Members droolmaster0 Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by pizzamon well, maybe I'm the bad guy here, but I kinda agree that less can be more. Some of the producers I listen to the most work with nothing more than a 500 mhz powerbook and some old freeware on os9! The fact that (cliche) less can be more, doesn't imply in the least that less must be more. So, what was it that you were saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sizzlemeister Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by droolmaster0 The fact that (cliche) less can be more, doesn't imply in the least that less must be more. So, what was it that you were saying? It's not a FACT that less can be more, it's a bumper-sticker slogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by sizzlemeister It's not a FACT that less can be more, it's a bumper-sticker slogan. I do think that it has been proven to be fact. My mommy told me it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pizzamon Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 hehehe, I'm just saying less can free you up sometimes. You don't have to use less all the time. but sometimes it's nice to limit your options to get more out of what you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Satan helps me make my music for me. I need his help so that I can be here on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by sizzlemeister It's not a FACT that less can be more, it's a bumper-sticker slogan. That's why I inserted "(cliche)" in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 My mommy told me its fact.My mommy.My Mommy.Nah,nah,nah,nah,nah, mommy, mommy, my mommyMommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members eatsdrummachine Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by Dejavoodoo from Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1, Verses 9-10 "What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun. Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us."Something for us all to consider. something tells me solomon never saw the arcade fire live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Awakened_Yeti Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by sizzlemeister So the "formula" intro + verse + chorus + verse + chorus etc. is missing the fundamental argument here, which is the formula that describes how sound becomes music. A formula is generally used to describe a specific procedure using specific elements that results in the creation of a specific thing. I afraid the intro+verse+chorus etc. equation is more a template than a formula. You would need to be more specific in this template for it to become a formula. First of all, an "equation" is by its very definition a type of "formula". Secondly, Its a matter of opinion which term is more appropriate. Among music critics, the word "formulaic" is used quite often to describe something (for better or worse) and refers to this phenomena of not straying to far from established genre formulas - or templates, if you prefer... although I havent really heard the term "templative" used very often. If you want to be super precise about the definition of the word "formula" - lets consult Websters dictionary: Main Entry: for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EerieDreamZ Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by Awakened_Yeti First of all, an "equation" is by its very definition a type of "formula". Secondly, Its a matter of opinion which term is more appropriate. Among music critics, the word "formulaic" is used quite often to describe something (for better or worse) and refers to this phenomena of not straying to far from established genre formulas - or templates, if you prefer... although I havent really heard the term "templative" used very often.If you want to be super precise about the definition of the word "formula" - lets consult Websters dictionary:So, as you can see, the word "formula" would apply just as easily to this as the word "template". You can prefer either term according to your own tastes, but this is more a matter of personal opinion than some kind of factual divergence of meaning.However - the argument for the "formula of how sound becomes music" is a misnomer to begin with because again we are in the realm of artistic subjectivity... as "music" is a very broad term that could include any number of various styles - some which are nothing but pure noise (to people who do not call it "music"). Across cultures and groups there are many different classifications of music, and they do not always agree with each other about what is "melodic" or "harmonius" and what is not.If you narrow the focus and say "what is the formula for how sound becomes hip-hop music?" then you can get closer. Youve got bass sounds, drum sounds, melodic sounds, etc. etc.The question isnt how abstract you can theorize - as theoretical abstraction for its own sake has no practical application beyond discussion or books. If you want to discover practical methods (i.e. formulas) then you must theorize from a practical basis and use abstraction to reach a practical end, a practical goal or objective. Since I'm not as "intellectual" as the rest of you folk... perhaps you could put all that into "GILLIGAN" terms for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Infinity....................................I win, I win.Im now in control. I have gained control of this thread. I win, I win. Im the winner of this thread.The End....my mommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Infinity and fourteen. PWN3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by EerieDreamZ Since I'm not as "intellectual" as the rest of you folk... perhaps you could put all that into "GILLIGAN" terms for me? here's my 'low-brow' pirate version: something makes a sound. at what 'point' does the sound become music? when that point is reached, is there a formula that can describe it ? start with an oscillator giving out a steady state signal. or a violin bow being pulled across a string. or a voice trying to sustain a tone. then mess up your brain and waste time by trying to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EerieDreamZ Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by mildbill here's my 'low-brow' pirate version:something makes a sound.at what 'point' does the sound become music?when that point is reached, is there a formula that can describe it ?start with an oscillator giving out a steady state signal.or a violin bow being pulled across a string.or a voice trying to sustain a tone.then mess up your brain and waste time by trying to figure it out. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Mommy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sizzlemeister Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by Awakened_Yeti However - the argument for the "formula of how sound becomes music" is a misnomer to begin with because again we are in the realm of artistic subjectivity... bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 What about this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Read this, they talk about pianos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 And finally there is this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everythingThis is my fav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 some of the fundamental elements that could be used in a formula for music: pitch, amplitude, duration, intervals between pitches sounded simultaneously (chords), methods of moving between various chords, principles of tension and resolution, principles of moving from one pitch to the next (melody), and the relationship of those pitches to the underlying and constantly shifting chord structure. often compared to writing, wherein individual notes (sounds) could be seen as letters, chords seen as words, phrases seen as sentences, and larger structural elements such as verse, chorus, and so on could be seen as paragraphs. of course, there's varying levels of sophistication employed in different formulas. formulas can also be used to try to elicit a specific response - but now we're branching a bit out into left field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 choice and creativity: say you have a modular synth with 1 vco, 1 envelope generator, and one vca. does this setup allow for much creativity? would more modules of different flavors allow for different avenues to express creativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ae5 Posted September 21, 2006 Members Share Posted September 21, 2006 i find myself being more creative with more limitations yes. to a point anyway, like i need to be able to do a certain ammount of things, but i find myself a lot more creative when i'm limited to using just a computer sequencer and my harrdware sampler than i am with a DAW and a million software instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dejavoodoo Posted September 22, 2006 Members Share Posted September 22, 2006 Originally posted by ChasIII Satan helps me make my music for me. I need his help so that I can be here on this forum. Then Hugo Chavez was wrong about Bush ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dejavoodoo Posted September 22, 2006 Members Share Posted September 22, 2006 Originally posted by ChasIII What about this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory Actually, I'm a proponent of the ARP String Ensemble Theory ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted September 22, 2006 Members Share Posted September 22, 2006 HERO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.