Found 400 results
Found 400 results
The next envelope/breakthrough would be if GuitarMunky developed a sense of humor.
I don't think you know what a troll is
Microtonailty can be achieved with a standard guitar.
But then who will point out its pointlessness?
You implied it by saying there is no envelope for microtonaity to push, and then saying that "Though I'm sure some pretentious posers could compete over how microtonal they are."
If you don't want people to take it like that, then say what you actually mean.
Maybe making threads based solely on guitarist's measuring themselves, under the guise of "pushing-envelopes", is counter-productive that, no....or?
There's using it effectively, and abusing it effectively. Saying that composers can only compete over how microtonal they are is like saying guitarists can only compete by showing how fast they can play..
Microtonality is one of the last great forefronts yet to be merged with popular music in any consistent way. Bridging that gap is one of the hardest and most important envelopes you can push.
So if I understand, by envelope you mean an aspect of guitar or guitar playing that can be quantified as a form of competition?
Because when I think of envelope I think of things like map and Duane said in microtonality or technology integration (or like adsr lol).
don't really get what you're talking about I guess. Like why it matters what the next method of measuring guitar dicks is.
You forgot more strings.
Most of that stuff you mentioned is just guitarists trying to impress, or being impressed by each other rather than just making good music.
At least that's just my opinion.
So I guess my answer is I never cared for that stuff. Maybe we will have 10 string guitars in drop F diminished being played at 342 bpm. It just makes me cringe though. I hope guitarists get over all that and it doesn't go much further.
microtonality is the future
You forgot the cost envelope. Modelling rigs, like Line6 and AxeFX are pushing to provide the tone of many classic expensive rigs but at a reduced cost (and in a neatly integrated package).
They are also pushing the volume envelope. The low end of it, that is. The time of walls of 4x12 is gone, and now the modelling gear is trying to give the tone of loud, overdriven tubes but at headphones volume.
So there are volume, size and practicality envelopes being pushed, and pushed hard.
Hi tech integration.
I believe it is the instrument that will change somewhat in the coming future. We have already seen change in things that have to do with tuning stability and intonation of the instrument (such as the evertune bridge and true temperament frets), the sound processing with units just as the axe-fx 2 which has allowed us to be more versatile with our tones and imitate other instruments (like synth pads). I believe the next step is adding things to the guitar similar to what the synthaxe did when it was released in the 80's, different ways to produce sound from the guitar.
Off-topic, i hardly think guitarists pushed the envelope on any of those things.
good thing music isn't math at all huh guys
you are literally impossible
one you agree with.
I think the standard definitions are fine.
This physically hurts me.
can you provide one of the standard definitions. one you agree with.
because i want to know what you think.
i will ask again. munky, what do you think math is? don't give me a dictionary definition, what do you personally think it is?
exactly. it represents music.
Haven't you already noticed this forum is about overthinking and overanalyzing everything? (hello jazz_rock)
It can be pretty interesting to discuss these things, though.
I had 7 pistachios in a bowl, and then I ate 3 of them, and now there are 4.
Pistachios are maths guys!
ok sure, but so what?
notation is not music
But what I'm saying is that any music can exist without notation. Notation isn't an inherent quality of music.
I use a calculator a lot when I'm composing but its true I only use it to translate what's in my head onto the computer.
"a dot in front of a note"
"the value of the note"
These are all tools that we can use to describe music. They are not music.
okay. so can you either define mathematics as you see it or show how music involves my definition? your categorical statement is not altogether convincing.
yeah bud, hate to break it to you but dots on lines arent actually music. its just a bunch of dots on some lines. music is sound.
no dots on lines is math and dots on lines isnt music
let me be clear. mathematics is a deductive pursuit based on forward assumptions. there are no deductions in music and there are no forward assumptions. it fails on both counts. i know you all like to justify your existence this way, saying "well music is basically math so i must be as smart as everyone thinks mathematicians are" but this is a terrible misrepresentation of both mathematics and music.
continuing, science is an inductive pursuit based on the systematic review of empirical evidence. music theory is not inductive and does not rely on any empirical evidence. it fails on both counts. i know you all like to justify your existence this way, saying "well music theory is basically science so i must be as smart as everyone thinks scientists are" but this is a terrible misrepresentation of both science and music.
if you do not understand either definition i give i will explain. if you try to claim music theory or your composition process or whatever fits either definition, you are beyond repair. i would never admit to playing guitar because it would group me with all.
I've been working with music for most of my life, I first picked up a guitar at the age of 6 or 7, and have been playing ever since. I just now figured out how to record and create music with FL Studio, and I've really had a recent liking for Pink Floyd (bought all their studio and live albums) and their music style. I've written a lot of music recently as a shadow of their work. I'm really trying to match their style, but only enough to still have my own. And by their style, I'm referring to their early stuff, specifically Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Saucerful of Secrets, Obscured By Clouds, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, and Dark Side. What I'm having trouble with is getting the ambient style they emit, and getting some nice sounds in FL. If there's a better program to use (still being pretty young, Sophomore in High School) that can bring that out, or if I should continue with FL and how I can improve that, that would be great. And my trouble with the composition is how to get the ambient style of their early works. Thanks so much
thing is there is no fact, or consensus about really anything in music.
To ascribe 'meaning' to music is to instantly objectify, which can't be done. So any meaning is pretty much purely on the listener's end, and for their purposes only.
it is part of a larger philosophy of art that others in this thread have made reference to, reference that you did not see. i am just resolving the reference for you.
for the uneducated swine among us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
You mean like this?
You're the ****ing worst.
It is affected by the composer, but I don't think it should be.
exactly this. The listener is the only person that is relevant to giving meaning to music.
I would argue that both are irrelevant. The only 'relevant' person in music is the listener.
lmao what a mong
just to clarify, you are saying that the "death of the author" mindset is invalid because the author is essentially in the music?
Or are you making a joke?
Or am I just missing something ;_;
I'm a huge subscriber to the 'death of the author' mentality, so music is entirely dependant on the listener and what s/he wants to make of it.
What is meaning in music?
What does music mean?
Are those the same question?
Is symbolism in music the same as meaning in music?
Is meaning in music any more than the invention of an individual listener?
Can a composer impose meaning in music on a listener?
Is there meaning in music that crosses the boundaries of the individual and the boundaries of culture?
If there are commonalities between two cultures' musics does that mean those two cultures share commonalities of meaning in music?
Does meaning in music have to be universal to exist?
Does purpose of music imply meaning in music?
If a piece of music is religious is the meaning in that music religious?
If we remove a piece of music from the context in which it has purpose (e.g. a national anthem) does that music lose its purpose?
Does it lose its meaning?
Does there need to be meaning in music for it to have purpose?
Can music in which there is no meaning exist?
Can music in which there is no meaning be enjoyed?
Must a composer consider meaning in music?
Can meaning in music be abstract or must it always be literal?
Can meaning in music be technical or must it always be literal?
Hi everyone, I'm quite a noob to guitar theory and composition. And I've got a question on soloing over some chords, the chords are B F# A and E. I would like the use the pentatonic minor scale as it's the only one I'm comfortable with. What minor key would best fit, any advice is welcome.
Just some background information to show my perspective and that I can talk about either side of this debate.
Hi, guys. I'm Anthony. I am an avid 22 year old metalhead. I've been listen to metal of several sub genres almost exclusively since I was 6. I am also currently a entering graduate med school. I also play 4 instruments, classically trained. Despite the fact that I am passionate about playing metal music, I also approach things from a scientific standpoint.
This presents an interesting dichotomy.
The idea of Music Theory and Scientific Theory.
Scientific Theory goes under a peer reviewed system.
Music Theory isn't as concrete. This is due to the word Theory being misused in an everyday setting. However, it gave thought to the idea of Scientifically Supported Music Theory.
What do you guys think? Is it possible to have a Scientific Approach to Music Theory by means of objective supported studies or should a scientist step out of an artists box? Are these two personalities incompatible within the same person during musical creation?
Is Scientifically supported Music Theory is possible? Is it even useful from a scientific or musical standpoint?
Am I alone in these thoughts or are there others who thing within the same vein?
Discuss please. I've checked my post several times for errors for your convenience so I apologize for any errors that slipped in my post, I'm on my phone.
(a) You pretty strongly implied it.
(b) No, but if you at least try to be objective, and have people who are willing to compromise, that's going to have a better chance of a resolution than having someone's admittedly biased and admittedly negative opinion being taken for its definition.
Everyone is biased- absolutely. But some people are more biased than others. I admit I like (some) shred, but if I were thinking up a definition I'd at least try to be vaguely objective.
(c) I never said I'd give an opinion.
Much like when you offered your own opinion, and then implied that if anyone disagreed that that meant it was a pointless endeavour- you're sort of trying to take control of the whole narrative/situation, for advantage of your own opinion (i.e. this endeavour is pointless, which risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Nevertheless, I'll play, because I'll be accused of trying to have my cake and eat it too if I don't.
This is just off the top of my head (so I might change my mind later), but I'd generally say it's just (normally, though not necessarily exclusively) fast distorted electric guitar lead playing.
Basically what MaggaraMarine said. In fact before he posted, I was going to say that he's a pretty level-headed, objective guy and I like the cut of his jib, and I'd nearly have been willing to subscribe to his definition even before I read it, because I know he can at least try to be objective (and I could be wrong, but I don't think he's an out-and-out shred fanboy).
(d) see (b)