Jump to content

vkxwz

Members Plus
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Internet
  • Interests
    Making garbage music

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Selected

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views

vkxwz's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

37

Reputation

  1. Is this the point of Merzbow? it's so unpredictable, but I tried what you said(with pulse demon) and it kind of works
  2. Yep I agree then, but I'd argue that those same people wouldn't be the ones coming up with super innovative stuff that's actually entertaining / good quality by using theory to be innovative anyway. At least in my experience using theory to innovate has ended up turning into complete wank garbage and my most entertaining new stuff has come from working completely intuitively.
  3. that kick situation is a mess, people follow the advice blindly, successfulish musician shits on but but is also wrong because of course kicks have tone, bleh Similarly this thread is a mess because we all have different ideas of what theory I think this actually relates to what that old man said in himelsteins post, I think solely going off instinct and intuition can result in falling into a groove that's cut by everything you've heard in the past, so approaching something in a theoretical way can help break out of this. On the other hand I couldn't disagree more with "People working intuitively can't transcend genre/tradition/convention". Examples that disprove this are everywhere in my opinion, so I'm not sure what you are on (about). Sure you need to know the rules to know *when* you are breaking them, but it seems a bit stupid to learn the rules just so you can deliberately break them to say hey look I'm different, it should all be done for a purpose that's above simply following or breaking rules.
  4. I think this is where i ask what counts as theory. Does an intuitive understanding of how to make things sounds a certain way and why they sound a certain way count as theory? Because I think practice builds up this intuitive knowledge base but I doubt there's much stuff like discovering the circle of fifths while mucking around with a guitar
  5. Thought music theory was just a way of describing music. I don't see why you'd need to describe music the way academic people do in order to make music with harmonic complexity, you compose with your ears not a pen. I do see what some of you are saying about it limiting people, Brian is right in that it's descriptive BUT for a lot of people this ends up being more prescriptive anyway, since they naturally try to build up music the way they analyse it. I think there are some fundamental things to understand that will help you with composition, like knowledge of what intervals are, timing, phasing etc, but I almost view this as more physics than music theory, although music theory describes that stuff too. And I don't see people don't talk about psychology as something important in music, which is more important than theory imo. You're creating something that's interpreted by a brain, maybe knowing how the brain processes sound is more important than knowing the names of all the scales/modes etc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
  6. Great book(I am only halfway through it right now) but there is some (imo) better writing on this in the talent code, that partly dismantles the 10000 hours idea and focuses more on what you're saying about *how* you spend that time learning And yeah I think objectivity isn't a huge issue as long as you know what you're trying to maximize, personal enjoyment , opinion of others, etc. But being able to get that detailed feedback instantly is important so you have to be able to assess your music by yourself otherwise that feedback loop just isn't tight enough to get anywhere, I often wonder if being in the studio with multiple other people makes you learn faster in terms of making music to others tastes because of this. I still feel like what you are saying is encouraging people to go in the direction of just grinding though, and it appears at least to me that it's more about conscious thought about what you are doing, how your music "works", why it works, etc.
  7. I think stuff like this proves that it's not solely about just grinding until you're suddenly a great composer, it has to be something else, like the way they actually think about music is entirely different. Otherwise you'd just be believing that they were born with musical talent or a brain that learns 1000x faster than the average person which is absurd. And aphex proves it's not about knowing music theory so you nerds can fuck off with that. It's gotta be something to do with the way they conceptualize music OR how they treat the process of creating and/or listening. telling people they just need to grind it out seems like the slowest and least efficient way to get to that point, and they may never even get there.
  8. I don't see them doing anything with a renewal / rebirth theme considering what they said in tomorrows harvest interviews and how that stuff hasn't really changed. Geogaddi weirdness would be great though
  9. Just to add some more probably wrong ideas about this track; that squelching sound that runs throughout, sounds like the sound of cutting flesh, that in mind plus the bubbling at the end sounds kinda disturbing And nowadays I hear some of the lyrics as, "slit your throat, in your imagination" Also, the voice in this track sounds like the same voice that is hidden in Palace Posy from Tomorrow's Harvest, wonder if it's a friend of the brothers'? It doesn't sound like either of their own voices It's also weird to see people site google lyrics / bocpages lyrics as the "true" source of lyrics, they were also come up with someone just listening to the track, and once someone reads that and believes it, they are far more likely to hear the lyrics as that in the future
  10. I guess my main point is that people can move to another field if they can't support themselves with music, it wouldn't be fair to only pay artists a fraction of the money if they were being forced to make music for a living. I have to ask this though, if there was no Spotify, how would an artist sell their music to begin with? Are the days of having a small chance of getting signed to a label really what you prefer over anyone being able to get their music out there cheaply which is possible now? That fantasy version of Spotify you just explained really does sound great though, I do agree. Also the other issue which I believe is happening is people pay less attention / value less / don't try as hard to appreciate the music they do listen to these days just because of how cheap it is and how much of it they have access to. There seems to be no more playing a cd / record to death and really getting to know it because it's the only one you've been able to afford this month. This might also be partly a side effect of social media switching everyones brains to a mode where they just skim over information and pick up the general idea rather than critically thinking and really thinking about what they're absorbing. Funny you bring up me seeming frustrated, because from my perspective this is a thread of amateur musicians complaining they can't make a living out of what they love doing because of the big bad system.
  11. Way to chop off the explanation for what I said.. But anyways, would you say it's unfair if I can't make enough money to live on just from selling bottles of my piss through the internet? Oh no I'm being underpaid I deserve to be able to do *whatever* I want and receive a good income for it !!!
  12. Yes, what's wrong with this? Like any other field, if someone isn't good enough at making music that other people enjoy then they won't be able to make enough money to have it as their only source of income. Only difference is that with music there's a space between what being employed vs unemployed is in other industries, so there is a possibility that you could pour all your time into it and not make enough to live on if you really don't know what you're doing. You'd have to be pretty stupid to willingly do that though considering it's not particularly difficult to find an entry level job just to keep the lights on.
  13. Then you go get a job that pays enough to support you... If this really leads to a drop in jazz musicians and live jazz is something that the public wants to hear then they'll start being paid more, supply and demand What IS ignorant is thinking that musicians should be subsidized because they should be able to live a musician lifestyle despite the fact that the demand for their work isn't enough for them to live on.
×
×
  • Create New...