[Kathy]

Why don't you stop talking about who voted whom and why? There is PM for that.

[rasmus thorup]

That doesn't make any sense.

[Jimmy]

rasmus thorup, on 21 March 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

You just upvoted a person that called you smart. That's kinda low imo.

I also upvoted the person that criticised my argument.

Achenar, on 21 March 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Where does Sonic Youth fall under this? Their music can typically be very atonal, repetitious, irregularly structured. Compared to a band such as Nickelback, they fail more of the criteria.

I disagree heavily with your assessment of Fall Out Boy based on these criteria.

All you need to know about Sonic Youth is that they are awesome.

rasmus thorup, on 22 March 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Actually, i just downvote without posting because i'm too lazy to explain ^^

That's not the point of the rep system. If you can't even be bothered to communicate, on a forum, then GTFO.

[The Commander]

rasmus thorup, on 23 March 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense, it's like the time I accused you of never showing any media for this mod that you always keep talking about then you started PM'ing me about it asking for an apology.
Although I do have to smile at the fact that now everyone can see who voted who that your rep has taken a down fall and continues to do so, I wonder why this could be.

EDIT: I am puzzled on why The Mighty Bison down voted me on this one though, was it because I didn't read the thread right through before posting?
http://forums.duke4....post__p__123307

[rasmus thorup]

You were being negative like you always are. And i haven't lost any votes at all. And you can't stop talking about things while you talk about it in a PM. That's why it doesn't make sense

[Danukem]

rasmus thorup, on 24 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

And you can't stop talking about things while you talk about it in a PM. That's why it doesn't make sense

Obviously by "talking" he meant "posting in public". If we are going to start posting "that doesn't make any sense" just because someone doesn't spell something out with perfect clarity, then we won't be able to carry on discussions.

[rasmus thorup]

Now, that's right.

[MrBlackCat]

Awesome! This thread is STILL going! LOL!
WOW! You guys DID do the whole rep system thingy... I like that.

One thing I don't see mentioned is an advantage I like about being able to see who voted how... now with proof, I can see my suspicions were correct in the past about who was who.
But the part I like the most about this, is that when someone does vote (up or down), they expose themselves for anyone to see "how" they vote. I see cases of intentional perception seeding and even lies about voting habits... all gone now baby! : ) It is interesting how several peoples votes contradicted so much with statements and suggestion.

Anyway, I think this is a good thing as I don't care for manipulators and others who hide behind the keyboard with a false presentation of themselves and vote differently. This exposes them quite a bit.

It is ok if no one cares for this aspect of it. It was a good visit, and really interesting to see this thread still going.

I wish I had time to be on the forum, but I am just passing through on a break.

MrBlackCat

[Ronin]

MrBlackCat, on 04 June 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Awesome! This thread is STILL going! LOL!
WOW! You guys DID do the whole rep system thingy... I like that.

One thing I don't see mentioned is an advantage I like about being able to see who voted how... now with proof, I can see my suspicions were correct in the past about who was who.
But the part I like the most about this, is that when someone does vote (up or down), they expose themselves for anyone to see "how" they vote. I see cases of intentional perception seeding and even lies about voting habits... all gone now baby! : ) It is interesting how several peoples votes contradicted so much with statements and suggestion.

Anyway, I think this is a good thing as I don't care for manipulators and others who hide behind the keyboard with a false presentation of themselves and vote differently. This exposes them quite a bit.

It is ok if no one cares for this aspect of it. It was a good visit, and really interesting to see this thread still going.

I wish I had time to be on the forum, but I am just passing through on a break.

MrBlackCat

I know you have not got the time, but I was hoping you would produce a spread sheet of some sort, like you mentioned earlier.

[Martin]

Hendricks266, on 21 March 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Keep in mind that I do not have any formal training in music theory (yet).

I do have formal training in music theory, and my basis for judging whether any kind of song/musical piece is good is much simpler than yours. Basically, if a song does what it's designed to do, and does it well, then it's a good piece of music. Your criteria cuts out great swathes of things that are great musically. Would you find great variation in John Cage's '4:33'? Look it up, it's quite an interesting piece. Would you find much variation, structure, layering, use of melody or harmony in Immortal Technique's 'Dance With the Devil'? In both cases, no you won't. They are still great compositions, nonetheless. The former is an exercise in exploring the meaning of silence. Is there any such thing as true silence? Stand in an anechoic chamber (a room designed to be totally, scientifically soundproof), and you will hear the blood going around in your own body. When listening to Cage's '4:33', you basically sit and listen to the world around you. Do nothing but listen. Therefore, you do not need a recording to listen to it (there are many professional recordings), just a stopwatch.

The latter is designed as a story about a young man who progressively becomes heartless and wicked. The lyrics are so intricately put together that an easily-followable story is present. It's not really abstract in any way (other than the situation itself) like most lyrics are. No ambiguity, no subtlety. Straight to the point. Being a musician and even being formally trained in music theory doesn't mean you should become prudish in your evaluation of other people's music. Having so many criteria means you can miss the point, sometimes.

[Kathy]

Why is it massive downvoting is a misuse yet uber-upvoting, it seems, isn't?

[Hendricks266]

Martin, on 05 June 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

I do have formal training in music theory, and my basis for judging whether any kind of song/musical piece is good is much simpler than yours. Basically, if a song does what it's designed to do, and does it well, then it's a good piece of music. Your criteria cuts out great swathes of things that are great musically. Would you find great variation in John Cage's '4:33'? Look it up, it's quite an interesting piece. Would you find much variation, structure, layering, use of melody or harmony in Immortal Technique's 'Dance With the Devil'? In both cases, no you won't. They are still great compositions, nonetheless. The former is an exercise in exploring the meaning of silence. Is there any such thing as true silence? Stand in an anechoic chamber (a room designed to be totally, scientifically soundproof), and you will hear the blood going around in your own body. When listening to Cage's '4:33', you basically sit and listen to the world around you. Do nothing but listen. Therefore, you do not need a recording to listen to it (there are many professional recordings), just a stopwatch.

The latter is designed as a story about a young man who progressively becomes heartless and wicked. The lyrics are so intricately put together that an easily-followable story is present. It's not really abstract in any way (other than the situation itself) like most lyrics are. No ambiguity, no subtlety. Straight to the point. Being a musician and even being formally trained in music theory doesn't mean you should become prudish in your evaluation of other people's music. Having so many criteria means you can miss the point, sometimes.

Thank you for this post.

[Jimmy]

I support Martin's post because Immortal Technique rules.

[Radar]

I support Martin's post too, but not. What is this "formal music training"? That background melody supporting that rap song doesn't have any type of bass instrument supporting it by playing a tonic. Not too complex, but pretty unique. Also, the second chord in the progression has an added 7th. Still, not too complex, but not the most common either. Not to mention, the rhythms that are rapped are seperated down to the sixty-fourth note, which can be very difficult to write down. That rap song has two chords that carry the song, G# minor and D# major 7 in the former's respective key, and I believe I'm hearing a temporary switch to the key of A major at 2:40 and 5:14. A modulation is noteworthy.

^ That's not that simple. Yes, there are so many songs in the world more complex, but that's not the best example of a song with "little structure and variation". That above paragraph is how someone with formal music training sounds. The point of learning music theory is to able to recognize every interval that piques your interest, and say "wow, nice modulation from C major to D minor there", not this "if it sounds good, it's good hurr durr" business.

Not that I don't like listening to sounds and silence. I'm a huge fan of The Beatles, and "Revolution 9" (a track of no musical value whatsoever) is a neat recording. Knowing theory and writing music is only half the game nowadays, recording is a big aspect as well. I'm not hating on you for stating you like the story and words of the song, it's part of what makes it art. I'm just saying, that's not what music theory is.

I believe Hendricks's previous list of criteria of good music is wonderful. If "variation" means a variety of chords, key signatures, and time signatures, then he's got a list practically identical to what I use to judge good music.