On Music

[crofter]

So, why did you change it then ?

"you are entitled to shut the fuck up"
"You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up"

not the same, or can't you read.

You are just trolling, in this case, too. If I were you I would just write "sorry"

The same for rozling.

The trolling is in that "shut the fuck up". Read:
"You are entitled to (your opinion) now shut the fuck up"

Again, I consider "shut the fuck up" an offensive insult. Now, the fact you try to justify your trolling with this lame excuse... il "trolling" in my opinion. But of course this is a matter for mods, i just underlined the trolling and why the thread derailed.

No,You keep say "in my opinion", I replied to that with "you are entitled to your opinion", The "shut the fuck up" is just friendly advice, now shut the fuck up.

[myrnova]

"a friendly advise"

[rozling]

The same for rozling.

lol no

[myrnova]

The same for rozling.

lol no

in my opinion you started with good intentions, then you realized it is much funnier the mockery and bullying so derailed the thread into a "myrnova vs WE" pathetic attempt to communicate "THEM" you are part of the "WE"

[crofter]

The same for rozling.

lol no

in my opinion you started with good intentions, then you realized it is much funnier the mockery and bullying so derailed the thread into a "myrnova vs WE" pathetic attempt to communicate "THEM" you are part of the "WE"

Oh is Diddums being bullied, how sad, I wonder why.

[myrnova]

Oh is Diddums being bullied, how sad, I wonder why.

I guess because of my points of view about U.S. policy and war crimes in other threads. The lounge users are nowadays 80-90% americans, and the moderators, too. It is supposed to be an international forum, but my opinions about U.S. are percieved as "prejudice" and such. As a consequence: dissing, hate etc.

[crofter]

Oh is Diddums being bullied, how sad, I wonder why.

I guess because of my points of view about U.S. policy and war crimes in other threads. The lounge users are nowadays 80-90% americans, and the moderators, too. It is supposed to be an international forum, but my opinions about U.S. are percieved as "prejudice" and such.

No, it's because you don't know when to shut the fuck up, hence my friendly advice.

[myrnova]

Oh is Diddums being bullied, how sad, I wonder why.

I guess because of my points of view about U.S. policy and war crimes in other threads. The lounge users are nowadays 80-90% americans, and the moderators, too. It is supposed to be an international forum, but my opinions about U.S. are percieved as "prejudice" and such.

No, it's because you don't know when to shut the fuck up, hence my friendly advice.

Trust me: it is because of my so called "antiamericanism", not accepted and called by the mods "generalization" and "prejudice" (the only reason because I will probably be banned, and the proof I am right). Bye.

[crofter]

Point proven I would say.

[rozling]

The same for rozling.

lol no

in my opinion you started with good intentions, then you realized it is much funnier the mockery and bullying so derailed the thread into a "myrnova vs WE" pathetic attempt to communicate "THEM" you are part of the "WE"

I think you'll find opinions were stacked against you long before I joined the discussion which you so successfuly derailed.

I am part of the 'we' in that I would like to partake of, and observe, a rational discussion among like-minded people. I note you have not-so-artfully glossed over my (admittedly not hugely substantial but existent nonetheless) contribution to the conversation.

This is mostly a self-moderating forum - an anarchist like yourself should appreciate that - so if you find the crowd rallying against you all I can do is suggest you ask yourself why.

Anyway if rational discussion is not to be had in here I will gladly partake in a little fuckistry if that is the only entertainment to be gleamed.

I'm out - places to be and all that. Have fun <3

[rote fahne]

Its the universal code of human behaviour that guys like myr are bullied, sooner or later.

[re:dream]

I guess because of my points of view about U.S. policy and war crimes in other threads. The lounge users are nowadays 80-90% americans, and the moderators, too. It is supposed to be an international forum, but my opinions about U.S. are percieved as "prejudice" and such. As a consequence: dissing, hate etc.

myrnova, I am not american, and I would probably agree with your views on American Imperialism were I to engage with them. Or 80 - 90% agree anyway

But in this thread and in many others you have come across as incredibly arrogant, closed minded, and boorish.

So while I dislike the politics imerial hegemon as much or more than you claim to, I am more than tempted to enlist for any bullying that needs to be done.

I for one hope you are banned, because your preachy, arrogant, sweeping style of posting has made more than one thread turn into a ball of shit, and has contributed to what I experience as the very ill tempered nature of much discussion in the Lounge.

[Machinesworking]

The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days.

We have the ability to sculpt things that some call "sound objects" that defy the old conceptions of a "note" and are more akin to the concept of sculpture wherein an "object" (sound) can be modified to the point of being indistinguishable from the original sound that we started with.

This makes traditional music theory useless and means that we have to come up with an entirely new way of codifying our methods.

Discuss.

Getting back on topic. If it's possible. As a noob in the realm of theory, still going over basics, I would respectfully disagree that traditional music theory is rendered useless. I do think that it becomes a lot of work to try to describe a sound cluster you may create that forces more or less you to work in a particular scale. One experiment in writing I've done on many occasions is to take a snippet of noise with an interesting rhythmic structure and apply FX and EQ etc. until it has a noticeable tonal pattern, then come up with a scale based on that pattern and write a song around it. The original loop of noise would be hard to describe, and the timbre is an overriding importance to the song, to the point to where if you try it on other instruments it would sound awkward, but I don't think that makes traditional music theory and notation useless or even unimportant to learn.
I suppose that if you were a rigid rules person it would make it that much harder for you to break them.
The classic example for me was Guitar Institute of Technology graduates, most were amazing musicians from a technical ability standpoint, and almost none of them I've ever met had a single ounce of originality in their playing. I'm not sure though that that kind of person would be any better suited to skipping traditional theory and embracing music concrete type ideas?
I do think there's an unidentifiable element when it comes to music in terms of intention, in that some people make experimental music and it sounds like a mood, it has a certain element that takes you somewhere, and other people put noise on a record with little regard to the outcome. Not much different than traditional music in that way, some songs sound like technical ability, ego, or art school pretension on display while others do not.

[rote fahne]

The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days.

We have the ability to sculpt things that some call "sound objects" that defy the old conceptions of a "note" and are more akin to the concept of sculpture wherein an "object" (sound) can be modified to the point of being indistinguishable from the original sound that we started with.

This makes traditional music theory useless and means that we have to come up with an entirely new way of codifying our methods.

Discuss.

Getting back on topic. If it's possible. As a noob in the realm of theory, still going over basics, I would respectfully disagree that traditional music theory is rendered useless. I do think that it becomes a lot of work to try to describe a sound cluster you may create that forces more or less you to work in a particular scale. One experiment in writing I've done on many occasions is to take a snippet of noise with an interesting rhythmic structure and apply FX and EQ etc. until it has a noticeable tonal pattern, then come up with a scale based on that pattern and write a song around it. The original loop of noise would be hard to describe, and the timbre is an overriding importance to the song, to the point to where if you try it on other instruments it would sound awkward, but I don't think that makes traditional music theory and notation useless or even unimportant to learn.
I suppose that if you were a rigid rules person it would make it that much harder for you to break them.
The classic example for me was Guitar Institute of Technology graduates, most were amazing musicians from a technical ability standpoint, and almost none of them I've ever met had a single ounce of originality in their playing. I'm not sure though that that kind of person would be any better suited to skipping traditional theory and embracing music concrete type ideas?
I do think there's an unidentifiable element when it comes to music in terms of intention, in that some people make experimental music and it sounds like a mood, it has a certain element that takes you somewhere, and other people put noise on a record with little regard to the outcome. Not much different than traditional music in that way, some songs sound like technical ability, ego, or art school pretension on display while others do not.

Yes, back on topic.

It would be helpfull if Stringtapper gave us some more information about what he has in mind, or put up an audio file so we could have a listen.
What does he mean by "sound object". For sure this "sound object" must have a beginning and an end. Does it have a pitch? Is it something like a continues change of parameters like pitch, volume, timbre etc, instead of a discrete system?

Just some questions.

If it cannot be described with traditional theory, then how would he describe these "sound objects" ?

Thanks in advance for answering.

[stringtapper]

Getting back on topic. If it's possible. As a noob in the realm of theory, still going over basics, I would respectfully disagree that traditional music theory is rendered useless. I do think that it becomes a lot of work to try to describe a sound cluster you may create that forces more or less you to work in a particular scale. One experiment in writing I've done on many occasions is to take a snippet of noise with an interesting rhythmic structure and apply FX and EQ etc. until it has a noticeable tonal pattern, then come up with a scale based on that pattern and write a song around it. The original loop of noise would be hard to describe, and the timbre is an overriding importance to the song, to the point to where if you try it on other instruments it would sound awkward, but I don't think that makes traditional music theory and notation useless or even unimportant to learn.
I suppose that if you were a rigid rules person it would make it that much harder for you to break them.
The classic example for me was Guitar Institute of Technology graduates, most were amazing musicians from a technical ability standpoint, and almost none of them I've ever met had a single ounce of originality in their playing. I'm not sure though that that kind of person would be any better suited to skipping traditional theory and embracing music concrete type ideas?
I do think there's an unidentifiable element when it comes to music in terms of intention, in that some people make experimental music and it sounds like a mood, it has a certain element that takes you somewhere, and other people put noise on a record with little regard to the outcome. Not much different than traditional music in that way, some songs sound like technical ability, ego, or art school pretension on display while others do not.

Sorry that initial comment was a bit sweeping and I clarified later that I was talking about a specific type of modern music, or specific techniques often used in modern music. As a music theorist by profession I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't learn traditional music theory. Quite the contrary! It's that in my experience with analyzing electroacoustic music it often isn't enough, hence the discussion on ways to codify these new musical processes.