#4
how about the fact that it was nothing for 2 minutes and then some random guitar shredding?


i've listened to your bandcamp album before so i know you can make interesting, cool music. i was assuming this was just a joke, especially with the time signature BS talk. hopefully some n00b doesn't come on here and thinks 5/3 is an actual thing.
#5
By nothing you mean atmospheric polymeters in a shoegaze style that builds up into a shred solo? It wasnt easy to get 5/3 to work. I hope you understand how irregular polymeters work. Last time I got into an argument about this I won by posting the wiki article on irregular polymeters, maybe you should go check it out and learn something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature#Irrational_meters
Last edited by jrcsgtpeppers at Jun 21, 2015,
#6
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
I hope you understand how irregular polymeters work.


You clearly don't.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#7
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
I hope you understand how irregular polymeters work.



If this track is indicative of the end results of studying irregular polymeters, then I can confidently say that I am never going to waste my time trying to compose with them. I could care less if 5/3 is a real thing, the "shoegaze" section is just lo-fi padded chords and nobody is ever going to care what time signature that is in, because it can't be felt rhythmically. And every single note of the shred part is the same division of the beat, whether they're 32nd or 64th notes or whatever, there is no "5/3" there and therefore it just sounds like random shredding over a synth pad.


like I said, I actually really enjoyed your bandcamp album, but that actually sounded like music whereas this does not sound like anything at all.
Last edited by MeGaDeth2314 at Jun 21, 2015,
#8
Quote by theogonia777
You clearly don't.

NO, YOU CLEARLY DONT. READ THE ****ING ARTICLE AND INFORM YOURSELVES YOU IGNORANT PIECES OF SHIT.
#9
Wow dude, you read the Wikipedia page on time signatures. You must be a real expert.


The article even says,

"It is arguable whether the use of these signatures makes metric relationships clearer or more obscure to the musician; it is always possible to write a passage using non-irrational signatures by specifying a relationship between some note length in the previous bar and some other in the succeeding one. Sometimes, successive metric relationships between bars are so convoluted that the pure use of irrational signatures would quickly render the notation extremely hard to penetrate. Good examples, written entirely in conventional signatures with the aid of between-bar specified metric relationships, occur a number of times in John Adams' opera Nixon in China (1987), where the sole use of irrational signatures would quickly produce massive numerators and denominators."

which basically means irrational time signatures are useless and make things more complicated than they need to be.


this is my last post here because I have nothing else to say and I don't want to argue on a part of the forum that is intended for helpful criticism. sorry if I seemed harsh at first but I sincerely thought this was a joke, and I know you can do better than this.
Last edited by MeGaDeth2314 at Jun 21, 2015,
#10
No I have been studying music theory for 8 years. I know what I am talking about and I am done with the bullshit. You don't have to like the music I make but if you're gonna argue about theory with me you're gonna lose.
#11
^Implying 8 years is a long time.

In a musical universe where 5/3 exists, none of that was in 5/3. That is all.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#12
Idk what this was, but there was a popping sound through the whole thing, the guitar at points sounded promising but that popping was ruining it for me. I think you may have had touching cables, or maybe a speaker cable plugged into ur guitar, if so then it's radio interference. I think you will figure things out and develop a sound though! Don't listen to negative non constructive comments, music is 100000% defined by you. If you like it and enjoy it, don't stop.


If you get time chex out my instrumentals
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1679019
#13
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
NO, YOU CLEARLY DONT. READ THE ****ING ARTICLE AND INFORM YOURSELVES YOU IGNORANT PIECES OF SHIT.

The asshat is strong with this one.

Here's a critique for you:
1) Fix your cord; it is popping like crazy. It really distracted me from your arhythmic augmented sixth pad loop.
2) Speeding up a "shred solo" is cheating.
3) A poor sense of time does not an irregular polyrhythm make.
4) You can't "win" an argument about music theory when your sole source is Wikipedia and it is arguing against you.
#15
Three things:

If you feel the need to defend your material, you're not ready to post it on the interwebz and be the subject of ruthless and brutal commenting.

Secondly, I thought the track was weak. There's no feel to it. There's no production value. There's no melody. There's a shredding solo and a weak Guitar Pro sounding sampling. And in my opinion the solo sounds very amateur and far-from-grown-up. No one has to know the theory behind it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. My advise would be: you should now start working on your composition skills.

And thirdly, if you want to argue and actually learn something (like the opposing point of view) you should check your manners. This is a forum where amateur musicians criticize each other to improve their shit. If you can't take the heat, might as well delete the post.

Edit: And if you feel that this is your thing, just keep doing it, as people mentioned above. Do not care anyone says. But we're just trying to say you need to improve at it to make it into a 'thing'. Just keep getting better at it.
Last edited by Sammetry at Jun 22, 2015,
#17
Quote by Jet Penguin
^Implying 8 years is a long time.

In a musical universe where 5/3 exists, none of that was in 5/3. That is all.


Take 5 is in 5/3. All the notes you thought were quarter notes were actually thirds. All the 8th notes? They were really 6th notes. The 16ths were 12ths. The half notes were actually the very rarely heard of irrational notes, the one-and-a-halfth note. And the whole notes were the almighty three-quarterth note.

Now if you think that is crazy, let me tell you about how much of Bob Dylan's music is in 4/7.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Last edited by theogonia777 at Jun 22, 2015,