Everything posted by Stormbringer
-
Music can be defined (and since you're bringing in maths... music is filled with it), and while there's indeed works where it can be argued wether if it's music or not (4'33'' is probably the best example), the pieces I posted are far from that ambiguity. No one is forcing anyone to enjoy this stuff, which IS weird music to say the least. But liking or disliking something has nothing to do as to wether it's music or not. Or if it's art or not. Are there pieces where the line between being music (art) or not becomes blurry and be debatable? Of course. There's plenty of them. Those I posted above which you are dissing as "noise" and not made by "real musicians" are far from that line. The one by Boulez being the only one that goes closer to it (and which I personally don't like, but I still find very interesting). And the tritone wasn't considered noise. The thing with the tritone is that it's a difficult to sing interval, in which it's easy to go out of tune. Medieval composers whose music has reached us wrote mostly for vocal ensembles, and as such they avoided the use of the tritone in melodies. But the interval would always appear here and there as part of a chord (when there was some accompaniment instrument, or later when they began writing polyphonic stuff). The "Diabolus in Musica" association thing came after and mostly to further stress the trying to avoid the interval in melodic lines. The tritone btw is pretty much the basis of the tonal system. As I said, there's an obvious snobbish side to the academic art, in all it's disciplines. And I'm not getting into that painting, but focusing in the music: that still doesn't stop those pieces I posted from being actual music, even if unpleasant to most ears. Neither it's disproved by you not wanting to believe it or hear it. The music proves it itself. It's as easy as listening to it. And it may not be that easy to do, but analyzing the written music makes it even more clear. Nah, only skills, and lots of study, a deep knowledge on harmony, counterpoint, etc. and plenty of works and pieces of more traditional sounding stuff before actually experimenting and using such skill and knowledge for pushing barriers. And plenty of highly skilled musicians who respect and even admire them. So what's the point? There's a variety of points of view among skilled musicians as in everything else. And what's the point in linking me a site in French when I don't speak French?? You may not think so, but it is. The "commercial" niche for atonal music is in movies and video games soundtracks. It's used as a resource and it's used quite often. Ennio Morricone is not the only guy writing music for movies, and his style is far from being the only one there is. And you may no find them because you don't want to: John Williams or Hans Zimmer, or Howard Shore they do use atonal resources for some passages here and there. And they do it quite often. Phillip Glass having no link with the atonal stuff? He was influenced by the likes of John Cage! Who was much weirder and extreme in his experimentations that Schoenberg, or Boulez... Getting semantics now? No, I'm not confusing beauty with sweetness. You clearly pointed out that "all 'real musicians' (as in opposition to those who dare experimenting I guess) are looking for beauty in their music". And if it's by taking your now so convenient concept of "beauty" it can be argued that these guys - say Schoenberg, Boulez, Stockhausen, etc- are actually looking for beauty in their work, but in their own particular way. Because Beauty can be "tough, violent, wild, aggressive, etc" And they may get intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to their minds with what they craft. But music has not the need nor the obligation to seek for beauty. Even using such a broad and convenient concept of it. -
-
-
-
You're very welcome!!!
-
Elsa Hosk Wings: 5.5/10 Overall Look: 7.5/10 Barbara Fialho Wings: 4/10 Overall Look: 9/10
-
First of all, it's not noise. It IS music, wether you like or not. In fact much of that kind of stuff I don't like it either but I won't go there denying it's music just because of a matter of personal taste. Even if not necessarily liking it, it's very interesting and it doesn't hurt to open the mind and ears a little to forms of music that differ from the traditional. It's not even John Cage's 4'33'' or works of that sort we're talking about here. The above isn't even a too "Avant-Garde" piece by Schoenberg. And you can disagree all you want and strongly as you want but Mahler, and now that we're at it Wagner, are clear and pivotal precursors of dodecaphonic and atonal music. That's a fact: they both took the tonal system to the extreme and were both close to breaking it (we can argue Wagner actually did in a specific moment). They put the basis from which the likes of Schoenberg, Berg or Boulez on one side, and Debussy or Ravel on the other, developed their own ways of dealing with the tonality crisis. Being out of the tonal system doesn't make the music incoherent btw; the serial system is precisely one of the ways to give coherence to this. Also: not all music has to be tonal. Much of the popular music we are used to isn't (even if it's not atonal either). The lack of regularity it's precisely what some of this music (which again... it's not noise just because you don't like it ) seeks. To move apart of the musical forms of the past and to avoid repetition. And, though it sounds counterintuitive, to give the composer more control over the final work. And there's quite a process behind it so no... it wouldn't sound the same if you "randomly press the keys of a piano". That being said, there's actually aleatoric music. And well, there's also a process behind this... I had to write a piece some time ago. "All the real musicians" These composers are all highly accomplished and skilled musicians - much more than me to start with - who pushed barriers and took music to new horizons, even if there's often a snobbish side to such a quest. Soundtracks from movies, video games, etc owes a lot to these guys and their new and different treatment of music. And, like it or not, Mahler and the such have A LOT to do with the atonal composers that came after them. And that is quite the narrow concept of what music is or what should it be. Not every music seeks beauty. Music as every form of art seeks to express something, and that something doesn't have to be beautiful neither has to aim to be it. Feelings - or whatever else someone wants to express - can be unpleasant, can be violent, etc... music, and all art just expresses them. To claim that "real musicians" should always looks for "beauty in music" in terribly narrowed minded and even quite naive.
It's not even that weird or that Avant-Garde and in some passages it doesn't sound that far off the likes of say, Mahler or other post-Romantic composers. Plus, music like this is EVERYWHERE in movies' soundtracks and the such.
You're still misusing the word "cute"
The truth and... NO!!! Less "NO!!" than a spider, but still NO
Not sure if you can convince me to hear "The Bass"
Taylor Hill Overall Look: 10/10 Romee Strijd Wings: 4.5/10 Overall Look: 7/10
Lais Ribeiro Wings: 3.5/10 Overall Look: 10/10 Candice Swanepoel Wings: 5/10 Overall Look: 9/10
Aaah the logic! "Never liked him" -> "That sourceless/anonymous information HAS to be true"
The amount of water loss on a long, demanding bike ride is incredible.
Sadie Newman Overall Look: 4/10 What's the thing with the Michelin arms?? Martha Hunt Wings (?): 1/10 I had to look like 3 times to see it Overall Look: 7.5/10