, I value it so much that I try to keep up with the science literature on the things I want to know about. (I even posted some of it to the forum since I actually want people to read and inform themselves so they can properly argue things, it's more fun that way!)

That being said, not everything can be entirely objective, which apparently is a problem to you for some mysterious reason.

2 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

and I know you'll be "Oh, that's just what you choose to impart on it." Well guess what? If left to a vote, I guarantee you the numbers are overwhelmingly in accordance with my position on this matter.

Argumentum ad populum. I mean, really now? That's almost highschool grade stuff.

2 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Lastly, I didn't wanna have to play this card, but it needs to be said here: There is nothing deeply-original and ground-breaking about your mediocre-production-quality rock albums (with horribly off-key vocals) that you made in your living room, electronic ambient noises and arpeggios with vanilla synth patches or — rather hilariously — piano sonatas you wrote in imitation of the romantic era.

I think it's pretty hilarious you're trying to "get at me" by trash talking my music, you're going to have to do much worse than that. It's also really cute how you're like "Man I don't want to do this but you forced my hand!!!" oh please, that's really childish. You could've as well said I'm a talentless hack or an idiot or whatever other standard insults and it would've saved you the time and effort to actually listen to my music! That being said, thanks for listening and giving some feedback, I guess. In some unintentional way you actually did something nicer than you intended, which is also pretty funny.

This is actually kind of amusing, if you want to keep going I'm all game.

2 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I see that you're actually German? I'll leave you with an old German proverb that you should take to heart:

I'm also not from Germany and German is my 4th language, but hey that's neither here nor there. The glass houses quote is neat, specially since I don't live in a glass house, I live in a goddamn volcano lair for all you're concerned.

Try harder, seriously. You gotta do much better than this.

1 hour ago, SSC said:

Cool then, show me, with scientific peer-reviewed literature, that "some works are really better than others." Make an actual argument based on scientific sources. That's what I expect from such a categorical claim, since it's a pretty big thing to claim as being "the truth." I think it's pretty cute you're trying to play me as a postmodern pushover, but no, on quite the contrary, I do value objective empirical evidence for things quite a lot

Yeah and that's what makes you a "post-modern pushover".

Can I offer you scientific, peer-reviewed literature that a human baby is objectively more important than a bag of twinkies? No. But if you go running to grab a falling pack of twinkies vs a baby falling to its death, I and the rest of the sane world, are going to think you're a gigantic asshole devoid of morality who should be locked up for criminal negligence. But there's no way you can "prove" the baby is more valuable inherently.

Are you implying that it doesn't take more skill to compose like Williams or Mozart than modern trailer music? If not, then why are there so many more trailer or "epic" composers than "golden-age" style composers today? Why are pieces like Bach's still used to teach counterpoint? Why are films like "The Exorcist" chosen by film registries for preservation while other horror films like "Saw" aren't? Why do people still travel from all over the world to gaze upon the Mona Lisa or statue of David? Shouldn't they be able to find just as good of works all around them? I can't offer you any peer-reviewed evidence that Michael Romeo or Santana really ARE better guitar players than Lil' Wayne, but it's the general consensus that they are among student, teacher, or casual observer alike.

Why don't you go and ask any of your beloved academic professors why that is, and they'll tell you: "Because they set the standard."

The reality is that 99/100 people are going to say that Kohei Ohmori is a better artist, and creates more beautiful works than Matt Groening.

Nope, I can't offer you any graphs or lab tests that prove that the top is really superior. But looking at it, I know that it is, I know it's harder to do, and I'm certain most will share my opinion. Like, which artist would you rather be able to draw like if you could just pick one?

You can sit here and argue with everyone all you want about "muh science" and how things like standards and common practice are irrelevant, but the rest of us instead will try to live up to the high standards set by our ancestors instead of trying to justify our failures with "subjectivity". You should try it sometime — it'll make you more humble and less of a neurotic dick.

10 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Can I offer you scientific, peer-reviewed literature that a human baby is objectively more important than a bag of twinkies?

Evolutionary psychology is an actual field of study. I'm pretty certain that there's quite a lot of research done on our instincts to protect infants and baby-like creatures that's built into our brain (and the brains of mammals, actually.) So yes, you COULD, if you were serious about actually trying to articulate anything properly. I bet even a quick google search can come up with good results on this kind of thing, and I'm not too picky if we can agree on the sources. The rest is just a consequence of this built into our culture and hence morality. I mean it's more complex than that, sure, but that's roughly how it would play out. Wish you would've gone with a more abstract example since this is pretty simple to sort out if you've got even a little bit of knowledge of experimental psychology.

33 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

...Why are pieces like Bach's still used to teach counterpoint?...

Bach's a funny example in that there were many pieces attributed to him that weren't his and we are actually still suspecting there are quite a few more that aren't either. I mean, any properly educated composer can write a fugue like Bach's, and I suspect even computers will do this once we get far enough with machine learning. It's just a matter of time till you can just press a button and out comes a style copy that's just as competent as the original. After all, it's just a bunch of patterns and statistics. Same for any music, really, none of it is that special that we can't just process and turn out copies like them through sheer computational analysis (which is incidentally what writing style copies actually is, lol.)

16 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

...neurotic dick.

Projecting much?

39 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

The reality is that 99/100 people are going to say that Kohei Ohmori is a better artist, and creates more beautiful works than Matt Groening.

You're really fond of the ad populum fallacy, to the point I suspect it's basically the main mechanism of all your arguments. I mean it's adorable, but come on. I said it before, you need to try harder. Try google, it can help you look things up, it's quite an amazing thing.

It's been a long day. You're at an All-you-can-eat buffet. It looks as if the food has been there all day as well. The Mac & Cheese has dried out, the broccoli looks like mush. The salad looks like it was dragged through the garden. There are two pieces of chicken, one like a fossil and the other plump and juicy. Which one is better?