The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Music vs. sound? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 11th April 2010
  #541
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Well, so you are saying then that a piece of music that is not melodic isn't music? A piece consisting only of timbral variations, etc - is not music? or is it simply inferior, my gracious sir?



But, pretty much by definition, if the piece is timbre based, then it can't be translated - so this is kind of circular. Unless your overall criterion for whether something is music, or at least good music, is that it can be played on different instruments and with different genres.



Well, by golly, you have set the rules for music! I salute you! Much of 20th century music has now been devalued by the Beermeister. His non-elitist majesty kind of cooks the books by first saying that you really need Western music theory, and then saying that only traditional melodic pieces are really music.
Can you please stop being sarcastic and actually add something to this thread instead of just acting all pissed off?
Old 11th April 2010
  #542
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
You could start by noting the relations between notes instead of their ammount...
But as you yourself say further down (blue) - that is not quantifying music heh

Quote:

Again, this is nothing new.
Why do you think a guitar has frets?
It's because we have quantified the relations between notes.
Scales have been developed that way.
Isn't it funny that we find simple mathematical relations between frequencies pleasing and can attach meaning to a deviation from these relations?
What meaning? heh

Quote:



Sure, but scopes and spectral analyzers are hardly the right tools for quantifying things like mood or feeling.
It has been said here before.
Relations, transitions, scales, harmonies etc are the tools with which music can be/is quantified.
It does not tell you exactly what the lister is experiencing but nothing in the world can, not humanities, not natural sciences, nothing.
At least, not with our current understanding of how the brain works
.
And this is where the humanities come into the picture - trying to find ways to research and explain the so far unquantifyable...

Is that really so hard to understand?



Quote:

That's why i mentioned the brain earlier.
The brain is a physical object, yet it (collectively) created everything we humans are today (yeah, i know, this is a bit generalizing, there is also the rest of our body and genetic heritage).
The brain made culture possible, language possible, science possible.
The fact that we are here sitting behind our computers, discussing this, is a result of brains acting on the environment.

So ULTIMATELY, to understand us understanding, we need to understand the brain.
To understand how music affects a person, you would need to understand how the music affects that persons brain.

That will be the ultimate place where natural sciences will meet humanities.
Yes, of course there is lots of knowledge to be found in these areas of study, mixing the theoretical approaches and so on - but the human element (the so far non-quantifyable) means that we will always need to be able to look at these things from other perspectives as well.

I don't believe that there is just one BTE that wil answer all questions we have...
Old 11th April 2010
  #543
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Can you please stop being sarcastic and actually add something to this thread instead of just acting all pissed off?
Sorry, but i think that the questions posed by Drool are fair - and that the tone in these questions is fair too.

I mean, look at what Beers is saying:
Cage? Not music - or can you hear the melody in 4.33 ?
Musique concrete? Not music. Noise without melody...
Anything that is only rythm? Not music - where is the melody?
(Yeah, african drumming (or drumming at all) is certainly not music).

Beers shows that he has such a limited definition of what constitutes music that any verbal scolding is highly appropriate here...
Old 11th April 2010
  #544
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
But as you yourself say further down (blue) - that is not quantifying music heh
I was not talking about analyzing spectra here, more like looking at changes from note to note within the context of musical notation.
To use an analogy, to look at how words flow one after the other instead of looking at the the shape of the font used.

Quote:
What meaning? heh
The feeling you get when judging a major chord and a minor chord, for instance.
The difference being that a major chord is basicly a straight harmonic series (perfect, but boring), while a minor chord deviates from that and adds a 'negative' emotion to that which seems to relate to the slight dischordance of the chord not being quite 'there'.

Quote:
And this is where the humanities come into the picture - trying to find ways to research and explain the so far unquantifyable...
I still don't think that it's the exclusive terrain for humanities nor that it is the only terrain humanities busies itself with.

Quote:
Yes, of course there is lots of knowledge to be found in these areas of study, mixing the theoretical approaches and so on - but the human element (the so far non-quantifyable) means that we will always need to be able to look at these things from other perspectives as well.
Yes, and all i'm saying is that it's pointless to separate the two approaches as they both contribute valuable ways of understanding the matter.
Old 11th April 2010
  #545
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Sorry, but i think that the questions posed by Drool are fair - and that the tone in these questions is fair too.

I mean, look at what Beers is saying:
Cage? Not music - or can you hear the melody in 4.33 ?
Musique concrete? Not music. Noise without melody...
Anything that is only rythm? Not music - where is the melody?
(Yeah, african drumming (or drumming at all) is certainly not music).

Beers shows that he has such a limited definition of what constitutes music that any verbal scolding is highly appropriate here...
The thing is that this has been drools tone throughout the whole thread and it's starting to get on my nerves realy bad.
Why not discuss it in a normal manner without the sneers and sarcasm ?

BTW, african drum have melody.
Drums have a tuning and can play melody, tho this is very much down-played in western music in general.
Old 11th April 2010
  #546
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

this has officially become the stupidest thread i've read in a long time, which is truly ironic given how smart the subject matter is that's being thrown around. it was pages and pages ago that this became only about yall one-upping eachother and having the last word, which is why pages and pages ago almost everyone stopped participating. take it over to PhilosophySlutz, no one here cares any more. every post is just a passive-aggressive barb from self-assumed intellectuals, i say self-assumed bekuz if yall were actually using the intellectualism to your advantage you'd have better things to do than live in this thread for the past week. if you guys were to really get honest with eachother you'd just start crackin "yo mama" snaps at this point. get a life.
Old 11th April 2010
  #547
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
The thing is that this has been drools tone throughout the whole thread and it's starting to get on my nerves realy bad.
Why not discuss it in a normal manner without the sneers and sarcasm ?

BTW, african drum have melody.
Drums have a tuning and can play melody, tho this is very much down-played in western music in general.
Beermaster's own attitude has been entirely patronizing, and I think that my response to him is appropriate.

Your responses to this entire issue seem to willfully ignore everything that has been said. The notion that me and grumphh should simply accept that music is a language because "accomplished musicians" have told us so is one of the most ludicrous things I've heard here in a long time - not only because of its actual content, but because you simply assume that he and I are not accomplished musicians and others are (I suppose simply because of what we are saying about music/communication/language).

I mean, I'll start answering you more seriously if you actually for once sound like you are seriously thinking about what Grumphh and I are saying, instead of trolling. I think that it's quite obvious that he and I have presented a serious position, represented in 2 different ways - and that you are simply dismissing it without understanding it, or attempting to.

After a point, one just kind of gives up trying to explain something to someone if they make no effort at all to understand what you're trying to explain to them.
Old 11th April 2010
  #548
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

yo mama

Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
this has officially become the stupidest thread i've read in a long time, which is truly ironic given how smart the subject matter is that's being thrown around. it was pages and pages ago that this became only about yall one-upping eachother and having the last word, which is why pages and pages ago almost everyone stopped participating. take it over to PhilosophySlutz, no one here cares any more. every post is just a passive-aggressive barb from self-assumed intellectuals, i say self-assumed bekuz if yall were actually using the intellectualism to your advantage you'd have better things to do than live in this thread for the past week. if you guys were to really get honest with eachother you'd just start crackin "yo mama" snaps at this point. get a life.
Old 11th April 2010
  #549
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Sorry, but i think that the questions posed by Drool are fair - and that the tone in these questions is fair too.

I mean, look at what Beers is saying:
Cage? Not music - or can you hear the melody in 4.33 ?
Musique concrete? Not music. Noise without melody...
Anything that is only rythm? Not music - where is the melody?
(Yeah, african drumming (or drumming at all) is certainly not music).

Beers shows that he has such a limited definition of what constitutes music that any verbal scolding is highly appropriate here...
Well hands up... well done grumph...you are quite correct that there are many exceptions to the rule and 'Modern Music/Contempory Classical/new Music/Acousmatic' are certainly forms where all the rules a thrown out the window. ( tho melody certainly is present in some of these forms too ... Cage's Piano pieces for example ) Some wonderful stuff to experience....

I think one has to ask how many people here that are writing their own tracks and interested in finding out how to improve what they're doing are focussing on writing 'abstract' atonal music ? How many of them regard the works of Michael Finnissy and Thomas Ades as musical heros and aim to compose music in their moulds ?

It would be very interesting to hear what areas and types of music people here produce... I have a feeling that more would be on the tonal side than the abstract. But I could be wrong.
Old 11th April 2010
  #550
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Well hands up... well done grumph...you are quite correct that there are many exceptions to the rule and 'Modern Music/Contempory Classical/new Music/Acousmatic' are certainly forms where all the rules a thrown out the window. ( tho melody certainly is present in some of these forms too ... Cage's Piano pieces for example ) Some wonderful stuff to experience....
What rules?
Just because you claim there to be a rule it doesn't mean there is one.

Just as with religion, actually - if you can tell me why the rules of gamelan or shakuhachi flute playing don't apply to you, then you will understand why your rules don't apply to me...

I thought we pretty much had established by now that "musical rules" are more or less arbitrary and highly dependent on the culture you are from/working within.

Quote:
I think one has to ask how many people here

that are writing their own tracks

and interested in finding out how to improve what they're doing

are focussing on writing 'abstract' atonal music ?
I don't quite understand this fairly convoluted sentence?

Are you suggesting that people that write "abstract" music are not interested in improving their music?

If that is not what you meant, please explain it.

Quote:
It would be very interesting to hear what areas and types of music people here produce... I have a feeling that more would be on the tonal side than the abstract. But I could be wrong.
What would it mean if it turned out that 98% of the music here is "on the tonal side" ?
Old 11th April 2010
  #552
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
What rules?
Just because you claim there to be a rule it doesn't mean there is one.
.... well believe it or not grumphy there are reasons why certain types of music sound different to other types of music... there are reasons why certain notes played in the wrong place will always sound like mistakes ... there are so many reasons why some people struggle to make their music sound the way they want it to.... some could call them 'rules' some could call them guidelines some could call them answers


Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I don't quite understand this fairly convoluted sentence?

Are you suggesting that people that write "abstract" music are not interested in improving their music?

If that is not what you meant, please explain it.


What would it mean if it turned out that 98% of the music here is "on the tonal side" ?
You quoted Cage etc as reaction to my opinion that Melody is the hardest thing to write etc ... I tried to raise the question how many people using Gearslutz are into writing abstract atonal music compared to tonal music....guessing that more would be on the tonal side than the abstract... if so then a lot of us try to make our music sound as good as possible... there are 'ways' to make your music sound better and reasons why doing X will be better than Y. Nobody has to do anything but those looking to up the game learn the tricks of the trade.
Old 11th April 2010
  #553
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
there are reasons why certain notes played in the wrong place will always sound like mistakes ...
Are you referring to bad timing or to the actual value of the note? heh

As i said before, give me the notes that are bad and i will abstain from using them ever again.

...a bit like the middle ages where the "devils interval" was forbidden to use in music though, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
there are 'ways' to make your music sound better and reasons why doing X will be better than Y.
And what perchance are those "ways" according to your great wisdom?

In no way you can mean theory, of course, then what else could you mean?
Old 11th April 2010
  #554
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr
rrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhh
hhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Old 11th April 2010
  #555
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Of course, you are using 'rules' in different senses, depending on your goal in any particular argument. Grumphh is consistent, and here you are obviously misinterpreting him. I don't think that he would deny that, for instance, if you were playing a Bach piece, that you could play a wrong note that wouldn't sound good, or that particular styles of music work by certain rules, and that it isn't possible for things not to sound good. Why exactly you're arguing the points you are, I'm not sure - I suspect so that you can emerge from this feeling that you've been triumphant.

Your points about people who write tonal music being the only ones who want their music to sound good are ridiculous - ignorant at best, and (again) elitist and condescending at worst. One can think that atonal or downright noise music sounds good, without working by a set of rules - one doesn't always have a set of rules to decide whether something is pleasing or not.

And again - as usual, you distort a person's user name when you want to ridicule a point that they haven't actually made, and then denigrate all forms of music other than the ones you like. The next step, we might predict, is to again suggest that grumphh or I post what we do because of some neurological condition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
.... well believe it or not grumphy there are reasons why certain types of music sound different to other types of music... there are reasons why certain notes played in the wrong place will always sound like mistakes ... there are so many reasons why some people struggle to make their music sound the way they want it to.... some could call them 'rules' some could call them guidelines some could call them answers




You quoted Cage etc as reaction to my opinion that Melody is the hardest thing to write etc ... I tried to raise the question how many people using Gearslutz are into writing abstract atonal music compared to tonal music....guessing that more would be on the tonal side than the abstract... if so then a lot of us try to make our music sound as good as possible... there are 'ways' to make your music sound better and reasons why doing X will be better than Y. Nobody has to do anything but those looking to up the game learn the tricks of the trade.
Old 11th April 2010
  #556
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Of course, you are using 'rules' in different senses, depending on your goal in any particular argument. Grumphh is consistent, and here you are obviously misinterpreting him. I don't think that he would deny that, for instance, if you were playing a Bach piece, that you could play a wrong note that wouldn't sound good, or that particular styles of music work by certain rules, and that it isn't possible for things not to sound good. Why exactly you're arguing the points you are, I'm not sure - I suspect so that you can emerge from this feeling that you've been triumphant.
Nope, just the same point I've been making all the way through this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Your points about people who write tonal music being the only ones who want their music to sound good are ridiculous - ignorant at best, and (again) elitist and condescending at worst. One can think that atonal or downright noise music sounds good, without working by a set of rules - one doesn't always have a set of rules to decide whether something is pleasing or not.
Nope, my point is that if you're writing 'Abstract' Atonal music then gloves are off you can do what you like. You can set up your own rules or let it be total random fun.... If you are going down a tonal route then the chances are that you're going to be presented with hurdles that are easier to pass if you have a bit of understanding...
Old 11th April 2010
  #557
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post

Your points about people who write tonal music being the only ones who want their music to sound good are ridiculous - ignorant at best, and (again) elitist and condescending at worst.
Don't be so harsh, Droolzy heh

I guess that when you have a theoretical background in music the concept that there are also people who create music that they don't want to sound "good" - because they feel that notions of good and bad do not apply to what they create - may be a difficult one to understand.
Old 11th April 2010
  #558
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

But even with tonal music, following the rules doesn't at all guarantee that the music will sound good. Not at all. Ultimately, it either will be good or it won't (and of course this oversimplifies this part of it greatly), and there are no rules for that - nor could there be.

The fact that some forms of music require less study of rules does not imply that those forms of music aren't as good - is jazz 'better' than rock music, or is western classical music 'better' than some other type of music simply because of the study that's required to write it? That's what you seem to be saying, and this is, of course, a very elitist view.

Of course, though, unless music is totally random, decisions are being made, and guidelines are being used - for some types of electronic music, the rules might be more rigid, or else the music won't be considered a part of that style, etc, and in others the ultimate criteria is simply whether it sounds good and affects you/other people in the way that music is supposed to. Years ago, I probably would have agreed with your point of view, however I view it as a good thing that my world view has expanded over the years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Nope, just the same point I've been making all the way through this thread.



Nope, my point is that if you're writing 'Abstract' Atonal music then gloves are off you can do what you like. You can set up your own rules or let it be total random fun.... If you are going down a tonal route then the chances are that you're going to be presented with hurdles that are easier to pass if you have a bit of understanding...
Old 11th April 2010
  #559
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Nope, my point is that if you're writing 'Abstract' Atonal music then gloves are off you can do what you like. You can set up your own rules or let it be total random fun.... If you are going down a tonal route then the chances are that you're going to be presented with hurdles that are easier to pass if you have a bit of understanding...
But people do write wonderful music in (almost) all genres without the aid of theory in the real world.

What you are describing is essentially just that some people have formulas according to which they put music together to suit their personal ideal of "what sounds good".
Old 11th April 2010
  #560
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Don't be so harsh, Droolzy heh

I guess that when you have a theoretical background in music the concept that there are also people who create music that they don't want to sound "good" - because they feel that notions of good and bad do not apply to what they create - may be a difficult one to understand.
Oh, but I guess I do think that people want their music to sound good - as in, they want it to please them. Now that's in a very broad sense - obviously Cage's 4'33" pleased him, and many other people, but in another sense, the notion that it sounds good (or bad) is kind of silly.

I suppose the point is that quality matters just as much to someone who is working with noise as someone who is writing tonal music.
Old 11th April 2010
  #561
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Oh, but I guess I do think that people want their music to sound good - as in, they want it to please them. Now that's in a very broad sense - obviously Cage's 4'33" pleased him, and many other people, but in another sense, the notion that it sounds good (or bad) is kind of silly.

I suppose the point is that quality matters just as much to someone who is working with noise as someone who is writing tonal music.
Yup.
Old 11th April 2010
  #562
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
The fact that some forms of music require less study of rules does not imply that those forms of music aren't as good
Nobody said that

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
That's what you seem to be saying, and this is, of course, a very elitist view.
What I 'seem' to be saying ? Probably what you'd like me to have said so you can continue to cry witch ! something I know you enjoy... Droolingmaster.

At the end of the day you can do what you want ! - you can play happy hippies with the notion that any note and sound at anytime... there are no wrong notes guys..... or you can be a little bit more subjective about what you're writing and the style you're aiming for and say 'hey the reason that BV sounds **** is because it's clashing with chords on the guitar ... why is that. ?... what would be an alternative?'

I like many here spend most of my life working on music in one form or another... under one name or another. from one style to another... never have I realized how much more I need to learn. To me it's exciting and fascinating... maybe not to everyone tho ?

I'll say goodnight now girls so sleep well !

Beer x x
Old 11th April 2010
  #563
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I guess that when you have a theoretical background in music the concept that there are also people who create music that they don't want to sound "good" - because they feel that notions of good and bad do not apply to what they create
It's way too easy to sound bad. Give a piano to a 5 year old who never saw one and let him "play it". I don't think you will find one serious person who will tell you that is "good piece". On a contrast to that, to sound good, takes a lot of knowledge, mathematics first and a set of "rules". You seem to look at rules as something "heaven given" that no one should dare to change. That's a wrong approach buddy.

These "rules" are nothing but fundamental mathematical equations that people figured out by try & error over time and set them as "rules". You don't need to agree with "rules", but you wont change the fact that in 2 + x = 9; x always turns out 7 and that human brain prefers much more two notes with 7 semitones apart, vs 2 semitones apart. You are free not to accept the fact x is not 7 but 2, however your "music" will sound quite bad to most people.
Old 11th April 2010
  #564
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Don Solaris said
Quote:
It's way too easy to sound bad. Give a piano to a 5 year old who never saw one and let him "play" it. I don't think you will find one serious person who will tell you that is "good piece". On a contrast to that, to sound good, takes a lot of knowledge, mathematics first and a set of "rules". You seem to look at rules as something "haven given" that no one should dare to change. That's a wrong approach buddy.

These "rules" are nothing but fundamental mathematical equations that people figured out by try & error over time and set them as "rules". You don't need to agree with "rules", but you wont change the fact that in 2 + x = 9; x always turns out 7 and that human brain prefers much more two notes with 7 semitones apart, vs 2 semitones apart. You are free not to accept the fact x is not 7 but 2, however your "music" will sound quite bad to most people.
You are quite misinterpreting Grumphh also. He's not saying that if you take a particular genre of tonal music and you break rules without knowing what you're doing that it will sound good. And I don't think that moderators should be disparagingly calling people 'buddy'. Grumphh has thought about these issues a lot, and what he has said has been spot on.
Old 11th April 2010
  #565
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Nobody said that
No, but what you did say quite implied it.

Quote:
What I 'seem' to be saying ? Probably what you'd like me to have said so you can continue to cry witch ! something I know you enjoy... Droolingmaster.
More of your friendly kidding, Beermaster?

Quote:
At the end of the day you can do what you want ! - you can play happy hippies with the notion that any note and sound at anytime... there are no wrong notes guys
No one has said this or implied it. not only that, but we've explained how we are not saying this. And despite this, you repeat it over and over. Note that if you were me, by this point, you would be suggesting that I get back on my medication, but then I guess if you were me, you'd be taking it.

...
Quote:
I like many here spend most of my life working on music in one form or another... under one name or another. from one style to another... never have I realized how much more I need to learn. To me it's exciting and fascinating... maybe not to everyone tho ?

I'll say goodnight now girls so sleep well !

Beer x x
You are one nasty, condescending, person.
Old 11th April 2010
  #566
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
And I don't think that moderators should be disparagingly calling people 'buddy'.
What. Are you grumph's lawyer?
Old 11th April 2010
  #567
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
What. Are you grumph's lawyer?
Why, yes. Yes I am.
Old 11th April 2010
  #568
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Well, "buddy" was a friendly gesture as we are buddies from the KSS. He got me into JP-8 with one single demo (what some couldn't done with dozens), so i'd say i have a lot respect for him, much more than many would know.

Just my 0.000000000001 cents.
Old 11th April 2010
  #569
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
Well, "buddy" was a friendly gesture as be are buddies from the KSS. He got me into JP-8 with one single demo (what some couldn't done with dozens), so i'd say i have a lot respect for him, much more than many would know.

Just my 0.000000000001 cents.
ok - but the thing is that the same friendly 'gesture' is kind of unfriendly in a different context. For instance, the world 'pal' - "Look, pal, I don't appareciate...." - suddenly it's not used in a nice way. In the context of your post, it didn't sound very nice. But, of course, I'm speaking as his attorney.
Old 11th April 2010
  #570
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
for the theory types, how much music theory is focused on the range of playable sequences?

I was listening to some heinichen today and was thinking: how much theory is based around 10 fingers?

electronic music suffers no such limitation. sure the triad is nice and convenient but is there more out there? consider even the octaves, every note of every octave is available at any time in sequenced music. are we still bound by one, two, three up to seven notes across two maybe three octaves?

What is there that tells us about inhuman sequencing even arpeggiating--notes that could not possibly be played by the human hand. Lovecraftian! inhuman hands.

one wonders did HP Lovecraft envision this when he wrote this?


Yet when I looked from that highest of all gable windows, looked while the candles sputtered and the insane viol howled with the night-wind, I saw no city spread below, and no friendly lights gleamed from remembered streets, but only the blackness of space illimitable; unimagined space alive with motion and music, and having no semblance of anything on earth. And as I stood there looking in terror, the wind blew out both the candles in that ancient peaked garret, leaving me in savage and impenetrable darkness with chaos and pandemonium before me, and the demon madness of that night-baying viol behind me.

hehthumbsup
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lovecapacitor / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
2
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
21
navitus / Music For Games
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump