At 11/29/09 08:46 PM, Calamaistr wrote:

At 11/29/09 08:28 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote:

Bach made music about jesus and the christian god not because he liked to but that was his age,

Are you saying he conformed to the standards in music of that age?

yes and no, as he also said that his superiors had no knowledge of music.

When did he say that? What were his exact words? What is your source?

The above might seem right but its wrong.

Oh, of course. How am I not surprised.

Bach made music about jesus and the christian god not because he liked to but that was his age,

Please, prove how you know this. SPECIFIC FACTS. Direct quotes from the composer? Things he has written or said that should make you believe that?

everyone believed in jesus and the christian god back then, it was as common as believing in science today. There are many different definitions you can give to the word god afterall, in its time it was an omnipotent idol.. wich makes some of bach's comments rather odd.

What comments are those?

When you look into bach's comments on his music, you can unveil a whole different context to his words.

Give specific examples. What comments did he make?

Its pretty convincing that bach did not make music for god but found god in music,

You're onto something here. But then you went and ruined it by saying:

and with god i mean the logic behind music, the logic behind architecture, the logic behind alchemy, all being the same thing; the divine measure. No doubt he was so absorbed by this.

No doubt? Because I doubt. You have provided no FACTS. No EVIDENCE. You simply make statements and expect that we should believe them without you proving them.

A slight aside: I can tell you're not religious, neither am I. But don't let that cloud your perception of Bach. He was a devoutly religious man, and that's just how it is. He wrote his music to the glory of God.

Its useless to discuss this with you, you base yourself off sources like wikipedia containing a incomplete reality, just like when people argue about darwin or gods in general.
I am as minimalistic with the context of reality as i am when it concerns music, im not saying im right but everything ive come across aimed in the direction of what im convinced of now.

That wasn't from wikipedia, it's from one of the most esteemed books on the lives of the great composers, a book which I happen to own.

If you want to believe bach only made music because he wanted to glorify some god, be my guest.
I do not.

And I will believe that, because of what Bach has said and what he has written. You may believe what you like based on your own thoughts. You have made Bach into some God-like persona who you glorify beyond reason. You do not hear facts about him, you only hear your own schizophrenic opinions of him, and thus you have painted him into exactly the person you WANT him to be.

At 11/29/09 02:27 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote: Last post nailed it pretty much about Bach.

I will never get my answer really. Never. Because deciding a composer is a great composer, is always based on the listener, not any logic of any sort. Especially not if we're going by what Bach believed.

But forget about Bach for a second. What about Dvorak, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Holst (The Planets?), Brahms, Wagner, etc? I mean, those are some of the greatest composers of our time.

Presisely. The world of music extends far beyond the realm of Bach.

In my personal opinion, music is most beautiful when it portrays what it means to be human, what it means to have life. While Tchaikovsky and Borodin may show a more light-hearted side of humanity, Stravinsky wrote music of flesh and blood and muscle and bone, brute and carnal in its depictions of humanity. neither is more beautiful than the other, as both portray true aspects of human existence. Humans are programmed genetically to have emotion, they are not programmed genetically to do math. Mathematics and logic have developed throughout the entire course of human existence to be where they are today. Music that is written mathematically can be rousing, but music that appeals to a common humanity is all the more beautiful.

That being said, writing music to be popular is a foolish thing to do. However, writing music for only your own pleasure and with total disregard for your audience is essentially musical masturbation. I apologize if that's over the line, but that's simply how it is.

From "The Lives of the Great Composers", the authoritative reference regarding the major composers from Claudio Monteverdi to the Modernists, here is an excerpt about Bach. I do not make up my information, I find it in reputable sources and cite it.

"It is also a music that is tied up with religion, specifically, Luteranism, Bach honestly believed that music was an expression of divinity. he began his scores of sacred music with JJ (Jesu Juna, "Jesus, Help") and ended with SDG (Soli Deo Gloria, "To God alone the Glory").

This was Bach's purpose in music. He enjoyed playing with numbers, yes, but that did not translate into music directly.

Mathematical brilliance in music is a necessity, but it is not music in and of itself. Music as a whole is ahuman experience. The ultimate goal of music it to express the heart through a pursuit of the mind. Math and physics and all of that are simply a means to an end, one of many, to create meaningful music. I suggest you listen to serialist composers if you like math, I doubt you've ever even heard of serialism.

At 11/29/09 03:56 AM, nathanallenpinard wrote: Calling Cal's pieces rubbish imo, is out of line.

Agreed entirely. I regretted it the moment I poshed the button to post. Moment of passion, my mistake.

Also, Cal, may I ask where you learned your information about Bach? Because I have taken music theory and history classes for some three years (and never gotten less than an A), after having taught myself. You proudly profess that you've taught yourself. What makes you so certain that you taught yourself correctly?

Where are your sources, what proof do you have to back up your side of the argument? Thus far you have done nothing but insult the musical knowledge of others on this forum, but you have yet to prove that you have any yourself.

At 11/28/09 03:06 PM, Calamaistr wrote:

At 11/28/09 08:05 AM, MJTTOMB wrote:

Stop starting fights, you're being an elitist prick, and I really don't think you've got the musical balls to take on Nathan, because he's a far more experienced, mature, and open-minded musician than you are.

Thats easy to say out of the blue, you have no idea how much musical experience i have, does this need to turn into some childish dickfight? Who are you anyway.

I'm a composer, a classical pianist, and I know more music theory and history than you will ever possess.

Ill take you calling me elitist as a compliment, atleast i know you have no musical knowledge yourself

I can see how that's a logical conclusion, seeing that I just made a brilliant argument using examples from 4 eras of "classical" music, and cited specific individuals.

:now saying that bach was expressing himself, bach wasnt expressing anything.. he was uncovering something, the logic behind the sound.

Bach was expressing something, if you knew the first thing about the man, you would know that he was a very devout Lutheran who believed that the SOLE purpose of music was to express love and fear of God. His music is hardly about logic, he did not use music theory, he was not aware of the idea of double dominants or major seventh chords, but he used them. He used them because of their beauty, and because they did serve a function. Theoreticians did not look back until much later after his death, and then in turn, they devised the rules and theory and "logic", if you will, by looking over what he did and recognising patterns.

Have a nice day.

And you as well. Your "classical" works are rubbish.

At 11/28/09 02:06 AM, Calamaistr wrote:

At 11/27/09 10:44 PM, Gaero wrote:

thats very accurate yes, but i hate the style not because i prefer different but because its simplistic music when you are familiar with actual classical compositions such as bach as i have been explaining.

And now im going afk for a bit. I meant no offence.

man shut cho stupid ass up, and drink ah donkeh piss.

Im not a grammarnazi but you need to get your butt back in school right now for some writing lessons.

And you, sir, need to stop starting fights with everyone here. I personally hate Zimmer, but your argument is tremendously weak. You seem to know a grand total of one classical composer (or Baroque anyway): Bach. You mention Bach again and again. You complain that every Zimmer piece sounds the same and that you can hear a work and tell it's Zimmer. Guess what! Bach also has a unique, distinguishable sound. So does Mozart. So do Beethoven, Mahler, Wagner, Scriabin, Tchaikovsky, and I could go on listing more, but you get the idea. Music is a person experience, a means of the composer expressing themselves in their own way. Because of that, every composer has their own unique, distinguishable sound, because of their unique life experiences. If you were to show me a classical work, ANY classical work, I guarantee you I could pin down the time and area of the world it was written, and quite possibly even the composer. Music is unique to every individual, and that is why you hear Zimmer as sounding the same. It's the same reason that Debussy and Scriabin sound different. Both were heavily influenced by French Symbolist poets, but both wrote vastly different styles of music, because they led vastly different lives. That being said, if you showed me a piece by either of the two composers, i could easily identify it as being written by one or the other.

It's that simple.

Stop starting fights, you're being an elitist prick, and I really don't think you've got the musical balls to take on Nathan, because he's a far more experienced, mature, and open-minded musician than you are.

At 11/27/09 09:07 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote: Now can we bash some other composer now? I'm sure that's what this thread was about.

Or we could try looking at the bright side of things and just stop attacking the musicality of people in general. That's really not something we should be "bashing" people for.

Sure, I've made more than my fair share of John Cage jokes, but it's all in jest. I still respect what he tried to say though his music.

At 11/10/09 11:59 AM, ssmb212 wrote: You referring to chord progression i assume you just drop in your post that term right? cause if you where like even close to the level of harmony probably would be the easiest thing to to tell that the intro of ckc's miasma its exact the moonlight sonata notes just with screwed up pitch and timbre that mean's the exact chord just 2 less repeats, so if you got good ears you probably need a good trainer for them.

it's actually not the same at all. I mean, i'm a classical pianist, i've studied that piece extensively, it's similar, but not stolen. It's very different. Stop trying to get in a pissing contest with us. Dont go around telling people they need to get their ears checked. just face it, it's not stolen.

At 11/10/09 08:57 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote:

I'm saying that the piece is most probably written for the sake of being comical rather than for the sake of being performance music

But it's always going to be performance music. If if it's comical, they are still going to take it seriously when it comes to writing and performance.

But then it boils down to the question of if it really is performance music. Because withi it's impossible nature, I'm not entirely sure it's intended to be performed.

At 11/10/09 11:26 AM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote:

At 11/9/09 11:44 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote: Ok, so basically it's an abstract piece or orchestra, and we're looking at a condensed score for it. THAT makes more sense.

I have something similar to show, which is way...way more impacting. A piece that depicts the bombing of Dresden. It starts film-like, but becoming really abstract at the end (3rd movement) with more than just instrument contribution depicting sirens, bombs, bombers and people screaming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXeb-lrvs Vo

BIgger Ensemble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYLlJSiVl Uo&feature=related

It reminds me of Xenakis' Erikhton Concerto, in which it literally sounds like all hell is breaking loose around you, with sirens and glissandos going every which way with everything sounding pretty horrible (in the imagination sense, not the musical. Musically, it's genius).

And who gives a damn if it's a joke or not? A piece of music is a piece of music. Everyone thought that Erik Satie's stuff was nothing but jokes, but apparently that's not how he felt. People can analyze what they feel like and take things seriously if they want to. Sorry if you guys apparently don't like looking a bit beyond how music superficially looks. Sorry, that sounds snobbish, but get off nathan's back for trying to look at this piece objectively instead of the 'lol funne' sentiment, as worthwhile it might (not) be.

If you want music that is equally incomprehensible (wonder how THIS would look in the piano roll):

I'm not saying "lol funne". I'm saying that the piece is most probably written for the sake of being comical rather than for the sake of being performance music. In a way, I don't think that recording of the work was true to the composer's intent. In my speculation (as you are allowed speculation, so am I), the composer's intent was to make a piece of music that is truly impossible and yet still have it be appealing through comical elements. The fact that they tried to prove the composer wrong and instead played (and consequently botched) the piece seems to me to fail to live up to the composer's intent. I'm not saying at all that the music is without value. Musical value is measured by how the composer lived up to their intent, and I think the composer did a great job.

Don't think I look down upon abstract music. One of the most powerful pieces I know of is Bussotti's Rara Requiem. Schoenberg's Survivor from Warsaw also comes to mind.

Your response was far out of proportion to what I said.

At 11/9/09 11:44 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote: Ok, so basically it's an abstract piece or orchestra, and we're looking at a condensed score for it. THAT makes more sense.

You're taking it way too seriously. The piece is a joke. It's supposed to be funny.

At 10/16/09 04:18 PM, Quarl wrote:

At 10/16/09 01:50 PM, Alchemist94 wrote: I usually download the latest Bjra song and duplicate it with a different melody.

Me too.

You guys are plagiarizing my idea. i was the first one to do that!

so unoriginal.

In my opinion, he was really the only contestant that deserved it. His actually applied orchestration techniques.

River Flows Through You, by TommyUlysesGrant Type: SongGenre: Classical

Direct mp3 rip from Yumi-River Flows Through You

The song was written by someone else as a Twilight fan art piece for "Bella's Lulabye" or whatever. I'm embarrassed that i even know of the song. but it is indeed stolen, as a quick google search will confirm. Fortunately, the submitter in question, being stupid enough to post someone else's music, is also stupid enough to post it with the song's actual title.

Fantastic job, if i do say so myself!

At 9/20/09 09:39 AM, Bjra wrote:

At 9/20/09 09:34 AM, la-yinn wrote: You need to ask yourself if you see yourself as an artist or as a basshunter.

I ask though, who is getting laid more, er played more, the thousands of legitimate artists or basshunter.

is there any way to be both, have the fame and makes moving works of art

Which is more important to you?

At 9/7/09 01:30 PM, SineRider wrote: Here you go

I worked hard on it, hope you like it :)

Break out the champagne lads, I think we've found a winner!

At 8/30/09 12:20 PM, statueofdiveo wrote:

At 8/30/09 12:14 PM, MICHhimself wrote: I'll just leave this here. Took me a while to find in my bunch of logs.

Date: around July 7th.

http://michhimself.com/stuff/log.PNG (link to avoid crapping up the page with log)

At that time I hadnt sorted out what I was doing.
Thats completely not what I work for now.
Now, I work for the chance to get noticed and accelerate my career to bigger and better levels.

In a sane person's mind, that translates roughly to:

"I don't work for praise anymore. I just do it for the attention."

At 8/27/09 10:02 PM, ChemicalReaper wrote: The 'classical' music posted on NewGrounds, unless it is a remake of an actual classical work, is not actually classical. It's called Neo-Classical. (Classical music ended in 1750, with the death of Bach. Therefore, anything composed after 1750 in the classical style is actually neo-classical.)

You have to be really careful about that, because music historians will tend to get really pissed off if you call yourself a 'classical composer.' That's why I'm meticulous to make sure that the 'genre' of all of my classical tracks are, when burned to CD or iPod etc, put under 'Neo-Classical.'

Film music can be any genre, which is one thing that's so brilliant - and at the same time, so exasperating - about it. Classical is only a tiny part of it, especially when you consider a lot of percussion (obviously, not talking about timpani, bass drums, and snares, since those were used used in classical music).

My style, when I'm working in the minor mode, has developed so that it often has an almost Mediterranean feel to it. That's great for me and my symphony (which sets me apart from other symphonies), but will that many directors want a Mediterranean flavour? Not unless it's set on an island or a boat.

Oh well...

TL;DR SUMMARY:
- Classical-style music written post-1750 is called "Neo-Classical"
- Film music comprises many different styles, even in the same piece
- My unique style in minor often has a Mediterranean feel

As could be expected, you seem to have little clue what you're talking about. Again. You're correct that the classical era ended, but it had nothing to do with the death of Bach. Bach was not a classical composer, he was a Baroque composer. Neither was everythig after that "neo-classical". The rest of music history is divided into important movements. Romanticism followed classicism, then slowly developed into many different forms of Modernism.

Also, in reference to minor modes. Would you care to explain what you were thinking when you said a B minor scale started on B-flat?

At 8/26/09 08:48 PM, loansindi wrote: You could read the dozens of other threads about writer's block.

It's more fun to make your own.

A Cold Winter's Night, by MJTTOMB Type: SongGenre: Classical

My submission.

At 8/22/09 01:09 AM, Ephersand wrote:

At 8/22/09 12:49 AM, ChemicalReaper wrote: To Varrin: what makes something B-minor is it starts on B flat.

Actually the scale of B minor starts on B natural and the starting note doesn't necessarily identify the key. Something in B minor will emphasize the chords of B minor (the tonic in B minor) and F sharp minor (the dominant in B minor) whereas D major will emphasise D major (tonic in D) and A major (dominant in D).

So, Varrin, if you just focus on B and F# a little and use the key signature you've already mentioned then your piece will be in B minor!

I'm very well-versed in theory. Ephersand is correct here. Kindly ignore chemicalreaper as he has frankly no idea what he's talking about.

A piece in B-minor will tend to focus on a B minor chord more than other chords, often starting out in B minor, then going through a series of chord changes, and then starting back on B minor (though not always) at the beginning of different phrases. There is no B-flat in B minor. A B minor scale, as you appear to already know, is B- C#- D- E- F#- G- A- B.

I love how not one person seems to care that this game will very possibly never be finished. No screenshots, no game description, not even a vague hint about the game. No information has been given about compensation or credits, yet people still blindly throw their rights into oblivion hoping for the minimal amount of exposure this project offers, at the very best.

how goes the judging?

At 8/13/09 07:10 PM, ironmaidenrocker wrote: What if I get on LSD will that make go first? Or how bout, LSD + coke + vodka + beer + whisky + marryj + heroin + pepdo. I'd think I'd make the most amazing song ever.

I'm pretty sure you'd die.

With the exception of cannibus, you're talking loads of barbituates there. If the heroin itself didn't kill you, that mixed with coke and alcohol would stop your breathing or your heart rather quickly. Not a pleasant way to die.

What was this thread about anyway?

At 8/19/09 06:00 PM, Mrmilkcarton wrote:

At 8/19/09 05:39 PM, Sealander wrote:
you're now a buck.

enjoy.

Why would I be a buck when I is Mudkips already?

I love you.

you're now a truck. drive when the lights are red.

you're now a duck. thrive when the fights are dead.

you're now some muck. jive when your rights are read.

yay pokemon

Finale's not a DAW. It's notation software.