Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MeimieFan88]

MeimeFan88, kinda curious how are you creating/recording the vocals, I'm assuming that's not you singing in various parts?

That is a KARRA Splice Sample XD. So I did not create nor record it, only mixed it into the track. Vocal samples get re-used a lot in EDM~

[MeimieFan88]

The problem I find with going on with which you as the composer like, if you're to carry on on the path, that likely won't last, and that's just how things are, but the better focus I find in what others not just can, but will enjoy, because such a guarantee is achievable. It is a matter of how serious one is about the whole deal I suppose, but it is worth more pusuing something long-lasting and purposeful, rather than amusing yourself for a fleeting while.

Hey sorry about the delayed response to this, wanted to follow up because I feel there's some misunderstanding. What I was saying was that in a sense, all music is subjective, because it requires a subject in order to be experienced. Whether you're focusing on a specific style of music or the theoretical framework of music as a whole, it's all dependent on you as a subject who is experiencing it. One cannot say that something is musically good without perceiving it as so for themselves. In that sense, one's enjoyment of it becomes the proof that the theory is valid.

I get what you're saying regarding focusing on the objective rules in music, and I largely agree with that sentiment. I think human minds and sensory organs have evolved in a way that makes certain sounds / patterns / paradigms / etc more appealing or relatable, and it probably applies to a large amount of the population. I feel you will always find outliers though - one obvious example is people with hearing disabilities/irregularities, or certain types of severe mental anomalies. These people will likely perceive music differently than most. And one can't really say that their way of perceiving is somehow lesser or wrong.

I sometimes get into the mindset of creating something that I think the world will like, or that certain labels I'm submitting to will like. But I don't think that's the best approach, as it leads to me pandering a bit too much to the tastes of others. Which is fine if I myself enjoy whatever it is I'm making, but it becomes a problem if I'm not enjoying it. Because then in a sense I become the proof that some part of the theory / method is invalid. So that's the point I was trying to make, is that oneself is, essentially, the truest instrument by which any "objective rules" can be discovered. Hope that makes sense!

[ShockinglyTallDwarf]

Hello everyone, I am new to the forum and was wondering if this is still the best thread to post homegrown music to?

[Quaksna]

Hello everyone, I am new to the forum and was wondering if this is still the best thread to post homegrown music to?

Dunno what else is out there : D But should you post here we'll gladly give it a listen, be assured.

Now excuse me, I gotta address this 

What I was saying was that in a sense, all music is subjective, because it requires a subject in order to be experienced. Whether you're focusing on a specific style of music or the theoretical framework of music as a whole, it's all dependent on you as a subject who is experiencing it. One cannot say that something is musically good without perceiving it as so for themselves.

Well, duh we all perceive stuff as individuals, how else you're gonna experience it. But that's not what I'm talking about, when I say a song is good the elements that make it so can be noticed by anyone potentially, because they define the object. Whether the spectators find and appreciate it is irrelevant, it's a part of the music, the composer knew his craft, he gave thought to the work and it is imprinted in its form, forever. The fact that one's perspective might be limited, i.e. unable to recognize the well crafted parts, that doesn't affect the nature of the work, and thus neither its inherent quality.

In that sense, one's enjoyment of it becomes the proof that the theory is valid.

One can certainly think that it's valid, but if no one else can share the sentiment and/or it hinges upon tastes of an individual only, that's not exactly useful is it.

And one can't really say that their way of perceiving is somehow lesser or wrong.

Again, I don't care about perception, this the music we're talking about.

I sometimes get into the mindset of creating something that I think the world will like, or that certain labels I'm submitting to will like

Well I find it particularly interesting that "what the world will like" comes to yo mind off what I advocate for. 'Cause I would wager my brand of work isn't really going to be appreciated by many. Even in the circles of us who try to preserve the legacy of old I am often put at odds, as I venture in times so ancient the intended feel often forces in quite poor spots . But what you'll have now globally listened to with vast majority of people is the kind of stuff we've been berating since the dawn of this thread - while technically funtional, it's bland, formulaic, unambitious factory line-up, heavily subject to fickle trends.

In short, a song isn't contained in your field of vision, how you make the song it is going to stay, no matter who will listen to it, so why not engineer it to ramp up the longevity and general appeal, ey?

[ShockinglyTallDwarf]

I recently finished a first version of a DF fan song, linked here: https://soundcloud.com/shockinglytalldwarf/gorlaks-song?si=14cadf0916a342a09368972f45bbea8a&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

I was wondering if anyone could give feedback or advice, it would be greatly appreciated!

It is supposed to be a song for the lowly-yet mysterious Gorlak, but it might sound a bit too dramatic. What do all y'all think?

[MeimieFan88]

@Quaksna: But what makes a song well-crafted is in the perception of the listener, whether that's the audience or the composer. Surely you too aim to make music you perceive as good? How would you judge a piece if not by your own ear?

(Sorry if this discussion is a bit of a derail xD)

[MeimieFan88]

I recently finished a first version of a DF fan song, linked here: https://soundcloud.com/shockinglytalldwarf/gorlaks-song?si=14cadf0916a342a09368972f45bbea8a&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

I was wondering if anyone could give feedback or advice, it would be greatly appreciated!

It is supposed to be a song for the lowly-yet mysterious Gorlak, but it might sound a bit too dramatic. What do all y'all think?

Hey this does a really nice job of creating a certain atmosphere! Overall it's pretty well arranged. One thing that I think could be improved is the percussion taking a break every so often, or being changed up slightly between sections. It seems to be in the background the same way the whole time which gets a bit repetitive. You could play with changing the energy levels slightly more, the simplest way would be the remove the drums from certain 'softer' sections. I think something else that can be improved is the mixing aspects. In particular it feels like there's a lack of higher frequencies, and some vagueness/mud between instruments. You could look to give them a little more space and clarity, perhaps through EQing and a bit of compression to bring out the finer details, which generally reside in the higher parts of the spectrum. But yeah as a whole the piece is working pretty nicely! I could hear this working well as the background track of a movie or video game.

[Quaksna]

(Sorry if this discussion is a bit of a derail xD)

Oh no I enjoy it 

@Quaksna: But what makes a song well-crafted is in the perception of the listener, whether that's the audience or the composer. Surely you too aim to make music you perceive as good?

No, what makes a song well-crafted is its form, its structure. That remains untouched by whoever's perception. The thing is, if you go by the rules, if you tap into the lore and use the accumulated knowledge of mankind in a proper manner, it won't be subject to fashion, it won't be subject to tastes, even if people won't like it at the moment, that's their problem, you did your part and you did it well, a good fight you fought. See through all these art movements throughout history, there was a certain fashion, there were elements people focused on more and conventions of the time, and yet, you can still pick apart good and bad music, how skilled the composer was, that over time, they have mastered the intricacies and created absolute works of arts, regardless of the style. Because there is a level of understanding they have in common, and that is what I am focusing on. There is concrete procedure that we all can see, whether you are experienced or not, the knowledge is just what makes you then able to truly appreciate the genius.

Say I play the same note twice and declare it a song. If it's the perception of the listener that makes this "idea" well crafted and realized, can I potentially put myself above the masters (or be so proclaimed by others)? That's just laughable.

You can pick apart the compositions and compare them, because they consists of elements, because they exist in a form! You do not perceive the form, the form simply is!

Surely you too aim to make music you perceive as good? How would you judge a piece if not by your own ear?

Actually, when I first learned of some preferred method and I tried to apply them in my songs it didn't sound good to me at dirst. Guess what, that was due to my inexperience, because I was still wading in inferior sound, and I didn't immerse myself in other music much. But it paid of in the end, the perception then was a mirage, but the decision to put better harmony remained, and it won't deteriorate, because it is proven to work, that's what music theory is all about.

Now

I recently finished a first version of a DF fan song

Hey that's a cool little thing! I really like the base deep strings together with the drums, evokes the Gorlak very well - sounds like something enigmatic wobbling in the dark, but it does carry itself with dignity, the progression makes a good job holding the line of benevolent and dodgy. What I feel is perhaps too sinister would be then what gets added on top throughout the first half, the lines that move the most I think are part sound, but then meander off in quite a confusing, unnatural manner. The second half was a lot more readable, each of the voices was clear, and the accompanying ones didn't stray in places so to muddle the overall package, it is quite simple throughout but it is apparent you have everything under control in those two minutes.

[MeimieFan88]

and yet, you can still pick apart good and bad music

Right, and it is the you that is picking apart good and bad music. Without the you - the perceiver of the music - there is no one to judge the music. What is the meaning of beauty if there's no one to perceive it? In fact, how can anyone say it is beautiful without witnessing its beauty for themselves?

If it's the perception of the listener that makes this "idea" well crafted and realized, can I potentially put myself above the masters (or be so proclaimed by others)?

If the listener truly in their heart of hearts enjoys this "idea", then it can't be argued that there's something to it that is appealing. Essentially, perception of beauty is the only real clue we have to it. There's no ultimate divine arbiter who decides whether something is good or not, other than the instrument of our perception.

But it paid of in the end, the perception then was a mirage, but the decision to put better harmony remained, and it won't deteriorate, because it is proven to work, that's what music theory is all about.

It seems that it is the "paying off in the end", which is essentially the thing finally appealing to your senses, that redeems the process. If it had never paid off, would you still have valued it? Why would you still have valued it? Also I would venture to guess that the thing had always appealed to you, you simply did not have the experience/proficiency at your initial stage to execute it in the proper way.

(Sorry if this discussion is a bit of a derail xD)

Oh no I enjoy it 

Well I'm glad to have this discussion then ^^

[Quaksna]

and yet, you can still pick apart good and bad music

Right, and it is the you that is picking apart good and bad music. Without the you - the perceiver of the music - there is no one to judge the music. What is the meaning of beauty if there's no one to perceive it? In fact, how can anyone say it is beautiful without witnessing its beauty for themselves?

Bruh again, of course, we perceive the world with out senses no shit. But concerning quality of music, that's about the most meaningless statement you can make, it has no moral or any other implications. Let me ask you this, what is the meaning of beauty when it's so fickle anyone can define it how they want? Isn't it meaningless then? You didn't exactly help there yourself if that's what you claim  That's why I see this as the most sad, defeatist perspective, why would anyone care then? What is the point of music, if you cannot ensure quality anyway?

Then, how is it there seems to a well established general idea of beauty in the world, that even beasts can perceive it, not just man? You know these fish drawing mandalas in the sand to attract mates, any bird sporting over the top colorful plumage, songbirds increasing their repertoire with age and experience - and the way they rank quality of these features to choose said mates mirrors our perception of beauty (the purpose of these is to be beautiful quite apparently, they can have little no practicality otherwise)? Could it be that there is something universal at play here? Hmmm?

Even if there is no one to judge the music, the music hasn't changed! Its quality, its nature is not locked within one's perception, it does not come of it, but of the object itself! Perception just means you're the one observing something existing, something that is established. You can judge it however you see fit, but the innate qualities stand for other observers, just as they did for you, the song itself doesn't change between listeners. And since the nature of the object is to be shared between people, because it is universal, it doesn't change, whereas your standards do, your tastes do, songs can be made objectively better or worse.

If the listener truly in their heart of hearts enjoys this "idea", then it can't be argued that there's something to it that is appealing. Essentially, perception of beauty is the only real clue we have to it. There's no ultimate divine arbiter who decides whether something is good or not, other than the instrument of our perception.

Oh shit you did actually validate my two tones wtf xD I mean it does sound like the kind of thing modern art critics would praise as "challenging and bold", but those are the last people I want to listen to any music, as they deny any general idea of soundness. What do you mean can't be argued, of course it can! Let me demonstrate: "This 'truly immaculately beautiful' work of art suffers from intense lack of imagination, harmony, depth, intricacy and talent, for it undeniably consists solely of the same tone repeated twice and nothing more. It also plagiarize off everything ever  When compared to others works, contemporary or historical, it's absence of said features makes it immensely un-worthwhile endeavor, perhaps only save in comparison to some of the atrocities carried out by post-world war modernism, both to be composed and listen to." See if there's some universal quality, which there is, you don't need a judge, you don't need an arbiter, the song stands on its own, and doesn't need to be validated. I don't care then how it is praised or deriled, the arrangement is provable. Undisputable. And we have ways to make it sound good, regardless of who listens to it. We're that powerful, and we should use our gift to better ourself, our craft, and make good use of it.

It seems that it is the "paying off in the end", which is essentially the thing finally appealing to your senses, that redeems the process. If it had never paid off, would you still have valued it? Why would you still have valued it? Also I would venture to guess that the thing had always appealed to you, you simply did not have the experience/proficiency at your initial stage to execute it in the proper way.

This the thing, it wasn't about my or anyone's perception, demonstrated by how that changes every so often. It is not essential that it appeals to my senses, hell no, if that was the dealbreaker for me, why would I ever pursue anything that would sound off at the moment? The reason I tried it because I knew that others would enjoy it, and, because it is a proven method, that others will enjoy it. Before I did, it took a moment, but that doesn't change the fact I made the song better for it. Hell, even if I didn't actually to appreciate it ever, that doesn't have an effect on its quality. I suppose you are quite opposed to the idea of composing something the author wouldn't enjoy himself, but if others will, wouldn't that be a sacrifice then, i. e. a noble thing to do?

The fact that someone says "I like it" and the thing being of objective quality do not need to coexist, and given how ignorant the general populus is, while I do not blame them, we all having our own trouble, I say it is quite a widespread phenomenon these days. That is the subjective part. But the declaration of appreciation isn't what makes something good. Same as say when you have a piece of solid yellow cheese, and I say "I don't like this cheese.". That statement didn't change the fact that the cheese is solid or yellow, these are facts and from them you can deduce other perks and qualities.

Look, I listen to Bok van Blerk. I love the man, and I am really fond of his songs, I do like them a lot. But that's mostly because of his performance as a singer and the power behind the patriotic lyrics. The music itself isn't anything to write home about, it is as basic as you can get. Each repeating about four chords, it's your standard folk/pop/rock fare I suppose, while again, technically sound, it doesn't sound revolting, the composition is nothing to be praised. The quality then would stem not from the arrangement, but from the handling of the language - the poetry present in the texts, and his personal output, as well as the other performers. I won't stand here and say, just because I like it, it tops Bach.


I really hate to bring the good name of cheese ino this but I guess we're at the point that's how I have to explain it xD

[MeimieFan88]

Let me ask you this, what is the meaning of beauty when it's so fickle anyone can define it how they want? Isn't it meaningless then? You didn't exactly help there yourself if that's what you claim  That's why I see this as the most sad, defeatist perspective, why would anyone care then? What is the point of music, if you cannot ensure quality anyway?

The meaning of beauty is the appreciation that the perceiver has for the beauty. Beauty can only be known by the perceiving of it. If one does not perceive something as beautiful, how can one claim that it is beautiful? By what others tell them? That wouldn't be a very true statement then. One can't say "it's beautiful", one can only say "others tell me it is beautiful." It is like a blind man hearing about the ocean. It's second-hand knowledge at best.

As far as the objective meaning of beauty, or the point of music, if there is any, I can't claim to know it for certain. I can only say I perceive certain things as beautiful, which inspires me and makes me feel things, and that's as much as I can say. That's the truth I have to go off of. If one does not perceive Bach as sounding good, then one can't say it is good, regardless of what the world has to tell them. Goodness requires direct experience of it to be confirmed. Being told so is, again, second-hand knowledge at best.

Maybe the point I am arguing is so basic that it doesn't need to be argued, haha. It's great you're very passionate about the topic. We are getting into rather philosophical territory though which might be a bit off-topic, heh. There's never a bad time to talk about cheese though

[Quaksna]

The meaning of beauty is the appreciation that the perceiver has for the beauty

Has for what? His appreciation? There needs to be a solid point somewhere, you're referencing the thing you're trying to define man : D

One can't say "it's beautiful", one can only say "others tell me it is beautiful." It is like a blind man hearing about the ocean. It's second-hand knowledge at best

One can be wrong, thus I don't see a problem with second-hand knowledge. Time will tell, and focusing on one's own perception will ultimately have little to nothing to show.

Beauty can only be known by the perceiving of it

Yes for the third time, no shit, I agree with that! If you're deaf, you cannot appreciate music very well, we'll agree, you said it yourself. But the fact someone's deaf doesn't affect the music itself, it doesn't make the music worse.

As far as the objective meaning of beauty, or the point of music, if there is any, I can't claim to know it for certain

Well there you have, no wonder it has to be hard to wrap your head around, the idea of universal appeal in music, a level of skill that is bound to yield good results. I hate to use the world, there is science to music, there is vast lore to apply, I do music for the lore. Therefore it is technically possible even for a deaf person, should he have the understanding necessary, to recognize the quality of the piece by observing it written. You can judge art subjectively, you can criticise it objectively also, and that's why that'd be possible.

The reason I am so passionate spreading the word that art is not subjective is a) the idea that there is no point to it, just random amusement is preposterous and unmanageable itself, I believe it's mostly just cope  and b) these are disastrous time for art and I'm sure to do my due, help guide people of this cesspool. Let's bring meaning into our endeavors again, dang it!

I guess I'd be repeating myself if I went any further, the creed is for people here to see, and I did a couple times already, I have better things to do. Thanks for the involvement though, these are serious matters and I probably wouldn't get to share the word otherwise.

[TD1]

Yea, there're two criteria here. Firstly, on an individual basis art is enjoyed subjectively. Eye of the beholder, etc.

Zooming out, there are certain forms and modes which encourage wider appreciation.

Therefore, some things in art are objectively 'good' if only because the human mind seems prewired to appreciate them. Bit this does not discount the wildcard which is the individual.

[Quaksna]

Yea, there're two criteria here. Firstly, on an individual basis art is enjoyed subjectively. Eye of the beholder, etc.

Zooming out, there are certain forms and modes which encourage wider appreciation.

Therefore, some things in art are objectively 'good' if only because the human mind seems prewired to appreciate them. Bit this does not discount the wildcard which is the individual.

Very well summarized.

[MeimieFan88]

Time will tell, and focusing on one's own perception will ultimately have little to nothing to show.

What is the thing that is ultimately to be shown though? Is it not appreciation of the music, whether it be ones own or that of others? And so does the fruit not ultimately lie in the eventual (and favorable) perception of it? What sort of appreciation can one feel for music, if not the appeal music has to ones' senses?

And if music is not appealing to the senses, to what degree can we call it music? The whole of music theory hinges on the fact that what is theorized appeals to the ear in some way. I'm kind of confused about what we are disagreeing about tbh.

It seems you have a view of music where it has some sort of divine purpose that is rooted in a place beyond experiencing. There's nothing wrong with that on its own, but when you say that perception doesn't play a role, it confuses me, because I don't see how the value of a piece of music can be judged by anything other than perception. Even famous composers are famous because their pieces were judged favorably by the perception of many. Perception is what shapes music theory altogether. Meanwhile at the same time you also seem to be saying that "good music" is guaranteed to be appreciated and perceived positively by all. So what are you saying exactly haha. I'm honestly a bit confused. Glad the discussion has helped in some way though.

Yea, there're two criteria here. Firstly, on an individual basis art is enjoyed subjectively. Eye of the beholder, etc.

Zooming out, there are certain forms and modes which encourage wider appreciation.

Therefore, some things in art are objectively 'good' if only because the human mind seems prewired to appreciate them. Bit this does not discount the wildcard which is the individual.

This was my exact point!

I get what you're saying regarding focusing on the objective rules in music, and I largely agree with that sentiment. I think human minds and sensory organs have evolved in a way that makes certain sounds / patterns / paradigms / etc more appealing or relatable, and it probably applies to a large amount of the population. I feel you will always find outliers though - one obvious example is people with hearing disabilities/irregularities, or certain types of severe mental anomalies. These people will likely perceive music differently than most. And one can't really say that their way of perceiving is somehow lesser or wrong.