515 Crew

kylervk wrote:jordan, if i do one about you i have to do one about everyone who posted in this thread

Varg wrote: No they didn't. Or to clarify- they "did" and they didn't. They did, in the sense that they purely STUMBLED across "good writing"; They didn't intentionally write well. This is easily proven. When have you ever come across an interview or article, for say Keith Richards, where he discusses what he is actually playing and maybe even why he wrote what he did. He doesn't do those types of columns because he would make a fool of himself- and he knows it.
Keith Richards reflects on: Under My Thumb
"Well you see here, I came up with this little bluesy/rock/harmonic minor riff that's in G harmonic minor. When (bass players name) is playing a G I throw a simple lead over it just using the available tensions from the G harmonic minor scale because I like playing something that's different from the bass rhythm- and I know which tensions typically sound good for the i chord in harmonic minor and that's how I'm able to go after the type of sound I like..."

Varg wrote:But sadly, you'll never read that because keith richards is a brain dead drug addict who can barely talk- let alone explain his music beyond "It sounded good to me" He just worked it out until it "sounded good" to him. That is guesswork....and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.[/b]
What sounds good to keith is based off of what music he likes and listens to, and what influenced him. If he listened to Mozart...then chances are he could work out a progression that sounds good....and it could very well be 'nicely written'. But that's another story altogether...

Big Fat Retard wrote:Can your mathematical guitar heroes do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv1bM0pp_o4

Varg wrote:(The Rolling Stones) purely STUMBLED across "good writing"; They didn't intentionally write well. (Keith Richards) just worked it out until it "sounded good" to him. That is guesswork....and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

What sounds good to keith is based off of what music he likes and listens to, and what influenced him. If he listened to Mozart...then chances are he could work out a progression that sounds good....and it could very well be 'nicely written'. But that's another story altogether...

...I dunno the post-tonal era didn't offer much that Schonberg (sic) hadn't already perfected.

ilikehorses wrote: you have shitty taste in music. you make music more of a math problem, which makes music BORING. even with all your school (and lifting weight and all that other shit you do), you'll never end up doing anything more than giving ten-year-olds guitar lessons.

jnice wrote: People could argue that Schoenberg's pieces involving the twelve-tone technique are just "guesswork", too. Ex: Let's randomly line up twelve different notes without repeating any, then we start over with a different set of non-repeating twelve notes, ad nauseam. Now put them in crazy rhythms and...voila...genius! In theory / on paper, the technique is interesting, but the performances do nothing for me (from the selections I've heard). I think people certainly improved on the concept (Berg, for example) when they bent the initial "rules".

I wouldn't even begin to compare classical composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc. to pop composers Keith Richards or Paul McCartney: They were writing very different music. I think there's a more immediate relation between Schoenberg and many "avant-garde" artsy combos that play twenty to thirty minutes of atonal music, usually on guitars and keyboards. I don't know whether it's more ridiculous that these people get to open at shows or that people in the audience actually applaud them afterwards for being so brave and modern. I think to myself, "Schoenberg did it 100 years ago!"

My point to all of this is I could make a fuss about how Schoenberg was just a gimmick-using composer who relied on chance to create all of his compositions. I could also say that Brian Jones, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, etc. just ripped off a lot of blues players and R & B singers and had no ideas of their own...but in both cases that would be oversimplistic and dismissive of their contributions to music, whether the music is personally pleasing to my ears or not.

It's disappointing to hear that you went to school to study music and still hold such ignorant views. Did you take a music appreciation course and, if so, did you pass?

Arnold Schönberg: Das Buch der hängenden Gärten
(VII)- Angst und hoffen wechselnd mich beklemmen

At first glance this piece would appear to be seemingly sporadic- but upon further inspection we can see that this is not the case. One of the most interesting aspects of this piece is the complete absence of the bass clef (or left hand) for the piano. The entire song is littered with patterns and similarities, making it difficult to differentiate the two at times.
There is definitely a main motive, which I have labeled as “A”. “A” consists of an augmented triad moving to a Viennese Triad. (The Augmented triad has an Interval Vector of 0,0,0,3,0,0. The Viennese Triad has an Interval Vector of 1,0,0,0,1,1.) The interval relationship of the Viennese Triad (-2, P4) shows up in the vocals at, or around, the same time as it does with the piano. The vocal melody also shares an ascending-rhythm similarity. This can be seen in measures: 1-2, 3, and 7. The “A” motif shows up throughout the entire piece, but sometimes with variations- such as in measures 7 and 8 when the note duration is elongated (AE) and there is an additional 16th note (possibly passing tone & neighbor tone?)
There is a “B” motif as well. It first appears in measure 2. The main idea of “B” is two notes, a minor third apart, descending, in a chromatic fashion. The “B” motif next appears in beat two of measure 4, but this time as an ascending idea (inverted) so it’s labeled “B.I.” The “B” motif shows up next in measure 5 and again in measure 6.
In measure 9 we have a small “C” motif. It is a short ascending/descending pattern, all 16th notes, with the Viennese triad at the “peak”. It is used again in measure 10, but this time more emphasis is placed on the triad as it is now a dotted 8th note in duration (as opposed to a 16th). The vocal line further suggests that this is a new idea in the piece: it starts in the piano where there is a rest (or break) in vocals- and ends right after another rest (break) in vocals, possibly signifying the end of motive “C”.
At the end of measure 11, a rhythm idea “R” appears and goes through measure 12- (on the last beat the two 16ths are played as 3 in a triplet.)
The second beat of measure 13 is when the original “A” motif comes back- which leads into measure 15 where we see it in a cadential motion. The note values are longer signaling the end of the piece.

Varg wrote:

ilikehorses wrote: you have shitty taste in music. you make music more of a math problem, which makes music BORING. even with all your school (and lifting weight and all that other shit you do), you'll never end up doing anything more than giving ten-year-olds guitar lessons.

On the contrary, it makes music far more interesting. Not only do you get to listen to the music, but you’re able to UNDERSTAND what you’re listening to and therefore enjoy it on an entirely different level. I can understand how you could be threatened by this idea of someone being able to enjoy something more than you. (See the subtlety there?- You harbor disturbing thoughts of a communist paradise, while smarter people do not.)
And for what it’s worth- I absolutely refuse to teach children. It’s a waste of time, energy, talent, and knowledge.…as well as their parents money.

Varg wrote:

ilikehorses wrote: you have shitty taste in music. you make music more of a math problem, which makes music BORING. even with all your school (and lifting weight and all that other shit you do), you'll never end up doing anything more than giving ten-year-olds guitar lessons.

On the contrary, it makes music far more interesting. Not only do you get to listen to the music, but you’re able to UNDERSTAND what you’re listening to and therefore enjoy it on an entirely different level. I can understand how you could be threatened by this idea of someone being able to enjoy something more than you. (See the subtlety there?- You harbor disturbing thoughts of a communist paradise, while smarter people do not.)
And for what it’s worth- I absolutely refuse to teach children. It’s a waste of time, energy, talent, and knowledge.…as well as their parents money.

jnice wrote: People could argue that Schoenberg's pieces involving the twelve-tone technique are just "guesswork", too. Ex: Let's randomly line up twelve different notes without repeating any, then we start over with a different set of non-repeating twelve notes, ad nauseam. Now put them in crazy rhythms and...voila...genius! In theory / on paper, the technique is interesting, but the performances do nothing for me (from the selections I've heard). I think people certainly improved on the concept (Berg, for example) when they bent the initial "rules".

Your ignorance of Schonberg is phenomenal. Twelve-tone music is far from guess work. In fact it is the exact opposite. It is an exact, and very strict writing form. I will make another post after this one to show you the paper I wrote on a Schonberg piece. I would include the sheet music/analysis along with it to make it easier to visualize, but unfortunately my scanner has NEVER worked. The section from the Book of Hanging gardens that I did (no. vii) was only around 13-16 measures I think. Now, please look at the following example and tell me this is GUESSWORK- (exerpt from a Stravinsky piece)

Believe it or not- that is analyzed music.

I wouldn't even begin to compare classical composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc. to pop composers Keith Richards or Paul McCartney: They were writing very different music. I think there's a more immediate relation between Schoenberg and many "avant-garde" artsy combos that play twenty to thirty minutes of atonal music, usually on guitars and keyboards. I don't know whether it's more ridiculous that these people get to open at shows or that people in the audience actually applaud them afterwards for being so brave and modern. I think to myself, "Schoenberg did it 100 years ago!"

My point to all of this is I could make a fuss about how Schoenberg was just a gimmick-using composer who relied on chance to create all of his compositions. I could also say that Brian Jones, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, etc. just ripped off a lot of blues players and R & B singers and had no ideas of their own...but in both cases that would be oversimplistic and dismissive of their contributions to music, whether the music is personally pleasing to my ears or not.

It's disappointing to hear that you went to school to study music and still hold such ignorant views. Did you take a music appreciation course and, if so, did you pass?

Music appreciation course? Son, I am a LONG way from Iowa, so you’ll have to understand how amusing I find this question. I am at a music school….not a 4-year state university or CC. A class like that would be quite inconsequential for even 1st semester students here.
The closest thing would have to be history of western music 1 & 2 which are required to graduate- so yes, rest assured, I passed.

robdigi wrote:extreme conservative views

robdigi wrote:Varg makes plenty of valid points but completely disregards that the indefinable ass-shaking and soul-moving properties of music are equally if not more important. Dismissing music that relies on these properties shows that you have a very loose understanding of what it is to be human... just like holding extreme conservative views does.

Music as an intellectual exercise is great, if you like sitting in a room alone with headphones rather than actually having FUN.

servo wrote:i believe collectively our credibility has been shredded by joe time and time again to such a point where it would be foolish not to recognize and embrace the final remaining source of said cred on 515crew.

im talking about joe.

over the past 5 years joe has thoroughly and methodically shown us all what tool bags the opinions we hold cause us to be while strategically having his subjectivity escape unscathed (though not without a few valiant attempts)
today i realized how well he had done at this when i was trying to tell someone how good the towers album was and i reached into my pocket and found out i had no credibility left.
you are all in the same boat.
i have no desire to continue to have my dick knocked in the dirt. i announce the end of opinion combat. the winner is joe.

in honor of this 515crew.com will be renamed joecrew.com

good job buddy. you truly rule as king upon this giant mountain of shit.

kylervk wrote:oh, im sorry, i wasnt aware that everyone on this board was so damn hood. you seriously sound like a rapper.