At 2/5/13 05:39 PM, Elitistinen wrote: How does music sheet work?

Let me get back on that.

On the other hand, on the dark side you can't really see the music sheet, so, you'll have to play by ear.

The world is really ending -___-

Another one for the orchestral nuts.

It's actually true, he does everything MIDI.

At 2/8/13 11:27 AM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 2/8/13 10:59 AM, LiquidOoze wrote: It's actually true, he does everything MIDI.

Who's that?

sorry for being so noob.

That's Hans Zimmer, smartiepants.

At 1/26/13 04:30 PM, Tabu112 wrote: True story

I know this reply is late, but ha, perhaps explains why I play drums. :P

And that exactly proves you can make music without knowing to read the sheets.

At 2/8/13 12:31 PM, DJDela wrote: And that exactly proves you can make music without knowing to read the sheets.

Talent helps, I guess. A lot.

At 2/8/13 12:43 PM, wandschrank wrote: Talent helps, I guess. A lot.

I mean, why would you even have to know that, if you're making music electronicaly?

At 2/8/13 05:16 PM, DJDela wrote:

At 2/8/13 12:43 PM, wandschrank wrote: Talent helps, I guess. A lot.

I mean, why would you even have to know that, if you're making music electronicaly?

I guess it can help with the composing process if you don't compose intuitively. I knew / know a lot of theory and I can also read / write sheets, but I often find myself composing solely by ear instead. My results are often better if I ignore all the theory. But that's different for every person, I guess. Some people need structure.

How do people manage to ALWAYS manage to redirect a thread to debating the usefulness of musical theory? I mean this is seriously starting to get ridiculous.

At 2/8/13 05:32 PM, camoshark wrote: How do people manage to ALWAYS manage to redirect a thread to debating the usefulness of musical theory? I mean this is seriously starting to get ridiculous.

We're just very serious musicians. ;D

Let me put it this way, then

At 2/8/13 05:32 PM, camoshark wrote: How do people manage to ALWAYS manage to redirect a thread to debating the usefulness of musical theory? I mean this is seriously starting to get ridiculous.

Well hey, Ooze started it

Discuss.

At 2/8/13 07:42 PM, camoshark wrote: Discuss.

3 great chords > 3000 lame chords.

At 2/8/13 08:01 PM, wandschrank wrote: In pop:

3 stock and repetitive chords > 3000 interesting and original chords.

Sorry, you typed that a bit mixed up and forgot a label. I corrected it.

At 2/8/13 08:18 PM, SkyeWintrest wrote:

At 2/8/13 08:01 PM, wandschrank wrote: In pop:

3 stock and repetitive chords > 3000 interesting and original chords.

Sorry, you typed that a bit mixed up and forgot a label. I corrected it.

Thanks!

Anyhow.. You can't appreciate a decent chord if you have 3000 chords. I'm all for the minimalistic approach. :D

Also, it was new to me that pop has chords. I thought it consisted of 3 single notes.

At 2/8/13 08:29 PM, wandschrank wrote:

At 2/8/13 08:18 PM, SkyeWintrest wrote:

At 2/8/13 08:01 PM, wandschrank wrote: In pop:

3 stock and repetitive chords > 3000 interesting and original chords.

Sorry, you typed that a bit mixed up and forgot a label. I corrected it.

Thanks!

Anyhow.. You can't appreciate a decent chord if you have 3000 chords. I'm all for the minimalistic approach. :D

Also, it was new to me that pop has chords. I thought it consisted of 3 single notes.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that statement, although I concede that you need to cut down on chord quality when using many chords.

Thing is, though, most of the time, the chords are used to construct a fuller quality to the overall chord structure (Amin7b5 - D7 - Gmin => Gmin/Maj7 w/b13).

In any case, back on topic. I award one Internetz to anyone catching that reference.

At 2/8/13 09:58 PM, camoshark wrote: In any case, back on topic. I award one Internetz to anyone catching that reference.

Pachelbel's Canon without variations?

At 2/8/13 10:11 PM, TroisNyxEtienne wrote:

At 2/8/13 09:58 PM, camoshark wrote: In any case, back on topic. I award one Internetz to anyone catching that reference.

Pachelbel's Canon without variations?

Y'allz don't get the joke, Bart is transcribing the Cello's part in the Canon, which, just like his regular punishment, is a short phrase being repeated Ad Eternam.

No credz for no one. :(

/musicianhumour

At 2/8/13 05:58 PM, DJDela wrote:

At 2/8/13 05:32 PM, camoshark wrote: How do people manage to ALWAYS manage to redirect a thread to debating the usefulness of musical theory? I mean this is seriously starting to get ridiculous.

Well hey, Ooze started it

I never intended to start a music theory debate, I just wanted to contribute.

nobody understands meh :(

At 2/9/13 09:31 AM, LiquidOoze wrote: I never intended to start a music theory debate, I just wanted to contribute.

nobody understands meh :(

You're always the one that starts the trouble.

lol, jk

This one always cracks me up:

Gotta love den Baroque composers

Trombones < Sackbuts

At 2/8/13 08:01 PM, wandschrank wrote:

At 2/8/13 07:42 PM, camoshark wrote: Discuss.

3 great chords > 3000 lame chords.

Hans Zimmer

1 lame chord = 3000 movie soundtracks

Skrillex is absolute trash, and Aphex twin is amazing. memefail

At 2/9/13 10:34 PM, BrokenDeck wrote: Hans Zimmer

1 lame chord = 3000 movie soundtracks

Now now, BrokenDeck, I know you have a personal vendetta against Hans Zimmer because jealousy, but he uses more than 1 chord in his music~

At 2/9/13 09:06 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Classical music...

...I'm pretty sure that last one is my band teacher.