Why is there so much nerd music here?

[jtxx000]

I just think you're jealous cause Asians have little peckers.

Is this adressed at me? Are you really that curious about penis length or is this an attempt to amuse youself by humiliating an entire race of people?

Do you think you will be admired by people by demeaning them?

Will you spend the next 20 miniutes thinking of a comeback to make your life less empty by winning a fight that no one but you cares about?

heh, easy for you to say you dont live anywhere near him

[Ian Stone]

This thread has gotten awfully juvey. Maturity check.

[meeks]

98% Geek, 2% Cowboy....it's that two precent that you have to worry about.

[CskaTorpedo]

Exactly my point. Nobody wrote the code of morals, they have evolved over many millenia and differs from city block to city block.

Thats not what I said, I said we HUMANS wrote the rules, over thousands of years. They aren't rules like "oh a triplet should be played like this" or "If you play in C Minor, you should play these scales", but the in the fundementals, THE ESSENCE.

Music shares a lot with language, and in this respect no one says THIS IS ALL THE ENGLISH THAT WILL EVER BE, you are free to adapt slang, regional accents, and other abstactions into it. If you call people Chir, instead of Sir you are still speaking English. But if you made up your own language of chirping noises and armpit fart sounds then said "This is English too!" people would probably not agree with you. That is not to say your language is bad, or flawed, just not English.

Edit: Which made me think, music is also about consensus, if enough people were to use the word "fiksisisng" to mean "healthy" then it would be English. Then same with using atonal and what not.

And no, there are no musical fundamentals. There are different kinds of music theory but they do not necessarily agree (I should know...I have a Bachelor of Music Performance and spent every day from 8-10 doing music theory until it came out of every orifice). So who would I answer to if I broke (whomever's) musical laws?

So you are saying because you went to school you are able to tell us without a doubt that there is no such think as musical fundementals? Are there no fundementals to language as well? Perhaps there is there no purpose to music hence no need for any structure? I am not sure I follow you here, I know the difference between Frank Zappa breaking the rules, and a guy who is too lazy to learn piano so he puts a bunch of stuff in a sequencer and hits the randomize button.

And BTW what sounds good in theory may sound horrible in practice, because a performance is often also involved - not just the composition. So what one person would classify as nerdy becomes another person's Gabriel's oboe.

No argument here...

[intel]

I'm damn proud to be a nerd. always have been.

but these days I find producing music with a recognizable pop or rock structure and progressions and vocals to be boring. especially if I would just be recycling the same shit that's been heard over and over and over.

to what standards do I hold experimental or ambient music? the same I would to rock or country or hip hop or polka: first and foremost it has to appeal and entertain. anything after that is trifling.

where some people find appeal and entertainment listening to a two bit Nitzer Ebb ripoff band, I find appeal in subtle use of atonal elements to create soundscapes. among other things.

[kovacs]

Exactly my point. Nobody wrote the code of morals, they have evolved over many millenia and differs from city block to city block.

Thats not what I said, I said we HUMANS wrote the rules, over thousands of years. They aren't rules like ... but the in the fundementals, THE ESSENCE.

And this essence is...? That you like it or not?

And no, there are no musical fundamentals. There are different kinds of music theory but they do not necessarily agree (I should know...I have a Bachelor of Music Performance and spent every day from 8-10 doing music theory until it came out of every orifice). So who would I answer to if I broke (whomever's) musical laws?

So you are saying because you went to school you are able to tell us without a doubt that there is no such think as musical fundementals? Are there no fundementals to language as well? Perhaps there is there no purpose to music hence no need for any structure?

My point of mentioning my education was that I got sick and tired of music theory being crammed down my throat. And I get sick and tired of people trying to put words in my mouth, too.

You are the one comparing music to language. Not me.

And I'd argue that a lot of music has no purpose. Whether that has any impact of the structure or not is irrelevant.

I am not sure I follow you here, I know the difference between Frank Zappa breaking the rules, and a guy who is too lazy to learn piano so he puts a bunch of stuff in a sequencer and hits the randomize button.

I think it's good that the latter does what he likes to do. I think more people are actually writing music now than at any other time in history. Trying to label music with stupid terms like "nerd music" shows an utter lack of interest in what goes on at the music scene. You try to start an intellectual debate on what music is and should be, but you are unable to see that most of the replies you get are from the very people who think "nerd music" is perfectly fine, or who could care a donkey's ass (sorry donks) about what label it gets.

[birrbits]

Music shares a lot with language, and in this respect no one says THIS IS ALL THE ENGLISH THAT WILL EVER BE, you are free to adapt slang, regional accents, and other abstactions into it. If you call people Chir, instead of Sir you are still speaking English. But if you made up your own language of chirping noises and armpit fart sounds then said "This is English too!" people would probably not agree with you. That is not to say your language is bad, or flawed, just not English.

Ok I'm sorry to do this but your logic here is horribly flawed.
Yes music shares alot with language
But not all language is English
So to say that a sound is not English,
does not by any means imply that its is not language
and to say "I'm calling this fart English"
and have people disagree with you
still has nothing to do with the fact that you can speak in fart

[CskaTorpedo]

Ok I'm sorry to do this but your logic here is horribly flawed.
Yes music shares alot with language
But not all language is English
So to say that a sound that is not English,
does not by any means imply that its is not language
and to say "I'm calling this fart English"
and have people disagree with you
still has nothing to do with the fact that you can speak in fart

English was an example, I used the expamle in such a way that I did not need to compare music to ALL language. Now you are being nitpicking.

[birrbits]

English was an example, I used the expamle in such a way that I did not need to compare music to ALL language. Now you are being nitpicking.

What I am telling you is that it is a horrific analogy

It would make sense if you said "Musical genres" are like languages such as English

But then you would have defeated your own arguement

which is my point

[crimsontider]

So what makes it music when we throw out musical rules and apply our own?

What doesn't? Or more interesting, what makes it "nerd" music?

This goofball from college the other day played me some techno band whose music flows to mathmatical plotting of various animals DNA structure. Needless to say, it sucked!

Actually, my point was more "who writes the musical rules". Nobody I know, for sure.

It's been defined as
1 The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2 Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
...snip...
In my opinion, noise that follows the rhythm of a organism's DNA structure, does not fit the definition
of music lol..

See, the textbook definiton fails to support you. It's the interpretation of it which makes it subjective.

When people say "that's not music" they usually have no clue what the textbook says. They just don't like what they hear. Which is fine - but it's like calling a modern painting "not a painting" just because I don't like it.

Ok, nuff nitpicking. I'm in the mood for it so I better log off now.

At least we're on topic

[archiveofeverything]

wow, I read the first page of this thread and then straight to the last page. I hate to think what went on in the middle to warrant comments about "asians having little peckers" and how English isnt the only language.
I'm far too stoned to actually take all this in. I'm going to read it tommorrow though.
my tuppence worth:
There is a lot of ambient/experimental on here and I think it gives people an excuse to be crap just because they filtered an emulated version of a dogs dying breath and looped it to sound like a threading needle on a hot day, whilst their 47 Osc synth runs through 86 different types of routings per osc and makes the noise of a turtles neckbrace. But at least people get to vent.

[CskaTorpedo]

And this essence is...? That you like it or not?

You are confusing essence with purpose.

The purpose of music can be to entertain or serve as art.

The essence of music is very broad, but I think it was summed up earlier, bringing sounds together in a stuctured manner. I am not saying you have to make symphonies to be called music, but there is a definate stucture to music. Sampling dogs and playing it back as jingle bells is music, but merely recording something ISN'T. An unmodified soundscape isn't music, it's a recording, a soundscape modified by dogs barking jingle bells most certainly is music. Banging a metal pipe on a desk and recording it isn't music, doing it in a pattern is the fundemental of rhythm. Doing it with the accompaniment of a cello is certainly music.

EDIT: obviously I am NOT saying that all music is recorded, it's an example.

So I pose this question, is recording atonal harmonies music? Yes, and as soon as you record them aren't you already following the rules of atonality? Oh no! more rules, can't we escape and make something completely original? No everything has already been thought of. You are following a rule every time you break one. I DON'T WANNA PLAY IN THE RIGHT KEY FOR THIS PIECE, now you've broken a rule and are now a rather nasty rule that harmony sounds better than atonality to the human ear.

My point of mentioning my education was that I got sick and tired of music theory being crammed down my throat. And I get sick and tired of people trying to put words in my mouth, too.

I don't see how this conversation called for your musical background. I think you mentioned it to gain some sort of credibillity. Though I do respect the hard work you did in college I find it hard to respect the end result if all that theory taught you to dislike traditional music theory.

"nerd music" shows an utter lack of interest in what goes on at the music scene. You try to start an intellectual debate on what music is and should be, but you are unable to see that most of the replies you get are from the very people who think "nerd music" is perfectly fine, or who could care a donkey's ass (sorry donks) about what label it gets.

Obviously you only read what you wanted to, read a few posts down from that. Thanks.[/quote]

[Sicklecell666]

Will you spend the next 20 miniutes thinking of a comeback to make your life less empty by winning a fight that no one but you cares about?

Absolutely not. I'm not the one with the little pecker.



Besides, the only passionate argument here is yours. I could realy give a shit what your opinion about anything is, it's clear that while you're into atom splitting, genre defining & all that other asinine stuff that makes the creative process so f**king stifling & choked, I'm into doing what makes me feel better cathartically, so back to your Cyclotron I guess..



Oh, & I'd consider it a bonus if while you're digging around in the Philosopher's Colon you're able to tell us how many angels fit on the head of a pin..

later, Moron.

[crimsontider]

delete

[vurt]

cska all you are proving here is that you dont have a clue
if its evolved to what its is now who has decided its got as far as its going?
you think its similar to language well language is still evolving too.
stop being so small minded and either listen or dont