|
what it takes to produce... do i have the hard part down already? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Mozart had to work extremely hard and go through a lot of to be the success that he was. Simply because he was a prodigy does not mean he coasted through. Once again you reveal your ignorance in a lame attempt to put other people down so you can feel better about yourself. |
Yeah and you have no ing idea why I said that and in what context. What a ing dumbass.
You though I was trying to insult Mozart. You saw an insult, where an insult was not located.
You fail. I don't have the time or the will to explain to people below me what I meant. Read the whole thread, specifically 2 pages back. Maby that will give you insight to why I said it. |
|
|
| derail |
On the topic of Mozart, the book "talent is overrated" is an interesting read. It, amongst other things, looks at some "child prodigies" such as Mozart and Tiger Woods. They both had fathers who started working them hard from the age of 2 or 3. Mozart's dad was one of the most influential music teachers of that time, apparently his textbook was used widely in music curriculum for around 60 years.
The book argues that Mozart didn't create a truly original, brilliant work until the age of 15 or 16, at which point he'd been working extremely hard at his art for 10 years. His earlier works (according to the book) were arrangements of works of other composers.
I can imagine, if someone said to him that one of his works was "complex", he'd have some appreciation of what the person was saying, since it takes an incredible amount of work to become one of the best. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
You though I was trying to insult Mozart. You saw an insult, where an insult was not located.
You fail. I don't have the time or the will to explain to people below me what I meant. Read the whole thread, specifically 2 pages back. Maby that will give you insight to why I said it. |
Um, no, that's not what I thought at all. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but either way, you're the one who just failed. Double fail for spelling "maybe" as "maby". |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| So now you change your mind. That's not nice. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
So now you change your mind. That's not nice. |
I didn't change anything. You made a lame-ass condescending comment about other people's abilities, but because you knew that half of them are smarter than you and that nobody would take you seriously on your own merits, you tried invoking Mozart to give your post some air of authority. It didn't work, because you clearly know absolutely nothing about Mozart, much less how he would personally have reacted to comments posted on an internet forum.
Try casting your idiotic comment in a different context. Imagine a group of golfers having an OK game and a few of them start talking about their handicaps or their swings or whatever, and some no doubt wearing a sideways ball cap and phat pants comes along and says "Hahaha, you guys, Tiger Woods would laugh his ASS off listening to you go on about this ", and then starts playing the next hole with a wiffle ball and a stick. I think the overarching response to said shenanigans would be something along the lines of: "Who the are you, and give me one good reason why I should let you walk away without this seven-iron wedged halfway up your ass?"
You made a comment that was beyond stupid, which you must have thought sounded very smart because you used the name of a famous classical composer at the beginning, but you were wrong. Stop trying to defend yourself and just sit down, shut up, and look sad. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Music is not complex, even Mozart, and its only the idiot that elevates his music to such a complex status. Someone who has no musical talent or ability would think ti was vastly complex. When it is at best average. People only think highly of it because it happened 200 or so years ago. There are classical musicians today who all over Mozart, but people don't give them the time of day.
That was my comment.
Now Diginut, stop trying to make yourself look smart by using big words you big ole ape. Because you are not winning, now, or ever. And you will not ever win. So just..shut up okay? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Music is not complex, even Mozart, and its only the idiot that elevates his music to such a complex status. Someone who has no musical talent or ability would think ti was vastly complex. When it is at best average. People only think highly of it because it happened 200 or so years ago. There are classical musicians today who all over Mozart, but people don't give them the time of day. |
Certainly in the context of classical music, Mozart is not at the top of the complexity scale -- later composers wrote works that were much more elaborate. "Complexity" is relative, yes -- but Mozart's music is a lot more complex than a typical dance track. There's way more development of melodies and themes, modulation, harmonized layers, and use of varied tempo and dynamics.
Most dance tracks just bring a few simple melodies in and out for a couple hundred measures without even elaborating on them at all. The rhythms are nearly all 4/4 and repeat themselves every bar or two. Certainly the engineering process for making sounds and effects or mixing and mastering them can be tough and involve lots of creativity, but the resulting musical product is almost never as complicated as any run of the mill classical piece.
And who are these "classical musicians today who all over Mozart?" |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Hans Zimmer is pretty awesome. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Certainly in the context of classical music, Mozart is not at the top of the complexity scale -- later composers wrote works that were much more elaborate. "Complexity" is relative, yes -- but Mozart's music is a lot more complex than a typical dance track. There's way more development of melodies and themes, modulation, harmonized layers, and use of varied tempo and dynamics.
Most dance tracks just bring a few simple melodies in and out for a couple hundred measures without even elaborating on them at all. The rhythms are nearly all 4/4 and repeat themselves every bar or two. Certainly the engineering process for making sounds and effects or mixing and mastering them can be tough and involve lots of creativity, but the resulting musical product is almost never as complicated as any run of the mill classical piece.
And who are these "classical musicians today who all over Mozart?" |
You sure you want to just point to Dance music? What about Hip Hop or Pop or Country? Are they complex in comparison to classical music?
Electronic Music is and can be closer to classical music than any other popular genre. In harmony, chord progression, movements, arrangement, dynamics, nuance. However, Trance does not require elaborate musicality and complexity for the music to be enjoyable, and this the main reason why it isn't as "complex" as classical music, again nor does it need to be.
The important thing is, that the creation of electronic music has its complexities, attributes, and parameters that require the same amount of skill or intelligence that took Mozart to write his music. Classical music writers also have the luxury of a live person rendering the intention of the composer, while Electronic artists have to nurture and learn the equipment they utilize heavily to get anything of quality out of it. It is harder for an Electronic artist to take what is in the mind and translate that onto the canvas, than it is for a classical composer to recreate the melodies and progressions with the known parameters of the organic instruments available. A classical composer might know how to play the instruments he writes for, an Electronic artist has to know how to use the synths and machines and play them if they are hands on. A classical composer can write something, sit with a brilliant orchestra and great music is made. While an Electronic music composer has to learn every parameter of every instrument/technology he uses to create his music.
Any established electronic producer, and even non established producers including myself and others here could write very complex pieces of electronic music, but I don't think it would be appreciated as much as something that is danceable and consumable by the listener, the highest enjoyment of Electronic music doesn't really come from complexity. So with that said, complexity in Electronic music in general would exist (and does exist) if the listener is looking for that in the music they choose to listen to. But for the most part they are looking to dance and like listeners of most genres of music, to run away from the complexities of life. Not to break down harmonies, chord progessions, arranagements, movements, nuances, and so on in the music.
So what is the point? The complexity or simplicity of different genres of music does not signify greatness or intelligence, for even the most simple pieces of music can be brilliant, and it takes great vision, energy, and intelligence to turn something simple, into a piece of music that people can enjoy, as it takes for something complex to be enjoyable for the listener. For example, utilizing nuances in Minimal Techno or Deep House can be as powerful as a chord progression in Classical Music, one is doing less one is doing more, but they both require the same amount of intelligence and skill to create. Both are taking an equal risk, one is taking the risk of making something simple sound great to the listener, and the other is taking the risk of making something complex sound great to the listener. :D |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
You sure you want to just point to Dance music? What about Hip Hop or Pop or Country?
Electronic Music is and can be closer to classical music than any other popular genre. In harmony, chord progression, movements, arrangement. |
Yes, it can be. I actually think electronic music offers the most opportunity for creating intricate, elaborate, expansive music, because with electronic tools you can manipulate absolutely everything about the sound. You aren't limited by what physical instruments and human performers can do. The first electronic music was created by classical composers who wanted to expand the possibilities of composition.
| quote: | | So what is the point? The complexity or simplicity of different genres of music does not signify greatness or intelligence... |
And I never said it did. There are plenty of bad pieces of music that are complex, and good ones that are simple. And I didn't say dance producers have no talent, or that creating good dance tracks is easy. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Music is not complex, even Mozart, and its only the idiot that elevates his music to such a complex status. |
Mozart didn't have to worry about synth programming, EQ, compression, mastering, or any of that crap. There's a technical side to production that didn't exist back then.
Regardless, you yourself haven't demonstrated any hint of competence in either the musical or technical areas, so you have no business making condescending comments like that, and you especially have no business presuming to speak for someone who was famous all over the country at half your age. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Those technically things aren't hard...mastering is a 5-10 minute job in a wav editor. Requires basic textbook knowledge on how audio works. This is the problem with most EDM today, most artists are so bad they can't even produce a decent melody or composition, and so they try to mask their flaws by saying "but the technical stuff is the hard part" Bull, you suck as a musician, being good at technical stuff is no justification for failing at being a musician. Its like if you suck at painting, so instead you throw paint on a canvas like a monkey and call it abstract and try to pass it off as art...when no, its not art, its paint thrown on a canvas.
You can't just pick something out, call it hard, and use it as an excuse for a flaw you have at something. And when people laughable talk about how hard the technical stuff is, they are using it as a scapegoat. Really, if synth programming or EQ is something you consider "hard" then you are a very backward ass stone age kind of person. Because that is the simplest aspect of EDM. Mixing can be done with your eyes closed for s sake. Technical stuff hard..are you ing ting me? Humanity is devolving, meaning, people in general are getting stupider. This stuff isn't hard because its complex or something, its "hard" because most people are so mentally handicapped.
This is why I don't respect this place anymore, people are so pitiful. People who couldn't melody their way out of an elevator, saying technical textbook stuff is harder than creativity. WTF. That is like saying learning to play the violin is harder than writing your own full orchestra piece. That is what diginut said. |
|
|
|
|
