The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
For Those Who Have Good Knowlege of Music Theory...
Old 2 days ago
  #1951
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by badmark View Post
I think he posted some 'probability orchestra' thing earlier in this thread.
No I didn't post any examples. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

Maybe you should view my posts better when you dare to sneak peak the 15% of them ;-)
Old 2 days ago
  #1952
Quote:
Originally Posted by badmark View Post
Amusingly, Vangelis is from the can't read notation, doesn't believe music can be taught school of thought.
Gainsaying again. Or badly translated ad hominems. That's about it.
Old 2 days ago
  #1953
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Yeah, Badmark and WildEye are a hot couple. However, now that the loverboys are united in the zone, it may be time to wish them farewell for good. I mean, their next step is the motel room, and I think I will skip those reports from the masters of Innovation-By-Ignorance.

BTW: Vivaldi's butterfly still sweeps the table.
Old 2 days ago
  #1954
WDM
Lives for gear
 
WDM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
Sorry about last night. I can't believe I fell for this obvious troll. No-one on this planet would seriously post this as an example of innovative music or good music.
I mentioned this track because:

* it's a perfect example how is listening 1 minute long intro tells you absolutely nothing about the whole track. You can't even determine what style of music it is.
* This track has a "story" in it, that develops from start to the end.


I didn't say it was innovative or it's good or bad. It's pointless.

As I mentioned before, the "innovation" is in your head... it solely depends on the level of your background and your personal knowledge and nothing else. If you can't see the innovation in any track, it's your own opinion. It doesn't make any track any better or worse.

And, if you hate vocals
"6.20 - i hate the vocals more than anything, but I hate it all."
what is the point to discuss with you what the Choir is, and what it does for the track, right?

Still, whether you (or me) like it or not, it's documented that the album was "on Charts" by the way.

wikipedia:
The album reached #58 position in the UK Albums Chart on March 2, 1996. The single "Ask The Mountains" was co-released with Stina Nordenstam, and reached #77 position in the UK Singles Chart on March 16, 1996.[3]
Old 2 days ago
  #1955
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by touched View Post
I agree that it would be good. Not sure how often subforums are visited vs the top level forum though. They may not get as much traffic, which could actually be beneficial?

I told Mr. Morton that I think his expertise could be very valuable here on this forum, so hopefully he would be interested in such a subforum.

A place that's not about debating whether music training and theory have any value to begin with - that's been done death now. It was worthwhile to an extent, but would not be welcome where people are trying to really discuss and learn theory.
I think you're probably right about sub-forums getting overlooked round here, if you're unaware of it, there is a pretty busy forum over at VI-Control where such matters are discussed: https://vi-control.net/community/for...-technique.13/
Old 2 days ago
  #1956
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

As to a grand finale. So what would be the most logical conclusion to a thread like this, where you pose something that in principle is a statistical question, with many implied problems of definition, representation and measurement, and have nothing but contradicting anecdotes (+ a lot of emotional nonsense and pie-tasting) to present as evidence? Well, given the contrary anecdotes from the opposing sides, it seems that at best we can say that

1. To some innovators, it may have been a benefit not to be too trained (depending on the definition of innovation and training)
2. To some innovators, it may have been a benefit to be trained (depending on the definition of innovation and training)

Their relative amount to each other is unknown. Whether they are innovative according to shared criteria is unknown. Whether innovations are (much more) dependent on other factors than training or non-training is unknown.

And that is basically the end of that story according to my "limited" and "restricted" knowlegde.

Cheers
Old 2 days ago
  #1957
Gear Head
 
dubsanddrones's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
As to a grand finale. So what would be the most logical conclusion to a thread like this,
I'm not sure there really is one. Yours is a valiant effort though. It's been an unintended case study in various things unrelated to the initial intent, a kind of fly paper of sorts, and encompassed a fairly wide range of aspects of the human condition.

I think you'll miss it, IX I think I will.

Quote:

Cheers
Old 2 days ago
  #1958
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WDM View Post
I mentioned this track because:

* it's a perfect example how is listening 1 minute long intro tells you absolutely nothing about the whole track. You can't even determine what style of music it is.
* This track has a "story" in it, that develops from start to the end.

I didn't say it was innovative or it's good or bad. It's pointless.

As I mentioned before, the "innovation" is in your head... it solely depends on the level of your background and your personal knowledge and nothing else. If you can't see the innovation in any track, it's your own opinion. It doesn't make any track any better or worse.

And, if you hate vocals
"6.20 - i hate the vocals more than anything, but I hate it all."
what is the point to discuss with you what the Choir is, and what it does for the track, right?

Still, whether you (or me) like it or not, it's documented that the album was "on Charts" by the way.

wikipedia:
The album reached #58 position in the UK Albums Chart on March 2, 1996. The single "Ask The Mountains" was co-released with Stina Nordenstam, and reached #77 position in the UK Singles Chart on March 16, 1996.[3]
I said I could judge a track on 5 seconds. Sorry it took me a while to make clear I meant a fairly representative 5 seconds, not the first 5 second. (I just assumed that when people wanted to check a track quickly they'd jump to the middle).

Some tracks have stories. These involve words that tell a story.

Some artists might try to tell a story with music - no idea if that's what Van-hellish was doing - sounded more like it was a challenge to see if every next section could be worse than the travesty that went before.

The thread is about innovative music, so I presumed that you were staying on topic - sorry I misjudged you.

**** **** **** I hate this **** so much
Old 2 days ago
  #1959
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
As to a grand finale. So what would be the most logical conclusion to a thread like this, where you pose something that in principle is a statistical question, with many implied problems of definition, representation and measurement, and have nothing but contradicting anecdotes (+ a lot of emotional nonsense and pie-tasting) to present as evidence? Well, given the contrary anecdotes from the opposing sides, it seems that at best we can say that

1. To some innovators, it may have been a benefit not to be too trained (depending on the definition of innovation and training)
2. To some innovators, it may have been a benefit to be trained (depending on the definition of innovation and training)

Their relative amount to each other is unknown. Whether they are innovative according to shared criteria is unknown. Whether innovations are (much more) dependent on other factors than training or non-training is unknown.

And that is basically the end of that story according to my "limited" and "restricted" knowlegde.

Cheers
It could be me telling you that I think you're a massive xxxxx xxx ?
Old 2 days ago
  #1960
Except it's already been established that your opinion is worthless.
Old 2 days ago
  #1961
Lives for gear
 
touched's Avatar
 

You guys have fun down here. The moan zone is too sulfurous for me.

Old 2 days ago
  #1962
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
I think that this thread is more about my disappointment that there is relatively little good innovative music out there, and a belief that where it occasionally rises it is unlikely to be made by people deeply schooled in the western classical tradition or formal music education.
Wrong.

Glad this thread has gone to the MZ. Unparticipating in 3....2....1....
Old 2 days ago
  #1963
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomás Mulcahy View Post
Gainsaying again. Or badly translated ad hominems. That's about it.
Wow, I apologize to muppets everywhere. Even the Danish Troll is more right more of the time than you, which is saying something.

This month's Sound on Sound interview with Vangelis. Page 77. I quote.

'The classic autodidact, he began composing composing at the age of four, but refused to take piano lessons or to learn to read and write notation. It is clear that he still regards music as something primal or instinctual that is easily choked by rules and conventions. "Since my early days, I always felt that music cannot be taught. Not so long ago, I read a quote from Claude Debussy, this divine composer, where he was saying exactly the same thing. I'm sure around the world there are many that think the same way ...'
Old 2 days ago
  #1964
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
It could be me telling you that I think you're a massive xxxxx xxx ?
I belong to the white elite: Educated, rich, sexy and ressourceful. I am the typical freemeason. A member of secret elitarian societies with deep roots in mysticism; Christian gnosticism, kabbalah and sufism. There are people more wealthy than us but none as powerful. The envy fuels your madness, but I am afraid you will have to accept your place at the bottom of the hierarchy of the universe and that your significance for the progress of mankind will be less than the excrements of a piss ant. There is nothing I can do for you. You do not have the potential to rise. You are a natural born loser and will stay so.

Farewell.
Old 2 days ago
  #1965
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDM View Post
These videos below show two examples how to be creative and show technique and the theory behind that.

Which the one do you think you can accomplish?

this?




or this?

not sure what you're trying to show here, the first video is the equivalent of a "tribute band". the second video actually is more "creative", but i think this would be a more on topic comparison:



crap result, which surprised me a bit seeing as he's so adept at mixing paint and flexing his art school vocabulary. what i've seen from de Kooning (somehow never heard of him before) is much better.
Old 2 days ago
  #1966
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
this is pretty amazing (and quite "innovative"), no "theory" required:

Old 2 days ago
  #1967
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
Old 2 days ago
  #1968
Quote:
Originally Posted by badmark View Post
Wow, I apologize to muppets everywhere. Even the Danish Troll is more right more of the time than you, which is saying something.

This month's Sound on Sound interview with Vangelis. Page 77. I quote.
You pay so much attention to the splinter in your brother's eye that it's no surprise you missed the list, longer than one, of innovators in electronic music who happen to be trained. Tit, tat, on you go.
Old 2 days ago
  #1969
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomás Mulcahy View Post
You pay so much attention to the splinter in your brother's eye that it's no surprise you missed the list, longer than one, of innovators in electronic music who happen to be trained. Tit, tat, on you go.
Lol. Own your fail. Move on. That's what people who aren't sanctimonious mealy-mouthed hypocrites do
Old 2 days ago
  #1970
Old 2 days ago
  #1971
Quote:
Originally Posted by badmark View Post
Lol.
In your defence it is a very long thread to keep up with, so you missed that part. You were never really paying attention to the actual argument anyway, only the bits you could show off with. Bye sweetie xxx
Old 2 days ago
  #1972
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Well, for a metaphor-policeman in her Majesty’s secret service, it did not take him more than a couple of posts before spouting profanities himself. However, I think double-standards go with the Ignorance-approach, another safe route to innovation, so no surprise. This is the state of the art to take or leave. I’ll pass, but best of luck to those who embrace it.
Old 1 day ago
  #1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubsanddrones View Post
I'd quite like to see a theory (and related) subforum here, tbh. A broad knowledge base and a lot of people that know their stuff. The perspective of the sort of musicians here is also different than that of the guitar based forums I'm used to, where everything tends to focus on pattern/scale obsessed shred or shoehorning everything into Jazz. The 'electronic' focus also opens up a more natural gateway into systems based approaches, so I think it would be interesting. It seems evident that it would be capable of producing plenty of debate in these parts, in any case. I doubt it would be entirely tumbleweed.



A timely post for me, as I've been listening to Roger Penrose interviews/podcasts lately. I can't claim to follow or understand it all, but as I often say, it's better than Eastenders. I note that on your (very good!) blog there are a few posts relating to a deeper study of the subject at hand. Amusing, considering. Also, having just spent a while researching my misguided belief that partials are infinite (I guess they still are, theoretically), I feel compelled to thank you for triggering an unusually deep Saturday morning of reading.
Thank you. It's important for me to stress that I'm a musician, not a philosopher, in which field I'm a keen amateur.

If you are into all this you must (must!) read The Singular Universe And The Reality Of Time by Roberto Mangabeira Ungar and Lee Smolin and The Order Of Time by Carlo Rovelli.

Interestingly, although Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli are two of the leading figures in the search for quantum gravity, they disagree on the question of time (music is a temporal idiom). Carlo, like Einstein, believes that time is relative and a local phenomenon whereas Lee believes that, as Newton claimed, there is one absolute, global time (as I do, for what it's worth!).

The Smolin/Ungar book is really heavy going but worth the effort.

Before anyone chips in here and accuses us of going seriously off-topic can I remind everyone that John Coltrane and Charlie Parker are said to have had a keen interest in the quantum world.
Old 1 day ago
  #1974
Lives for gear
 
touched's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Morton View Post
Before anyone chips in here and accuses us of going seriously off-topic can I remind everyone that John Coltrane and Charlie Parker are said to have had a keen interest in the quantum world.
We all have a keen interest whether we realize it or not. But the O.P. hates jazz so brace yourself
Old 1 day ago
  #1975
WDM
Lives for gear
 
WDM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbuonacc View Post
this is pretty amazing (and quite "innovative"), no "theory" required:

No, the "theory" is applied here too, only the different parts. The color itself has a "theory" behind that. Besides that, the artist is building his own machines (tools) to apply the paint to the surface, etc. which are replacing the traditional brushes and other tools.

Like the music theory that has common areas that required for the performer and the composer, but some are specific for composers only.
Old 1 day ago
  #1976
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WDM View Post
No, the "theory" is applied here too, only the different parts. The color itself has a "theory" behind that. Besides that, the artist is building his own machines (tools) to apply the paint to the surface, etc. which are replacing the traditional brushes and other tools.

Like the music theory that has common areas that required for the performer and the composer, but some are specific for composers only.
By your assessment the school bully has a good knowledge of biology - what else could explain the way he is able to punch hard and fast?

Lol.
Old 1 day ago
  #1977
WDM
Lives for gear
 
WDM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbuonacc View Post
not sure what you're trying to show here, the first video is the equivalent of a "tribute band". the second video actually is more "creative", but i think this would be a more on topic comparison...
I agree, it is somewhere in the middle between the first two




--------



--------


That would be on the scale from 1 to 100, 100 is on top and 1 is on the bottom.

What I was trying to say is:

All three are showing us the creativity and well as some innovation (if you consider Velazquez original work that was done around 16 century).

What is the difference?

The main difference is in form. By form I mean, if you look at the progress of Portrait technique, the form appears very early, just after few brush strokes, and it's obvious that the form is originally in the painters mind. And all other work is consistent and targeted to original form perfection. Not only the artist is able to copy the real object but also he enhances it with his own artistic vision, enhances this by the "theory" as composition, perspective, brush technique, knowledge of the color wheel, etc. All that is dedicated to one particular object.

In contrast, you will never know in advance how the baby hand printing will end up. There is no original form, no particular vision, it's all random, whatever comes out is considered as good one. Any color will do, basically. you can put 1 hand print or ten or hundred, on which angle, doesn't really matter, because it will be always a "hand printing" painting. That baby has no name, no character, it's just a "generic" baby...

The one in the middle has still no original form in mind, but as you mentioned the proper "theory" is started to appear, but it applies afterwards after "something cool happened at random".

Well, that is also shows us the scale of the craftsmanship. No one was born Velazquez on the day one. As well as no one can become Velazquez in one day. It's a long and painful process.

That is why right now probably the millions of baby "hand prints" all over the world, hanging on the wall, and has its value and adored only by baby's parents.

Velazquez paintings are considered as a treasure and counted by fingers... all over 5 centuries.

The bottom line is, we can't just copy the Velazquez painting, even if we see all instructions, briefed with all required "theory", have the best brushes, the best studio, whatever... Not only we can't copy his work, but also we can't create something on your own, of that level of quality and unique, without proper craftsmanship.

So, do we still "afraid" that our theory learning will ruin our creativity and possibility of innovation in our own projects? Afraid to become next Velazquez, or Mozart, or Bach? It's actually laughable.... Afraid to be a genius?... I hope not.
Old 1 day ago
  #1978
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WDM View Post
All three are showing us the creativity and well as some innovation (if you consider Velazquez original work that was done around 16 century).

What is the difference?

The main difference is in form. By form I mean, if you look at the progress of Portrait technique, the form appears very early, just after few brush strokes, and it's obvious that the form is originally in the painters mind. And all other work is consistent and targeted to original form perfection. Not only the artist is able to copy the real object but also he enhances it with his own artistic vision, enhances this by the "theory" as composition, perspective, brush technique, knowledge of the color wheel, etc. All that is dedicated to one particular object.

In contrast, you will never know in advance how the baby hand printing will end up. There is no original form, no particular vision, it's all random, whatever comes out is considered as good one. Any color will do, basically. you can put 1 hand print or ten or hundred, on which angle, doesn't really matter, because it will be always a "hand printing" painting. That baby has no name, no character, it's just a "generic" baby...

The one in the middle has still no original form in mind, but as you mentioned the proper "theory" is started to appear, but it applies afterwards after "something cool happened at random".

Well, that is also shows us the scale of the craftsmanship. No one was born Velazquez on the day one. As well as no one can become Velazquez in one day. It's a long and painful process.

That is why right now probably the millions of baby "hand prints" all over the world, hanging on the wall, and has its value and adored only by baby's parents.

Velazquez paintings are considered as a treasure and counted by fingers... all over 5 centuries.

The bottom line is, we can't just copy the Velazquez painting, even if we see all instructions, briefed with all required "theory", have the best brushes, the best studio, whatever... Not only we can't copy his work, but also we can't create something on your own, of that level of quality and unique, without proper craftsmanship.

So, do we still "afraid" that our theory learning will ruin our creativity and possibility of innovation in our own projects? Afraid to become next Velazquez, or Mozart, or Bach? It's actually laughable.... Afraid to be a genius?... I hope not.
Surely in the case of Velazquez the form is originally in the subject of the portrait? It goes to the canvas via the painter's eyes, mind and hands. This is me being petty, but we might as well be clear.

That Velazquez enhances the real object is subjective. I prefer abstract art and photography personally.

Surely in the case of the hand print you know pretty much what it's going to look like (assuming you saw the hands and the colour of paint.) You just don't exactly how many hands or where, but given it is being done by a baby this isn't really art as such it's craft for babies. If they were the hand prints of an adult who had spent years practising (but not studying formally) visual arts the adult would have a very good idea of where the prints will end up, whether they will overlap, which orientation they will be etc. You are not comparing like with like by comparing child to Velazquez.

Surely the random in the middle is not entirely random either - the scribbling has been done before and is by definition done with some sort of conscious or subconscious control going on the from the artist (who for all you know has dedicated decades to the philosophical and practical study of scribbles.)

Besides there is nothing wrong with an artist starting after "something cool happened at random".

The fact that we can't all copy (the opposite of innovation being copying) Velazquez does suggest very strongly that good theory is needed to copy - I have said this all along - if you want to make money in covers bands or learning dead old music then learn all the theory you can.

You simply cannot handle the fact technical ability is not correlated with quality, let alone audience response.
Old 1 day ago
  #1979
WDM
Lives for gear
 
WDM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
You simply cannot handle the fact technical ability is not correlated with quality, let alone audience response.
Yes it does. Not only technical ability is directly correlated to quality but also gives you a freedom of your own expression as an artist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
That Velazquez enhances the real object is subjective. I prefer abstract art and photography personally.
You see, that's your preference, which is 100% valid. But at the same time you don't have technical ability either to copy Velazques directly or create something similar in value on your own, even if you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
Besides there is nothing wrong with an artist starting after "something cool happened at random".
It's nothing wrong with it, but that "random" will take its share of your value as an artist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Eye View Post
The fact that we can't all copy (the opposite of innovation being copying) Velazquez does suggest very strongly that good theory is needed to copy - I have said this all along - if you want to make money in covers bands or learning dead old music then learn all the theory you can.
But why the "cover bands" are in the first place? Because it's what "makes money" they are covering, right?

There is another way... you can create your very own music instead of covering... that will make you the same amount of money, but you have to be as good as the band you're covering at least... and that is the same as to be good as Velazquez... (watch above what it takes)

The creativity itself has no value in it. (except for creators themselves perhaps).
The innovation itself could also have no value in it.

The technical ability has value. The more ability ... the more expensive you become because the less people can copy you or replace you if they want.

Technical ability directly correlates with the theory, because it's a shortcut of not to learn only on your own mistakes, and be propelled forward on expertise and experience of other's, even through centuries. There is only one life... you can spend it to be like millions of others, or... you can try to beat Velazquez in his fine art
Old 1 day ago
  #1980
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
well, here's something a bit innovative, a series of pieces for 6 virtual pianos tuned to the '11-limit just intonation'

Topic:
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…
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump