A blog meant for CC (Page 2 of 4)

I was not a fan of the piano though (I can do much better piano writing, in my objective opinion) . I will definitely nitpick that (it was actually really good, I must say, but the lack of chiptune qualifies it as "not good chiptune" just how beethoven is "Not good chiptune").

Perhaps I might get rid of a score. Also, I believe any-level headed reviewer would give it a 9. I just really liked the album, alo alot alot alot,

Last edited by Monovfox (Jan 6, 2012 12:16 am)

Would be fun to see your take on this release

I don't go to the conservatory. I'm only a high-school student :v (I wish I went to the conservatory!)

Oh, I don't say those genres are an issue. What I'm saying is too much is out there, and real gems can be lost in the crowd of sub-par releases (I'm not implying that those genres are sub-par, I probably could have worded this last blog better)

No such thing. Not to nitpick, but opinions are by definition not objective.

The thing is, the compositions came before music theory. It's not like Bach sat down and declared that a cadence that starts on the dominant and ends on the tonic would be an authentic cadence and then started writing a bunch of music that conformed to that theory. Rather, Bach (and every other composer ever) made a bunch of songs that had phrases that went from V-I, and people studying their work realized this pattern and called it an authentic cadence.

Point being, music theory is really just a method of describing trends of techniques in music. We come up with these theories so that we can talk about music without having to reference every single time someone uses an authentic cadence ("That one part at the end of the 4rd phrase in the Toccata in D minor was awesome!"), but that doesn't mean that the theories are law by any means. It's good to demand better composition and using techniques from music theory is a good way to foster that betterment, but I don't think referencing classical music is the way to do it.

Here's why: imagine you're some person who doesn't really know much music theory. You make a song and ask for criticism on it, and someone says that you don't use very good chord progressions and you stay in the same key the entire time. After they tell you this they post a link to a Chopin and tell you that this is a good example of interesting chord progression and key change.

If I'm that person, I'm not thinking about how I can learn from this Chopin piece because I DON'T KNOW MUSIC THEORY. I'm thinking: "did this guy really just compare me to this romantic-era pianist? why would he do that? I'm just some kid with LSDJ. What does he expect me to hear?"

By using a point of reference that's too obscure for someone to parse, you've effectively disinterested someone in learning music theory. It's obscure because not only do they have to change their listening strategy to an unfamiliar environment (piano music), they also have to find this particular compositional technique in this environment. I don't want to make any assumptions on the musical tastes of your average chiptune musician, but chances are that even if they do listen to classical music, they aren't directly influenced by it.

Now if instead you took a piece of music in the style that random LSDJ user is trying to compose in and point out a compositional technique there, the person you're criticizing now doesn't have to come up with a new (or unfamiliar) strategy for music listening, and it's a LOT easier to figure out what you're trying to talk about when you don't have to reorient yourself like that. If I'm making a dance track and someone points out a cool chord progression in another dance track, I can just zero in on that progression because I'm familiar with everything else the track is doing.

I think that kind of criticism is a lot more valuable than doing it the other way, because not only is it parse-able and helpful, but it could also open up a door for the person you criticize to go to other kinds of music (like classical) and learn theory in those environments! I remember my music theory training always seemed so random and unhelpful in practice until I realized that the music I listened to followed these trends too, and THAT was when I started applying the theory to everything (including my piano performance).

Rip on me dude, RIP ON ME.

okay, you're awful.

Ew dude. Bad reason.

My feeling (from reading your review of that dude's album) is that you're perceiving me as someone who is largely image based (ie, L@@K I'm CRAZYyyyrandom SoUnDzz dude ) with very little tangible skill. I also sort of sense that you hold on to musical orthodoxies that filter me out as a 'legitimate artist'. Those things may be true to a degree, they don't make me objectively awful.

Also, I like your music so whatever.

Last edited by Jay Tholen (Mar 25, 2012 11:36 pm)