Teaching

Hey Chris...you didn't really seriously mean "He who can, does. he who cannot, teaches," did you? Hstick www.microstick.net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

George Bernard Shaw said it. I just quoted it for Marcel's benefit.

Can a great artist be a teacher? Of course.

C
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:51:33
To: <makemicromusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MMM] Teaching

Hey Chris...you didn't really seriously mean "He who can, does. he who cannot, teaches," did you? Hstick www.microstick.net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> George Bernard Shaw said it. I just quoted it for Marcel's benefit.
>
> Can a great artist be a teacher? Of course.

Haydn taught Beethoven. Nuff said.

Gene wrote:

>Haydn taught Beethoven.

History note: They had few lessons together, and the latter
said he didn't learn a single thing from the former. -Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> >Haydn taught Beethoven.
>
> History note: They had few lessons together, and the latter
> said he didn't learn a single thing from the former. -Carl

And yet, even more than Mozart and Bach, Haydn was a big influence on Beethoven. Beethoven was a cranky SOB, so I would take his claims in that department with a grain of salt. Haydn tried to be helpful over the publication of Opus 1 (something obviously very much indebted to Haydn), and Beethoven seems to have misconstrued his motives. But he got over it, which is good.

I read somewhere about Haydn discussing how he pulls things out of a little motive and develops it; if that actually happened his tutelage was worth the price of admission for that alone, given Beethoven's style.

Gene is exactly right.

AKJ

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gene wrote:
> >
> > >Haydn taught Beethoven.
> >
> > History note: They had few lessons together, and the latter
> > said he didn't learn a single thing from the former. -Carl
>
> And yet, even more than Mozart and Bach, Haydn was a big influence on
> Beethoven. Beethoven was a cranky SOB, so I would take his claims in that
> department with a grain of salt. Haydn tried to be helpful over the
> publication of Opus 1 (something obviously very much indebted to Haydn), and
> Beethoven seems to have misconstrued his motives. But he got over it, which
> is good.
>
> I read somewhere about Haydn discussing how he pulls things out of a little
> motive and develops it; if that actually happened his tutelage was worth the
> price of admission for that alone, given Beethoven's style.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You're right, what was I thinking. I should consult Gene
about what Beethoven learned from who, rather than Beethoven
himself. Keep 'em coming guys! -Carl

At 12:28 PM 2/17/2011, you wrote:
>Gene is exactly right.
>
>AKJ

Hahaha! Nice try, quite good. But let's take a look at what Gene actually said, shall we?

"And yet, even more than Mozart and Bach, Haydn was a big influence on Beethoven.
Beethoven was a cranky SOB, so I would take his claims in that department with a
grain of salt. Haydn tried to be helpful over the publication of Opus 1
(something obviously very much indebted to Haydn), and Beethoven seems to have
misconstrued his motives. But he got over it, which is good.

I read somewhere about Haydn discussing how he pulls things out of a little
motive and develops it; if that actually happened his tutelage was worth the
price of admission for that alone, given Beethoven's style."

Well, well. Gene is proposing that judge whether Beethoven learned from Haydn by, gasp! Beethoven's music. Oh Gene, how silly of you!

Sometimes this place is as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> You're right, what was I thinking. I should consult Gene
> about what Beethoven learned from who, rather than Beethoven
> himself. Keep 'em coming guys! -Carl
>
> At 12:28 PM 2/17/2011, you wrote:
> >Gene is exactly right.
> >
> >AKJ
>

Not really. Buffy was much prettier than Carl.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sometimes this place is as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > You're right, what was I thinking. I should consult Gene
> > about what Beethoven learned from who, rather than Beethoven
> > himself. Keep 'em coming guys! -Carl
> >
>

Man, I'm not just a very poor communicator, I'm a complete dork- here I was thinking that Carl was the pretty one and Buffy was the sensitive intellectual one.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Not really. Buffy was much prettier than Carl.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sometimes this place is as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right, what was I thinking. I should consult Gene
> > > about what Beethoven learned from who, rather than Beethoven
> > > himself. Keep 'em coming guys! -Carl
> > >
> >
>

Cameron wrote:
>Hahaha! Nice try, quite good. But let's take a look at what Gene
>actually said, shall we?

If you insist.

>"And yet, even more than Mozart and Bach, Haydn was a big influence
>on Beethoven."

I don't agree. At the end of the 18th century, Haydn, Clementi,
and Beethoven were all working in the Viennese style. I think
Haydn and Clementi sound more alike than Beethoven does to either
of them. There's more Bach in Beethoven too -- this is especially
evident by Beethoven's late period but you can hear an emphasis on contrapuntal ideas even in the early sonatas.

>I read somewhere about Haydn discussing how he pulls things out of
>a little motive and develops it;

Beethoven is well known for this. I don't hear it in Haydn.

According to Wikipedia, Beethoven and Haydn were both in Vienna
from 1792-1794. It says,

"Working under Haydn's direction, he sought to master counterpoint.
He also took violin lessons from Ignaz Schuppanzigh. Early in this
period, he also began receiving occasional instruction from Antonio
Salieri, primarily in Italian vocal composition style; this
relationship persisted until at least 1802, and possibly 1809. With
Haydn's departure for England in 1794, Beethoven was expected by
the Elector to return home. He chose instead to remain in Vienna,
continuing his counterpoint instruction with Johann Albrechtsberger
and other teachers. By 1793, Beethoven established a reputation as
an improviser in the salons of the nobility, often playing the
preludes and fugues of J. S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier."

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
> >Hahaha! Nice try, quite good. But let's take a look at what Gene
> >actually said, shall we?
>
> If you insist.
>
> >"And yet, even more than Mozart and Bach, Haydn was a big influence
> >on Beethoven."
>
> I don't agree. At the end of the 18th century, Haydn, Clementi,
> and Beethoven were all working in the Viennese style. I think
> Haydn and Clementi sound more alike than Beethoven does to either
> of them. There's more Bach in Beethoven too -- this is especially
> evident by Beethoven's late period but you can hear an emphasis on contrapuntal ideas even in the early sonatas.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not, Gene proposed judging by Beethoven's music rather than what Beethoven said. So your earlier retort was out of line.

Actually, some 20 years ago I got into a little argument about counterpoint being essential in Beethoven, and I agree with you that there's more Bach in Beethoven. Deep within. Haydn and Clementi, I feel, lean more to voice-leading-within-chords than the other-way- around of strong counterpoint, which is the feeling of chords more arising from the counterpoint. And really the first piece of evidence for this is the "cell" kind of motif in Beethoven which I think we could humorously, but with a kind of accuracy, call a "riff" in the heavy metal manner.
>
> >I read somewhere about Haydn discussing how he pulls things out of
> >a little motive and develops it;
>
> Beethoven is well known for this. I don't hear it in Haydn.

Yes those little "cells" were the foundation for my argument that there is an essentially contrapuntal nature to Beethoven. That's ultimately imitative counterpoint, fundamentally different from the homophonic impulse to run a melody over a chord progression, and then decorating it with little bits of counterpoint. With Haydn you've got what, those string quartets with deliberate fugal writing, but is there really much <i>essentially<i> countrapuntal in Haydn?

My ignorance in this case exceeds my knowledge of course, there's buttloads (to use the scientific term )of Haydn, but as far as the Haydn and Beethoven I've heard, I agree with you on this one.

All this doesn't change the fact that Gene's post was a legitimate thoughtful answer. And really a traditional musicologist type of answer for these kinds of arguments- for example, if you read about Wagner criticizing Offenbach, the author will throw in the examples of the Offenbach lurking in Wagner. (or was it the other way around)

-Cameron Bobro

>Doesn't matter if you agree or not, Gene proposed judging by
>Beethoven's music rather than what Beethoven said. So your earlier
>retort was out of line.

The composer's own statement ought to be the preferred source.
"Judging by music" is not going to be objective.

>My ignorance in this case exceeds my knowledge of course, there's
>buttloads (to use the scientific term )of Haydn, but as far as the
>Haydn and Beethoven I've heard, I agree with you on this one.

I'm not well-versed on Haydn either. I've heard at least one
movement from almost every symphony, but it's been a good 15 years
since I did that project. I've listened to most or all of his
string quartets once, but again it's been years.

>All this doesn't change the fact that Gene's post was a legitimate
>thoughtful answer. And really a traditional musicologist type of
>answer for these kinds of arguments- for example, if you read about
>Wagner criticizing Offenbach, the author will throw in the examples of
>the Offenbach lurking in Wagner. (or was it the other way around)

Alright maybe I was a bit mean. The problem is the volume of
messages here, almost none of which have to do with MMM. Here's
adding another. -C.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >Doesn't matter if you agree or not, Gene proposed judging by
> >Beethoven's music rather than what Beethoven said. So your earlier
> >retort was out of line.
>
> The composer's own statement ought to be the preferred source.
> "Judging by music" is not going to be objective.

But if it's objectivity we're after, the composer's own statements are likely to be anything but. It's quite a famous problem- it's a scream to read Scriabin's friends trying to get him to substantiate his claims of having a concrete compositional system, and there's the funny story of Chopin arguing about time signatures, etc. etc.
>
> >My ignorance in this case exceeds my knowledge of course, there's
> >buttloads (to use the scientific term )of Haydn, but as far as the
> >Haydn and Beethoven I've heard, I agree with you on this one.
>
> I'm not well-versed on Haydn either. I've heard at least one
> movement from almost every symphony, but it's been a good 15 years
> since I did that project. I've listened to most or all of his
> string quartets once, but again it's been years.
>
> >All this doesn't change the fact that Gene's post was a legitimate
> >thoughtful answer. And really a traditional musicologist type of
> >answer for these kinds of arguments- for example, if you read about
> >Wagner criticizing Offenbach, the author will throw in the examples of
> >the Offenbach lurking in Wagner. (or was it the other way around)
>
> Alright maybe I was a bit mean. The problem is the volume of
> messages here, almost none of which have to do with MMM. Here's
> adding another. -C.

Well the messages about timbre, production etc. are relevant, or potentially so, and important to making micro music. And I did try to twist this thread toward talking about the respective essential compositional approaches of the composers in question, which would be appropriate to MMM. I'll pretend the Buffy thing never happened. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
> The composer's own statement ought to be the preferred source.
> "Judging by music" is not going to be objective.
>
>

Composers say all sorts of things that their egos concoct, and they aren't
likely to attribute an influence if their egos (and Beethoven had an
enormous one) want to ignore it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven_and_his_contemporaries#Beethoven_and_Joseph_Haydn

...shows greater context than the famous quote.

Beethoven took Haydn's wit, humor and rhythmic sense many levels further,
but the influence is certainly there. False recaps, brutal and earthy
surprises, etc.---these are much more apparent in Haydn than in Mozart, and
they make numerous appearances in Beethoven. In particular, Beethoven's
sense of humor was really in direct lineage from Haydn. Just look at the
piano sonatas op. 2#3, or op. 10#2. The themes could be by Haydn himself.

AKJ

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Well the messages about timbre, production etc. are relevant, or
>potentially so, and important to making micro music.

The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> >Well the messages about timbre, production etc. are relevant, or
> >potentially so, and important to making micro music.
>
> The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
> Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
>

LOL!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
> Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl

Well put. I guess it's time for the zombie apocalypse production values threads to start...

Well then can we talk about music instead?

I tried putting some 17 equal guitar on top of a ImprovFriday's member's 12
equal bass (by G�rald DeGroote) . I think for the most part it actually
works. At least it felt I had quite a few notes in common or in a good
relationship.

Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
a good bass line?

download
http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/improvfriday/if20110217-steady-hunt-of-17-deamons.mp3
online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> > The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
> > Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
>
> Well put. I guess it's time for the zombie apocalypse production values
> threads to start...
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think teaching is a great profession, and a great art as well...I greatly enjoy it. Bach was a legendary teacher, but it ain't for everybody...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well I certainly didn't mean to insult you. Marcel's comments, as usual,
were over the top, and I reacted to that.
You have my apologies because I have had some great teachers in my day -
people who made a real difference in my life.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> I think teaching is a great profession, and a great art as well...I greatly
> enjoy it. Bach was a legendary teacher, but it ain't for everybody...Hstick
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron wrote:

>Composers say all sorts of things that their egos concoct, and they aren't
>likely to attribute an influence if their egos (and Beethoven had an
>enormous one) want to ignore it.

Yes, but do you really think he would have such a reaction if he
truly respected Haydn and his mentorship? My ego was crazy jacked
when I was 20 and even I acknowledged a few people who really made
a difference to me (like Mr Truman, Mr O'Connor, Denny Genovese,
Paul Erlich...)

>Beethoven took Haydn's wit, humor and rhythmic sense many levels further,
>but the influence is certainly there.

I hear Viennese influence, which Haydn was obviously a big part of.
The original statement, that Haydn's influence was greater than that
of Bach or Mozart... Haydn was contemporary, so in a way, yes.
Did Haydn process a bit of the spark that made Beethoven so special?
I say no way.

-Carl

Is he, like, real?

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Carl Lumma<carl@...> wrote:
>
>>> Well the messages about timbre, production etc. are relevant, or
>>> potentially so, and important to making micro music.
>> The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
>> Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
>>
>
>
> LOL!
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Another valid example showing that no single tuning is universally right
by the token of its merits!

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> Well then can we talk about music instead?
>
> I tried putting some 17 equal guitar on top of a ImprovFriday's member's 12
> equal bass (by G�rald DeGroote) . I think for the most part it actually
> works. At least it felt I had quite a few notes in common or in a good
> relationship.
>
> Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
> a good bass line?
>
> download
> http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/improvfriday/if20110217-steady-hunt-of-17-deamons.mp3
> online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM, jonszanto<jszanto@...> wrote:
>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma<carl@...> wrote:
>>> The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
>>> Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
>> Well put. I guess it's time for the zombie apocalypse production values
>> threads to start...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chris wrote:
>Well then can we talk about music instead?
>Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
>a good bass line?
>online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801

The timbres sound good. Nothing sounds out of tune to me.
But I lose the flow of the piece somewhere around the 2 min
mark. The guitar part starts sounding like an improv that
lost its way, and I want the bass to do a bit more.

I think you misunderstood my earlier post by the way. I was
trying to say I was glad you posted about Kontakt and sorry
that I almost missed it as I was deleting the steady stream
of cruft that has been on here for past week or two.

I've done more than my share of offtopic threads, but after
two weeks of such high volume I thought I'd say something.
There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending
so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking
flame bait about the Beatles.

-Carl

The original quote is "People who are able to do something well can do that thing for a living, while people who are not able to do anything that well make a living by teaching."

Which is patently not only pure stinking bullshit, it is a boorish affront to those rare who are gifted to be great teachers, who are, as anyone non-idiot with children has already figured out, among the most powerful and important people in a society.

It never ceases to amaze me how much the world has suffered and still does suffer from the armchair-quarterbacking of 19th-century shitheads. New York at this moment is kicking some 4500+ teachers out on the street: is anyone so naive as to not realize that a century of this bit of "wisdom" circulating is part and parcel of the climate that permits such oafish behavior? (yes it is obvious that the major is blackmailing for funds for above with these cuts, but that the idea is even proposable reveals the climate).

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Well I certainly didn't mean to insult you. Marcel's comments, as usual,
> were over the top, and I reacted to that.
> You have my apologies because I have had some great teachers in my day -
> people who made a real difference in my life.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I think teaching is a great profession, and a great art as well...I greatly
> > enjoy it. Bach was a legendary teacher, but it ain't for everybody...Hstick
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

LOL- man you have a wicked sense of humor.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Another valid example showing that no single tuning is universally right
> by the token of its merits!
>
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> âo?=© âo?=© âo?=©
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> > Well then can we talk about music instead?
> >
> > I tried putting some 17 equal guitar on top of a ImprovFriday's member's 12
> > equal bass (by G�rald DeGroote) . I think for the most part it actually
> > works. At least it felt I had quite a few notes in common or in a good
> > relationship.
> >
> > Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
> > a good bass line?
> >
> > download
> > http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/improvfriday/if20110217-steady-hunt-of-17-deamons.mp3
> > online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM, jonszanto<jszanto@...> wrote:
> >
> >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma<carl@> wrote:
> >>> The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
> >>> Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
> >> Well put. I guess it's time for the zombie apocalypse production values
> >> threads to start...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Imagine there's no hierarchy
no Partch lodged in the sky...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
> > Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
>
> Well put. I guess it's time for the zombie apocalypse production values threads to start...
>

Really? Yet when I do searches, I find not. one. word. about some very basic, ABC-123, production issues and techniques.

LOL.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >Well the messages about timbre, production etc. are relevant, or
> >potentially so, and important to making micro music.
>
> The subject of production values on MMM has been done to death.
> Beyond death. Beyond undead vampirism even. -Carl
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> I don't agree. At the end of the 18th century, Haydn, Clementi,
> and Beethoven were all working in the Viennese style. I think
> Haydn and Clementi sound more alike than Beethoven does to either
> of them.

And I think that's preposterous.

> >I read somewhere about Haydn discussing how he pulls things out of
> >a little motive and develops it;
>
> Beethoven is well known for this. I don't hear it in Haydn.

I'm not the only one to make that connection. Here's a quote a little goggling turned up: "The idea of using a small germ or motif to generate the musical energy of an entire movement is something that Beethoven learned from Haydn. The opening movement of Symphony no. 5 is a good example, but many examples of such a thing can be found in his late works."

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Did Haydn process a bit of the spark that made Beethoven so special?
> I say no way.

And I say such comments make it very difficult to take you seriously. When you said you didn't know much about Haydn, you weren't kidding.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending
> so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking
> flame bait about the Beatles.

Talking about production values is pretty depressing for me as everyone says mine suck.

Thanks for the feedback.  I thought I saw potential combining 17 and
12 and my impression is that you concur. (to a degree) - an area that
deserves further exploration.
And one reason why is because I picked up a used 5 string bass at half
price and I *love* playing it and would want to work it into my
microtonal pieces and here is how.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. It seems over the top statements
become a mind virus (akin to a computer virus) on these lists and
propagates.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris wrote:
> >Well then can we talk about music instead?
> >Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
> >a good bass line?
> >online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801
>
> The timbres sound good. Nothing sounds out of tune to me.
> But I lose the flow of the piece somewhere around the 2 min
> mark. The guitar part starts sounding like an improv that
> lost its way, and I want the bass to do a bit more.
>
> I think you misunderstood my earlier post by the way. I was
> trying to say I was glad you posted about Kontakt and sorry
> that I almost missed it as I was deleting the steady stream
> of cruft that has been on here for past week or two.
>
> I've done more than my share of offtopic threads, but after
> two weeks of such high volume I thought I'd say something.
> There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending
> so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking
> flame bait about the Beatles.
>
> -Carl
>
>

Hi Oz,

Thanks for the listen and comment. Can you expand your statement a little bit?

Chris

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Another valid example showing that no single tuning is universally right
> by the token of its merits!
>
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> > Well then can we talk about music instead?
> >
> > I tried putting some 17 equal guitar on top of a ImprovFriday's member's 12
> > equal bass (by G�rald DeGroote) .
> > Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
> > a good bass line?
> >
> > download
> > http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/improvfriday/if20110217-steady-hunt-of-17-deamons.mp3
> > online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801
> >

They do. Work on 'em a lil' bit more.

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma<carl@...> wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending
>> so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking
>> flame bait about the Beatles.
>
> Talking about production values is pretty depressing for me as everyone says mine suck.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, it is all pleasing to the ear in compositional construction and
soundscape despite, as you say, the bass is in 12-equal and the melodic
parts abide by 17-equal... Coming from two different sources to boot.

You have been instrumental in providing valid examples of suchlike
structure which have proven beyond disrepute that no single tuning is
the only valid one for everybody.

But will the newbies give up? I think not! Let the dangerous
ethnocentric and monolithic trends of little realism continue.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> Hi Oz,
>
> Thanks for the listen and comment. Can you expand your statement a little bit?
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Another valid example showing that no single tuning is universally right
>> by the token of its merits!
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>> Well then can we talk about music instead?
>>>
>>> I tried putting some 17 equal guitar on top of a ImprovFriday's member's 12
>>> equal bass (by G�rald DeGroote) .
>>> Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over
>>> a good bass line?
>>>
>>> download
>>> http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/improvfriday/if20110217-steady-hunt-of-17-deamons.mp3
>>> online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801
>>>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Gene,

I don't think anybody said they (your production values) sucked. I'll speak
for myself...I think there are certain things you could do which will make
your music more expressive and presentable without having to change the
actual current workflow you have; just by adding a few more thoughtful steps
to the process.

I really think you are one of the brightest guys here, and I think I've
always been encouraging of your creations, even when I had specific
reservations. I'm excited by the potential for your music; you have a unique
perspective and certainly have what appears to be a unique process.

It's been said before, but I think if you really took the time, you could be
a Csound god/guru the likes of which the world has never seen. Geez, if you
can do and understand the kind of PhD math you do on a daily basis,
understanding the flow of sonic opcodes in a Csound orchestra should be
child's play. I think it's a question (and it still is for me) of having a
good editor, and a browser with the manual open for quick reference.

AKJ

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:48 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending
> > so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking
> > flame bait about the Beatles.
>
> Talking about production values is pretty depressing for me as everyone
> says mine suck.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron to Gene>"I don't think anybody said they (your production values) sucked. "

   "Suck" is a relative term (lol).  If I make a song for a competition and people make lists of songs in the competition with good production values and mine isn't there, that song's production values "suck".  For many of us perfectionists (Gene included, I assume), anything less than "good" is "suck" (lol).  Even more so if anyone discussing the songs in the competition on the whole says anything along the lines of "people need to learn to put basic production efforts IE velocity changes and portamentos in their songs"...it's easily to take it personally, especially when you did put forth the effort to do those things.

>"I think there are certain things you could do which will make your music more expressive and presentable without having to change the actual current workflow you have; just by adding a few more thoughtful steps to the process."

  I'm really curious about what such things are, especially for songs like Chris's, Gene's, and my own where I don't hear any noticeable lack of sound quality/clarity, good instrument selection, lack of use of velocity/phrasing variation etc.  The usual vibe I get from people is "you didn't put enough effort into production, the vibe I get from this song is x in general" without specific examples...and guessing is no fun and it kind of makes productivity go in circles.  For the record, I'm pretty sure the "problem" with the production work of Chris, Gene, myself, etc. is NOT related to lack of effort... :-P  

   Haha...ok....off my soapbox.  :-P

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:

From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Teaching
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 6:24 AM

Hi Gene,

I don't think anybody said they (your production values) sucked. I'll speak

for myself...I think there are certain things you could do which will make

your music more expressive and presentable without having to change the

actual current workflow you have; just by adding a few more thoughtful steps

to the process.

I really think you are one of the brightest guys here, and I think I've

always been encouraging of your creations, even when I had specific

reservations. I'm excited by the potential for your music; you have a unique

perspective and certainly have what appears to be a unique process.

It's been said before, but I think if you really took the time, you could be

a Csound god/guru the likes of which the world has never seen. Geez, if you

can do and understand the kind of PhD math you do on a daily basis,

understanding the flow of sonic opcodes in a Csound orchestra should be

child's play. I think it's a question (and it still is for me) of having a

good editor, and a browser with the manual open for quick reference.

AKJ

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:48 AM, genewardsmith

<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>

> > There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending

> > so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking

> > flame bait about the Beatles.

>

> Talking about production values is pretty depressing for me as everyone

> says mine suck.

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

--

Aaron Krister Johnson

http://www.akjmusic.com

http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Carl>"I hate to see people spending so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking flame bait about the Beatles."

   Carl, wake up:  there was no flame bait.  I originally launched a topic about how the Beatles had done so well despite using 60's recording technology (and thus, having lower fidelity, less clear/loud production work than modern produced studio music) and was championing the Beatles excellent COMPOSITION TECHNIQUE over the quality of recording done (IE compression, EQ, reverb, the type of mic's used, etc.)    Essentially, I said music can be very attractive to people due to composition quality alone...even if the recording quality does not meet today's standards.

    However people on the list twisted this and said I was insulting the Beatles, saying they were terrible for their time, and worse things I had never said....without bothering to ask me what I meant.  That's when all hell broke lose.  Though, to note, Chris and Jon apologized for this later after Igs realized what I meant (more or less).  The only person still ignorant enough to think I was flame-baiting...apparently is you, Carl.

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Teaching
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 8:26 PM

Chris wrote:

>Well then can we talk about music instead?

>Opinions - does it work to you or just sounds like a badly tuned guitar over

>a good bass line?

>online play http://improvfriday.ning.com/xn/detail/4162021:Comment:25801

The timbres sound good. Nothing sounds out of tune to me.

But I lose the flow of the piece somewhere around the 2 min

mark. The guitar part starts sounding like an improv that

lost its way, and I want the bass to do a bit more.

I think you misunderstood my earlier post by the way. I was

trying to say I was glad you posted about Kontakt and sorry

that I almost missed it as I was deleting the steady stream

of cruft that has been on here for past week or two.

I've done more than my share of offtopic threads, but after

two weeks of such high volume I thought I'd say something.

There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending

so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking

flame bait about the Beatles.

-Carl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 02:48 AM 2/18/2011, you wrote:
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending
>> so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking
>> flame bait about the Beatles.
>
>Talking about production values is pretty depressing for me as
>everyone says mine suck.

I always thought the whole point of this list was to exchange
techniques for making music and making it better. But apparently
it's for arguing about Beethoven.

-Carl

Carl>"I always thought the whole point of this list was to exchange techniques for making music and making it better. But apparently it's for arguing about Beethoven."

    Agreed!
  
   Here's something productive I think we could do...  Look at ALL the songs we can in the folders, and do song reviews and give production and songwriting tips.

   It seems we've done a whole lot of complaining about who did what first and "oh this artist didn't do well in the competition because their sound quality stunk" and so on.  Meanwhile I spent my time arguing "even if the sound quality stinks, the compositional quality can still make it great".
     But it's all useless if we can't also say "well, I didn't like it because of x...and a few suggestions that could fix that are...."
  
   And by suggestions I mean specific production techniques for specific parts of the songs (IE on a timeline).  Not saying "oh, you need to work harder on production"...or something pointlessly vague. 

   Let's figure out ways to make US all better songwriters...instead of arguing about dead people (Beethoven, Bach, Haydn) or "dying" people (IE The Beatles).   :-D   And yes, that last sentence was a joke, and intended as nothing more.

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Teaching
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 11:10 AM

At 02:48 AM 2/18/2011, you wrote:

>

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>

>> There's a lot of talent here and I hate to see people spending

>> so much time rehashing the same old flame wars and taking

>> flame bait about the Beatles.

>

>Talking about production values is pretty depressing for me as

>everyone says mine suck.

I always thought the whole point of this list was to exchange

techniques for making music and making it better. But apparently

it's for arguing about Beethoven.

-Carl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> I don't think anybody said they (your production values) sucked.

Well, I did say so. But I didn't say it to depress anybody. Usually I criticize with the aim to help people get better.
--
Hans Straub

Gene wrote:
>> Did Haydn process a bit of the spark that made Beethoven so special?
>> I say no way.
>
>And I say such comments make it very difficult to take you seriously.
>When you said you didn't know much about Haydn, you weren't kidding.

Oh yeah, well, you couldn't listen to more Haydn than me on
the most listenful day of your life if you had an electrified
listening machine!

-Carl