Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.

There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.

When you get to the upper echelons of music, it becomes difficult to really pick a 'best' musician, as they're all working towards different goals.

When you get to the upper echelons of music, it's all technically awesome, but sounds crap.

Soladrin wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.

There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.

When you get to the upper echelons of music, it becomes difficult to really pick a 'best' musician, as they're all working towards different goals.

When you get to the upper echelons of music, it's all technically awesome, but sounds crap.

Explain.

The joy in technical music lies in being able to pick it apart and truly understand the artist's intention. You gain a sense of pride and accomplishment from 'figuring it out' that you just won't find in other forms of music, and it actually gives you something in return for investing your time into listening to it. Also, the mathematical and self-referential patterns found throughout are endlessly interesting to those willing to search for them. It's completely engaging, and it's very difficult to get bored of technical music simply because it's so hard to memorize.

Honestly, I have become completely desensitized to anything that doesn't 'sound like crap', simply because my level of stimulus when it comes to music has been set so high. Simple music pisses me off and bores me to no end, and it doesn't offer me anything that remotely compares to technical music.

Someone made me listen to some uber technical jazz a while ago, and while I could except that they were doing some really good stuff, it still sounded like someone was trying their new chainsaw out on my eardrums.

Music for me is mainly just background noise, I hate silence.

Just because someone is technically a good musician doesn't mean they're a competent composer of music.

Melissia wrote:Just because someone is technically a good musician doesn't mean they're a competent composer of music.

Yes, I'm sure orchestras run into that issue all the time.

Actually... yes.

Composers aren't themselves necessarily good musicians. The skill of musical composition is different from the skill of manipulating an instrument.

It's like the difference between Rhapsody of Fire and Dragonforce. Dragonforce is definitely better at the technical sklil of playing their instruments... but their composition skill sucks compared to Rhapsody of Fire.

Melissia wrote:Actually... yes.

Composers aren't themselves necessarily good musicians. The skill of musical composition is different from the skill of manipulating an instrument.

It's like the difference between Rhapsody of Fire and Dragonforce. Dragonforce is definitely better at the technical sklil of playing their instruments... but their composition skill sucks compared to Rhapsody of Fire.

I was more commenting on how silly that statement was in the first place.

If by siilly you mean obvious, then yes, I agree. But it's not false.

Melissia wrote:Just because someone is technically a good musician doesn't mean they're a competent composer of music.

What constitutes a 'competent composer of music'? Is that some misplaced need for a consistant time signature, or the inclusion of an intro, bridge, and verse, ad nauseum?

Compositional aptitude is absolutely necessary in order for someone to show that they are a good musician. However, mainstream restrictions only serve to limit someone's possibilities as a composer (and therefore, as a musician).

Also, if Dragonforce is the best example of 'Technical Music' you can give me, then we have a lot of work to do. There is absolutely nothing technical about Dragonforce, it's mind-numbingly simple music played at a breakneck speed. Herman Li can't even play his own material live, and that, to me, breaks a cardinal rule of musicianship.

Chrysaor686 wrote:What constitutes a 'competent composer of music'?

... exactly what it says it is.

Honestly some people.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Compositional aptitude is absolutely necessary in order for someone to show that they are a good musician.

False. Being good at the technical task of manipulating an instrument to create noise is not tied to the creative task of writing a musical piece.

Melissia wrote:False. Being good at the technical task of manipulating an instrument to create noise is not tied to the creative task of writing a musical piece.

A good composition is necessary in order to show that a musician is adept at manipulating their instrument. Skill may not be tied to creativity, but a musican can only be as good as the music he's playing. A good composition will also test a musician's limits. For instance, give Herman Li a piece of music written by Muhammad Suicmez, and I would bet money that he couldn't play it.

In order for me to consider someone to be a truly good musician, they must also be a brilliant composer. They are two sides to the same coin, and must be balanced in order for me to fully respect someone's musical skill.

Wow, Chrysaor686, you have done something I didn't think was possible.

You made music in it's entirety boring. It sounds like paperwork when you talk about it.

It is paperwork, technically.

Feel free to ignore the true nature of music if it makes you feel better. I, for one, gain immense amounts of enjoyment from picking apart the core objective and technical aspects of music.

It's certainly not for everyone.

The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.

How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.

So.. who cares.

Chrysaor686 wrote:The joy in technical music lies in being able to pick it apart and truly understand the artist's intention. You gain a sense of pride and accomplishment from 'figuring it out' that you just won't find in other forms of music, and it actually gives you something in return for investing your time into listening to it. Also, the mathematical and self-referential patterns found throughout are endlessly interesting to those willing to search for them. It's completely engaging, and it's very difficult to get bored of technical music simply because it's so hard to memorize.

Honestly, I have become completely desensitized to anything that doesn't 'sound like crap', simply because my level of stimulus when it comes to music has been set so high. Simple music pisses me off and bores me to no end, and it doesn't offer me anything that remotely compares to technical music.

Ugh, I love you. As for the second part of your post, I got really, REALLY into Dream Theater in high school. It made my head physically hurt at first. Given time I've come to find I really like simple stuff too because there are different things to analyze. Commercial music - that is, making a record that will sell in the millions - is an incredibly complex artform in itself. I've gotten to be a lot less snobby over time, but I still appreciate anything uber technical as well

And for the naysayers, different strokes for different folks. Just because some people like Sudoku doesn't mean everyone else thinks math is fun or recreational.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And for the naysayers, different strokes for different folks. Just because some people like Sudoku doesn't mean everyone else thinks math is fun or recreational.

Isn't that what I've been saying all this time? Oh wait, it is.

I would say I don't find Sudoku entertaining. Challenging, yes, and objectively good for the mind (because it is mental exercise and thus keeps your mind active) but not entertaining.

Soladrin wrote:The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.

How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.

So.. who cares.

I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion. Without the system that it is dependant on, even the simplest music would fall apart at the seams.

As a casual listener, you can feel free to ignore this and explore the 'emotional' aspects of music. Musicians, however, cannot, or you wouldn't have any music to listen to at all!

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Soladrin wrote:The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.

How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.

So.. who cares.

I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion. Without the system that it is dependant on, even the simplest music would fall apart at the seams.

As a casual listener, you can feel free to ignore this and explore the 'emotional' aspects of music. Musicians, however, cannot, or you wouldn't have any music to listen to at all!

I very much doubt that.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Soladrin wrote:The true "nature" of music is that it either sounds good, or it doesn't, and its completely subjective.

How and why and what you like/dislike is just up to the person.

So.. who cares.

I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion. Without the system that it is dependant on, even the simplest music would fall apart at the seams.

As a casual listener, you can feel free to ignore this and explore the 'emotional' aspects of music. Musicians, however, cannot, or you wouldn't have any music to listen to at all!

Some people just "feel it out" and are naturally talented. They tend to get esoteric really quickly, but they do exist (see most techno DJs). They don't realize they're just doing the musical math subconsciously

Well, I've never seen bands with calculators...

Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:Some people just "feel it out" and are naturally talented. They tend to get esoteric really quickly, but they do exist (see most techno DJs). They don't realize they're just doing the musical math subconsciously

There may be musicians that 'play by ear', but as you said, they're simply figuring out the mathematical aspects of music without giving it any conscious thought. Unfortunately, this will limit anyone's potential, and having a strong foundation in theory is always good for your musicianship.

Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:Ugh, I love you. As for the second part of your post, I got really, REALLY into Dream Theater in high school. It made my head physically hurt at first. Given time I've come to find I really like simple stuff too because there are different things to analyze. Commercial music - that is, making a record that will sell in the millions - is an incredibly complex artform in itself. I've gotten to be a lot less snobby over time, but I still appreciate anything uber technical as well

And for the naysayers, different strokes for different folks. Just because some people like Sudoku doesn't mean everyone else thinks math is fun or recreational.

While I agree that creating infectious hooks to feed into the mainstream is an art in itself, it's an art that requires considerably less effort. Most 'hooks' have been catalogued at this point.

You know what's funny? I actually hate doing math. It's my downfall; it hurts my brain. Somehow, when translated to music, it becomes infinitely more enjoyable to me.

Soladrin wrote:Well, I've never seen bands with calculators...

It's called 'The drummer'.

He isn't joking.

I am hereby leaving this topic, it really is making dislike music :\

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I've always wanted to play an instrument (specifically saxaphone) but never had the time or budget (when I have the money to buy a decent starter sax, I notice a new Codex and army that looks attractive, or maybe a new game like Warmahordes or...

Start with toughness 1-1.5 reeds, Rico will do just fine when you're starting. Basic mouth position (ambature, pronounced omborchure) is to curl your lower lip in over your teeth, tighten the corners of your mouth, and blow gently, using your diaphragm, NOT YOUR NECK, to push air through the instrument. So the air should come from your chest/belly, so to speak. Have fun, the Sax is a great instrument.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I think you missed the point. Music, at it's heart, is a multi-dimensional mathematical equasion.

I have to disagree here. Well, apart from the obvious that, if you really want to, you could break anything down to a multi-dimensional equation - that's what physics is afterall.

But there is more to music than just the equation - that's why we want humans to play it, rather than computers. Technically, I could program a sequencer to play the rights notes at the right times. But it's missing something, like a soul. You think B.B. King thinks of music as an equation? Ray Charles? Music is no more an equation than throwing a ball. And, while you can express what you hear in the form of an equation (just like you can express the flight of the ball in terms of an equation), to say that is the all of it is absolutely ridiculous.

There's a reason that Dragonforce has to play 200 notes a second - it's cause they're hoping they get the right one. Clapton can play one note and have the same effect...

Melissia wrote:Actually... yes.

Composers aren't themselves necessarily good musicians. The skill of musical composition is different from the skill of manipulating an instrument.

It's like the difference between Rhapsody of Fire and Dragonforce. Dragonforce is definitely better at the technical sklil of playing their instruments... but their composition skill sucks compared to Rhapsody of Fire.

So Rhapsody of Fire is the gold medal winner at the Special Olympics?

Redbeard wrote:I have to disagree here. Well, apart from the obvious that, if you really want to, you could break anything down to a multi-dimensional equation - that's what physics is afterall.

But there is more to music than just the equation - that's why we want humans to play it, rather than computers. Technically, I could program a sequencer to play the rights notes at the right times. But it's missing something, like a soul. You think B.B. King thinks of music as an equation? Ray Charles? Music is no more an equation than throwing a ball. And, while you can express what you hear in the form of an equation (just like you can express the flight of the ball in terms of an equation), to say that is the all of it is absolutely ridiculous.

There's a reason that Dragonforce has to play 200 notes a second - it's cause they're hoping they get the right one. Clapton can play one note and have the same effect...

I'm not saying that mathematics is the entirety of music, but rather, the fundamental basis upon which music is allowed to exist. You must first have structure in order to have 'soul', and I'm sure both B.B. King and Ray Charles recognized this wholeheartedly.

The difference between mathematics in physics and mathematics in music is that mathematics was applied to real-world physical motion after the fact, whereas written music has been based in mathematics since it's inception. Anything that does not follow the guidelines set forth by written music ends up sounding sloppy and cacophonous, even to the untrained ear.

People program music (and enjoy programmed music) all the time, despite it lacking the physical skill that is present with performed music. In order to truly experience everything music has to offer, one must delve into the 'soulless' realm of music theory. In doing so, they will have a much greater respect for the intelligence, skill, and creativity of truly talented musicians, and their enjoyment will not be limited by the 'feeling' that a song conveys.

The reason that Dragonforce 'plays' (hahah) 200 notes a second is to impress the people who don't know any better.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
The reason that Dragonforce 'plays' (hahah) 200 notes a second is to impress the people who don't know any better.

I agree with your reasoning, though I would argue that the reason Dragonforce plays that style is because it makes money and they enjoy it. You pick the order of the two. And I'd say commercial writing is just as complex as technical composition in trying to score that perfect combination that sticks around. Some songs fade out while others still get requested years and years down the road; that's a feat in itself. I don't see being incredibly complex as the end-all, be-all, though I appreciate the value. The ultimate point of music is whatever of the following you feel like that second: doing something you enjoy, creating something you can be passionate about, creating something people will enjoy or find meaning in, making money, testing your skills to see how far you can go, or whatever else you want to come up with. Sometimes I really have to retreat to a room and blare some prog rock for a while to wash away the perceived stupidity of the universe, and other times I really need a catchy dance tune to get completely fethed up and sing along to. Make me a playlist of 10 songs or so and PM me

Will do.

I hope you enjoy your fair share of Tech/Prog Metal. That is the form of music that I tend to gravitate towards, being an avid guitar player. This may take a while, as condensing all of the music that I listen to into a 'Top 10' is quite a feat.