I just came across an article on some website trying to compare classical compositions to modern video game music. I have linked the article here. This article, while interesting, makes horrible connections to 'similar' classical composers, and honestly represents why I find modern perceptions of classical music so... wrong. This is so frustrating I'm not even sure how to articulate this well. I also posted this as a comment on Reddit so if you see it there it's me posting.
1) Comparing music that is meant to be the foreground and the focus vs music that is meant to be atmospheric and background. This is the primary problem I have when people do these comparisons. Classical music by 'older' composers is meant to be the primary focus, and as such tends to be very focused thematically, personal, and have many layers of meaning. I mean comparing Mahler to video game music? The author completely misunderstands the vastly personal and philosophical nature of Mahler symphonies and draws the conclusion that they're similar because of 'heavy orchestration', and completely misses the very personal nature and duality of what makes Mahler... Mahler (this comparison particularly frustrated me).
I have seen composer interviews for video games and it seems like it very rarely contains the same amount of thought as a classical symphony. The primary thought of composers is to fit the theme of the game, and not make a profound statement through the music.
2) The comparisons aren't just bad, they completely misrepresent both video game music and classical music. Comparing Zelda with Vaughn Williams? Vaughn Williams music is nostalgic and thematically based off of English Folk Music. The structure and style is impressionist and powerful. Having heard Zelda music as well I can say there is no connection between the two. It's like saying Hayden and Xanakis are similar because they both use strings players!
3) If you look at video game music at all, it should be how it has evolved and uses new ideas/form to progress the classical music genre, not compare it to old forms. The video game aspect is equally bad. There is some good game music, but this music should be evaluated on it's progression *from* classical form, not how it is similar in poor comparisons. There are *some* game which I think is made by brilliant composers because they do something *new*, and not the same old rehashed cinematic crap.
For example, I have a lot of respect for Peter McConnell's work as a composer because of how he evokes emotion very different and unique than the average VG composition. His music, in my opinion, is effective *as music*, not just in the context of a video game (at least some of it, other parts not as much).
4) VG music relies largely on nostalgia and the game for context, Classical composers use the music as the context. Look at some of the comparisons this author makes. Shostakovitch, whose music represents the indomitable nationalist control Russia had over its people, compared to some tune from Fable? The reason why Video Game music is getting traction isn't because it's better music, it's just more prominent music. People are listening to it weather they realize it or not, so when they come across it they remember that epic boss fight or manufactured moment, not how the music's themes represent repression of people (Shostakovitch, Tchaikovsky), the jubilation of coming into the light from the dark (Beethoven 5), or even a story of seduction, survival, and cunning (Scheherazade, Miraculous Mandarin).
Will music like Nobuo or the Zelda composers enter the orchestral rep? Most likely. They sell really well and there are definitely some good pieces out there. However, do they stand up to classical pieces? I personally don't think so, but that's up to individual interpretation. I have stated my reasons why and hopefully someone else can weigh in as well.
Showing posts with label Ranting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ranting. Show all posts
Apr 20, 2015
Jan 2, 2010
[Rant/Music] What is Wrong with Music These Days?
Where to begin.
First, I hate the direction of pop music. It is no longer about the music, people are conditioned to like this over synthesized and heavily edited 'music' which conveys no feelings or even anything resembling creativity. All people do is the same thing because it sells. Most people think "well I like it so who cares?" But I need more and want to explore what else is out there. Culturally there is so much fantastic music that has a HUGE history behind it and the common citizen doesn't care about the emotions and meaning behind the music, just as long as it has the same elements almost EVERY SONG OUT THERE HAS. Part of person growth as a person and as a musician is exploring the world around you, allowing you to understand more of happens around you. Now consumer culture has such a hold on money that any group of person trying to do something different and creative is shot down because their music is not part of 'that magic formula'.
Second, I absolutely despise the 'indie rocker'. Indie rockers don't explore music because it is good, but because they want to be elitist morons. Don't get me wrong, I like many indie bands and I think many of them contribute many new ideas to the development of modern music. However, the people who listen to them don't care about why it's unique, but just as long as they can be elitist to prove that "I'm so cool I know the next big thing". This mindsets discourages people in the first paragraph to explore because they purposely isolate themselves away from everyone else to make a stupid social statement which no one really cares about.
Lastly, I am discouraged by the way contemporary music is going. Beyond the neoclassicism from last century (1900s), orchestral music has become increasingly separated from most people. Part of this is the ultra-formal nature that orchestral music has become due to programme music's popularity when it began with Symphonie Fantastique which used program notes to describe the story, and further when Schoenberg decided to go completely atonal. Now it takes years of training to understand the concept behind the pieces, and then even more time to understand and appreciate the beauty of the music. This leaves forms over 200-300 years old as the still-dominant forms of music, as they are still beautiful and easy to understand. However, because of how society has changed from using orchestras and music as places to gather as things to argue and feign superiority over classical music has been becoming more overlooked.
Classical Music, however, can find ways to evolve into modern forms such as video games. Some composers have great success in finding work, contemporary or neo-classical, and caused people who normally would not explore 'older' forms of music have rediscovered the gorgeousness of orchestral music. Nobuo's work has been sold to complete sellout crowds as shown in the LA concert all those years ago.
Is this truly the next form of music for the next century? Incidental music for movies and game soundtracks? When is music going to become a more meaning force again?
Personally it makes me happy to see classical music continue to thrive, though it annoys me to how it has to thrive. I find that quite frequently most movie music does not have the depth or beauty of a music that is made specifically to listening. I think partially is because listening to music is hard. Now people say they listen to music all the time, but when is the last time you really listened to music, hearing every detail of the piece and hearing how it fits together? This could simply just be an exercise that musicians do, but I think to fully appreciate any music you need to give it time and attention for a piece to come into it's full value. Because music is played incessantly, when they drive, eat, work, play, and sometimes sleep, people rarely give a good piece the attention it deserves.
First, I hate the direction of pop music. It is no longer about the music, people are conditioned to like this over synthesized and heavily edited 'music' which conveys no feelings or even anything resembling creativity. All people do is the same thing because it sells. Most people think "well I like it so who cares?" But I need more and want to explore what else is out there. Culturally there is so much fantastic music that has a HUGE history behind it and the common citizen doesn't care about the emotions and meaning behind the music, just as long as it has the same elements almost EVERY SONG OUT THERE HAS. Part of person growth as a person and as a musician is exploring the world around you, allowing you to understand more of happens around you. Now consumer culture has such a hold on money that any group of person trying to do something different and creative is shot down because their music is not part of 'that magic formula'.
Second, I absolutely despise the 'indie rocker'. Indie rockers don't explore music because it is good, but because they want to be elitist morons. Don't get me wrong, I like many indie bands and I think many of them contribute many new ideas to the development of modern music. However, the people who listen to them don't care about why it's unique, but just as long as they can be elitist to prove that "I'm so cool I know the next big thing". This mindsets discourages people in the first paragraph to explore because they purposely isolate themselves away from everyone else to make a stupid social statement which no one really cares about.
Lastly, I am discouraged by the way contemporary music is going. Beyond the neoclassicism from last century (1900s), orchestral music has become increasingly separated from most people. Part of this is the ultra-formal nature that orchestral music has become due to programme music's popularity when it began with Symphonie Fantastique which used program notes to describe the story, and further when Schoenberg decided to go completely atonal. Now it takes years of training to understand the concept behind the pieces, and then even more time to understand and appreciate the beauty of the music. This leaves forms over 200-300 years old as the still-dominant forms of music, as they are still beautiful and easy to understand. However, because of how society has changed from using orchestras and music as places to gather as things to argue and feign superiority over classical music has been becoming more overlooked.
Classical Music, however, can find ways to evolve into modern forms such as video games. Some composers have great success in finding work, contemporary or neo-classical, and caused people who normally would not explore 'older' forms of music have rediscovered the gorgeousness of orchestral music. Nobuo's work has been sold to complete sellout crowds as shown in the LA concert all those years ago.
Is this truly the next form of music for the next century? Incidental music for movies and game soundtracks? When is music going to become a more meaning force again?
Personally it makes me happy to see classical music continue to thrive, though it annoys me to how it has to thrive. I find that quite frequently most movie music does not have the depth or beauty of a music that is made specifically to listening. I think partially is because listening to music is hard. Now people say they listen to music all the time, but when is the last time you really listened to music, hearing every detail of the piece and hearing how it fits together? This could simply just be an exercise that musicians do, but I think to fully appreciate any music you need to give it time and attention for a piece to come into it's full value. Because music is played incessantly, when they drive, eat, work, play, and sometimes sleep, people rarely give a good piece the attention it deserves.
Sep 16, 2009
The Incident, Gum, and Computers
First of all, None of these topics are at all related. I could probably find a way if I think hard enough, but I'm enjoying not thinking now. Thinking is for people who need to apply their brain power to solve life's fascinating little problems.
The Incident is not some embarrassingly private story that someone might laugh at, but actually the latest contribution to musical awesomeness I have listened to. I have listened to this album by Porcupine Tree 6 times in the last for days, i.e. I found a leak and listened to it. Four times. In a row. Then I bought the album and listened to it another two times. For $10 (if your cheap online bum like me) you get two hours of delicious awesome music, or for a bit more you can get the special addition which has all sorts of cool stuff. Look on their site if you want know more at www.porcupinetree.com
The first track, Occam's Razor, is a 55-minute awesome fest of various themes and so on. The totally awesome stuff is how they incorporate this track into various other tracks (I can't name them at the top of my head...yet). Some people might consider it lazy, but if you see it as a theme/variations idea it's much cooler. I think they probably could've split the track into maybe 2 or 3 different tracks due to some points where you'd expect a separate track such as when they have silence but he didn't. I don't mind in the least, because all the various themes used in the track are so gorgeous that it's worth listening to the track several times.
I think Porcupine Tree is one of the few bands that can be labeled as 'progressive' and still be considered progressive. they actually actively change the sound from album to album. Some are highly psychedelic, while others are much darker. This album definitely has a more "metal" sound than some of their previous works, but at the same time it is much more acoustic than others. I think it's more direct in it's presentation, rather than requiring some thinking, as the themes and message in the music is much more barefaced than some of their albums.
In short: Get this album; be happy. I just used a colon! ^.^
Gum lately has been disappointing me. It used to be for about 50-75 cents you could get a nice 20-something pack of gum. Nowadays, it's $1.50 for like 12 pieces! I don't care about you're "Extra lasting flavor" or "increases sex appeal" or whatever selling points of your gum is. I just want my old gum back! Who honestly wants to CHEW gum for 2 hours before it loses it's flavor? Half the fun is putting in a fresh piece anyways! Selectionist gum is stupid; I'll go for quantity over quality any day when it comes to gum. I have to spit it out to do anything beyond talking anyways, so why make it that it's less for more when you spit it out more?
I think I just discovered their ridiculous business practices. They make us pay more for less in compensation for "longer flavor" because they sell more since they put less in a package! This evil practice must stop. I petition to bring back old gum!
I am going to get a new computer soon. It is a laptop. It's $799. It has 4gb Ram, 1GB vCard, 2.20GHz dual core processing, 15.6'' screen, 320GB hard drive, and (possibly most importantly) free windows 7 64-bit upgrade.
That's right, I'm getting a Windows PC, be amazed. For fun, I compared it to a 15'' Macbook Pro. It used to be that comparing Windows with Apple was like comparing ninjas and potatoes together, but now since Mac switched to Intel processors (to be more like Windows) it's much easier to compare.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157020 HP
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC118LL/A?mco=Nzk2MDg0NQ Mac
First: Price
$800 (with free shipping and no sales tax) vs $1699 MINIMUM. I even rounded up. PC wins
Processor:
2.20GHz vs minimum 2.53GHz (assuming minimum price again)
Mac wins. However, the cost increase as well as the video card will come in later and balance things out.
RAM:
4GB DDR2 v 4GB DDR3. Both support up to 8GB
Mac wins again. However, again at a huge cost. DDR3 is new and fast, but it's hellishly expensive, and the applications to utilize it's speed aren't out yet. While this means it'll last longer, it also means that when DDR3 get's cheaper, I can upgrade easily and cheaply (if I want to) while you're stuck with what you have. I can install without sending it to the manufacturer (though I risk voiding warranty) while you have to pay to install more ram as well as probably needing a higher cost. Overall I'd say it's a tie, comparing costs.
HardDrive:
320-SATA vs 250-SATA. both run at 5400 RPM.
HP wins. I can also upgrade to 7200 rpm if I want (faster loading times) and use my old HD as an external. Yay =]
Display: 15.6'' to 15''
Winner: Tie. really the .6 inches don't make enough difference to say OMG THIS IS BETTER.
After that, Mac has nothing on the other stuff, except programs. While macs won't have bloatware, I'm planning on installing windows 7 as soon as it comes out and reformatting the hard-drive anyways, so it comes out even.
Interestingly enough, one of the most important parts of a computer for running applications isn't even mentioned. That's right, the lowly video card.
A list of video cards can be found here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html as well as benchmarks and so on.
For Mac, we see the GForce 9600M. When you look at it, you notice it's 56th ranking in video card power.
For the HP we have a Mobility Radeon HD 4650 In other words, it beats the Gforce into a pulp.
This is also why the HP can get a cheaper processor, as it requires it to do less work since this bugger is pretty fast. Not only that, but it means I don't need to use up RAM to render images, so HP can get away with using cheaper ram.
I like Nvidia more than Radeon, but in this case Radeon is the better card.
In short: price compare, and then buy a PC.
Over and out.
note: The HP has an AMD processor instead of Intel. Intel processors have larger caches but AMD processors can be clocked faster.
Another note: My computer at home has the 19th most powerful video card on the market. wee!
Okay I'm done ranting and need to practice.
The Incident is not some embarrassingly private story that someone might laugh at, but actually the latest contribution to musical awesomeness I have listened to. I have listened to this album by Porcupine Tree 6 times in the last for days, i.e. I found a leak and listened to it. Four times. In a row. Then I bought the album and listened to it another two times. For $10 (if your cheap online bum like me) you get two hours of delicious awesome music, or for a bit more you can get the special addition which has all sorts of cool stuff. Look on their site if you want know more at www.porcupinetree.com
The first track, Occam's Razor, is a 55-minute awesome fest of various themes and so on. The totally awesome stuff is how they incorporate this track into various other tracks (I can't name them at the top of my head...yet). Some people might consider it lazy, but if you see it as a theme/variations idea it's much cooler. I think they probably could've split the track into maybe 2 or 3 different tracks due to some points where you'd expect a separate track such as when they have silence but he didn't. I don't mind in the least, because all the various themes used in the track are so gorgeous that it's worth listening to the track several times.
I think Porcupine Tree is one of the few bands that can be labeled as 'progressive' and still be considered progressive. they actually actively change the sound from album to album. Some are highly psychedelic, while others are much darker. This album definitely has a more "metal" sound than some of their previous works, but at the same time it is much more acoustic than others. I think it's more direct in it's presentation, rather than requiring some thinking, as the themes and message in the music is much more barefaced than some of their albums.
In short: Get this album; be happy. I just used a colon! ^.^
Gum lately has been disappointing me. It used to be for about 50-75 cents you could get a nice 20-something pack of gum. Nowadays, it's $1.50 for like 12 pieces! I don't care about you're "Extra lasting flavor" or "increases sex appeal" or whatever selling points of your gum is. I just want my old gum back! Who honestly wants to CHEW gum for 2 hours before it loses it's flavor? Half the fun is putting in a fresh piece anyways! Selectionist gum is stupid; I'll go for quantity over quality any day when it comes to gum. I have to spit it out to do anything beyond talking anyways, so why make it that it's less for more when you spit it out more?
I think I just discovered their ridiculous business practices. They make us pay more for less in compensation for "longer flavor" because they sell more since they put less in a package! This evil practice must stop. I petition to bring back old gum!
I am going to get a new computer soon. It is a laptop. It's $799. It has 4gb Ram, 1GB vCard, 2.20GHz dual core processing, 15.6'' screen, 320GB hard drive, and (possibly most importantly) free windows 7 64-bit upgrade.
That's right, I'm getting a Windows PC, be amazed. For fun, I compared it to a 15'' Macbook Pro. It used to be that comparing Windows with Apple was like comparing ninjas and potatoes together, but now since Mac switched to Intel processors (to be more like Windows) it's much easier to compare.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157020 HP
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC118LL/A?mco=Nzk2MDg0NQ Mac
First: Price
$800 (with free shipping and no sales tax) vs $1699 MINIMUM. I even rounded up. PC wins
Processor:
2.20GHz vs minimum 2.53GHz (assuming minimum price again)
Mac wins. However, the cost increase as well as the video card will come in later and balance things out.
RAM:
4GB DDR2 v 4GB DDR3. Both support up to 8GB
Mac wins again. However, again at a huge cost. DDR3 is new and fast, but it's hellishly expensive, and the applications to utilize it's speed aren't out yet. While this means it'll last longer, it also means that when DDR3 get's cheaper, I can upgrade easily and cheaply (if I want to) while you're stuck with what you have. I can install without sending it to the manufacturer (though I risk voiding warranty) while you have to pay to install more ram as well as probably needing a higher cost. Overall I'd say it's a tie, comparing costs.
HardDrive:
320-SATA vs 250-SATA. both run at 5400 RPM.
HP wins. I can also upgrade to 7200 rpm if I want (faster loading times) and use my old HD as an external. Yay =]
Display: 15.6'' to 15''
Winner: Tie. really the .6 inches don't make enough difference to say OMG THIS IS BETTER.
After that, Mac has nothing on the other stuff, except programs. While macs won't have bloatware, I'm planning on installing windows 7 as soon as it comes out and reformatting the hard-drive anyways, so it comes out even.
Interestingly enough, one of the most important parts of a computer for running applications isn't even mentioned. That's right, the lowly video card.
A list of video cards can be found here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html as well as benchmarks and so on.
For Mac, we see the GForce 9600M. When you look at it, you notice it's 56th ranking in video card power.
For the HP we have a Mobility Radeon HD 4650 In other words, it beats the Gforce into a pulp.
This is also why the HP can get a cheaper processor, as it requires it to do less work since this bugger is pretty fast. Not only that, but it means I don't need to use up RAM to render images, so HP can get away with using cheaper ram.
I like Nvidia more than Radeon, but in this case Radeon is the better card.
In short: price compare, and then buy a PC.
Over and out.
note: The HP has an AMD processor instead of Intel. Intel processors have larger caches but AMD processors can be clocked faster.
Another note: My computer at home has the 19th most powerful video card on the market. wee!
Okay I'm done ranting and need to practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)