In medival times, musicians were threatened to be burned at the stake if they used 'el diablo de musica' (a minor fourth) in their music, while it's so common, it's part of many major melodies today (hum 'Maria' from West Side Story, for example).
Not to be "one of those guys", but it's called an augmented fourth (or diminished fifth), more commonly known as the tritone (three whole tones apart). And it's latin name was "diabolus in musica". You're right though, about it's history. Then again, those old periods in music were so full of rules and formulas, that the composers who's music survived the test of time were the ones that BROKE those rules and formulas (Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, etc.)
he world is full of extremely well-trained musicians who do nothing but play other peoples' work all day long and haven't a creative bone in their body.
Just because you don't understand how classical musicians work (and I'm sure this is what you're referring to), please don't make an outright arrogant statement such as this. By your line of pathetic reasoning, Ben Kingsley doesn't have a creative bone in his body because he does nothing but "read other people's scripts all day". Ben Kingsley interprets scripts, just like Marc-André Hamelin interprets musical scores, and they're both frigging incredible at it.
And yes, I'm a trained semi-professional musician, who has been playing/studying piano for 20 years, earned almost two degrees, and will be doing a masters in music very shortly. And you know what? I think this was seriously one of the coolest videos I've ever seen. But I avoided commenting, because I knew it was just going to turn into a pointless argument over whether or not he qualifies as a "musician", and sure enough, that's exactly what happened.
So ligthen up everyone, and give give the kid a break...he was only having a bit of fun, for christ's sake...
My point was that upon first opening WMP11, I felt lost, which is NOT a good thing for a piece of software that %99 of computer illiterate people will be using in the near future. Sure, I exaggerated a bit...but the overall fact remains that the interface is way more complicated (at first glance) than it should be. Like most people who have replied to the OP have said, they want a player that will easily play their tunes, then get the fuck out of the way.
I did figure it out after some time, but I'm confused by your statement that the general interface is almost identical to iTunes. Where you got THAT from is beyond me. I actually found that the more that I tried to figure out the interface, the more the interface changed, and the more confused I got. The features you described are neat, yes, but as far as basic usability goes, I still think it is miles behind other players. Don't get me started on that "library".
And no, I'm not trolling. I get extremely frustrated by the/. mentality of "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to Microsoft (not like they'd get a fair trial). I just think WMP11 is pure crap, and that Microsoft tried "too" hard this time. Sorry if you disagree.
I'm still keeping it on my system though, mainly for videos that my main player won't play. Viewing a fullscreen video in WMP10 was utter torture - as soon as you moved the mouse, the bars would appear at the top/bottom of the screen, and the video would resize, and it would stay this way for 5 seconds. Christ that was annoying - I'm glad they got rid of that.
I consider myself pretty adept at figuring out things for myself, especially when it comes to new software, especially when it comes to audio software. After a short ammount of time, I have been able to get advanced, professional audio programs up and running (mind you, on a basic level), even with such daunting software as Pro Tools, Cubase, Sibelius, Finale, etc.
So I downloaded WMP11, and I suddenly found myself staring at the screen, not having a friggin' clue where to even begin. It was literally the first time I felt like I had been stumped by a seemingly simplistic piece of software. Yes, there were all sorts of pretty buttons, some of which I REEEEEEEALY wanted to press - but all I actually wanted to do was play some fucking Zeppelin. Clicking on those fancy buttons only made things worse...I got lost and actually gave up. This has to be the worst GUI I have ever seen. I can't WAIT for my father to download this, a man who has to be reminded every time he touches the remote to press the CBL button, or he'll change the channel on the TV rather than the Cable Box.
It brought back a memory I thought I had repressed, when after almost 20 years of piano training, I began playing the organ which includes a four-octave keyboard to be played by your feet. I felt like a 5 year old all over again, my co-ordination just vanishing. My ego took a huge beating then, and it's taken another one just now.
I stick with iTunes because I like the "browser", which filters the songs by Genre, then Artist, then album. Yes, I know it's bloated, but I've managed to forgive them for that. Meanwhile, I found JetAudio to be a pretty good plyaer, and am downloading Media Player Classic as I type.
I'm still searching for the one player that "gets it right". Any more ideas? Send'em my way...
I am trying to learn how to play the drums, and I do great as long as I don't have to play with another instrument.
So what exactly makes you think that ANY piece of technology will help play well with other instruments?
Technology is all fine and dandy, sure, but there's no substitute for the practical experience of playing with others. You might start off rusty, sure....we all do. I highly doubt that there is ANY player of any instrument who's first experience in collaborating with other musicians went well. So my suggestion to you would be to keep playing, and keep playing with others. If you rely too much on all of this commercial software, you'll probably end up playing like a robot. Use the technology as a teaching tool. Don't let IT teach you.
Experience is the key. Collaborate with other musicians who have more experience than you (and who are willing to put up with your "rustiness"). Trust me, you'll learn INFINITELY more after one jam with them then you would after using any piece of software. Oh, and find yourself a good teacher. And keep in mind that the best drummers aren't necessarily the best teachers.
Disclaimer: I am not anti-technology. I am a musician with an extensive background in sound recording/audio editing, etc. As such, I've also seen the negative things that technology DOES to musicians,
If you say something which is needlessly offensive you will be modded flaimbait, the same would go if you're trying to start a flame war with comments like "GNOME smells of cheese and suX!!11!".
True, but you're forgetting the fact that the exact same thing happens if you make a rational argument that says something POSITIVE about Microsoft. You get attacked immediately. THIS is the major problem with Slashdot's moderation system: the automatic bias FOR Linux/OSS/etc and AGAINST Microsoft.
The same thing will undoubtedly happen to this post, because I'm basically saying that it's VERY annoying.
I tell ya, it'd be friggin' sweet if someone would work on making a functionalMusic OCR program. Scanning a score using the piece-of-crap Photoscore into (the not-so-piece-of-crap) Sibelius always ends taking longer than actually inputting the music manually. I don't know about others who dabble in this software, but I'm sick and tired of a piece of dust being interpreted as a meter change.
Reading through this utter nonsense, I came to the conclusion that you are either:
a)a lousy teacher b)a lousy teacher in a private school system c)a troll d)all of the above.
I was going to respond to all of your claims, but I think there have been enough posts already outlining how utterly wrong you are. It's obvious you have no respect for both teachers and their students. I hope you never set foot in a classroom.
I , however, agree with the school boards firing the text book publishers. You might be onto something there...
You might know more about this then I do but wouldn't tying teacher's rate of pay to standardized testing encourage the teachers to teach just the exam and not how to learn and explore? It doesn't matter if the students learn as long as they do well in the test right? As long as the test scores are up they must be producing better students right?
You hit the nail on the head. The parent poster's suggestion is absolutely ridiculous for the exact reason you said...this is the kind of proposal that sounds like it was from the 1940's; completely antiquated, without an ounce of consideration for any of the advances in educational theory, philosophy, sociology, etc.
The most succesful educators know that the lowest form learning is through rote and repition, but this is exactly what will happen by adjusting their rate of pay to the student's test results...they will teach the curriculum, and nothing more. Sure, the student might memorize a formula or two, or be able to spit out the themes of the Catcher in the Rye...but what has he actually learned? Has he gained a love for math, or for great literature? No, he learned that the correction answer to question 3 is C. Pass the test, then forget about it.
The reality is, the students will let-on to the teacher's selfish "game" of trying to earn another grand in a year, and they won't like it. Respect the students, and they will respect you.
Bartok constantly used references to the Fibonacci series in his music. In the first movement of Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste, the bar numbers are marked in the score according to the numbers of this sequence (8 13 21 34 55), and if I remember correctly, there are 89 bars in the piece. Also, a movement in his fourth string quartet contains 2584 beats.
Bartok wasn't the first composer to conciously use the Finonacci series...I believe Debussy made extensive use of it, and it's found all the time in the Javanese Gamelan music of Indonesia.
What separates Bartok, Debussy and Javanese Gamlelan apart from the TFA is that their music is actually good. Mod me down all you want, but I'll never respect music created by some idiot at a computer who punches in a couple of notes, hits play and then decides if he likes it.
ahh, poop...I forgot to put in HTML tags...and preview it...here it is again, in more coherent form...
Hopefully you are now aware that your statement about Fake Books is dead wrong, so there's no point on commenting on it again.
Might I ask what is wrong with a 7-year old beginning piano student learning a "simplified" arrangement of Chopin's Funeral March, one note per hand? Or what about students in a Grade 5 orchestra playing a "simplified" version of the finale of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Ode to Joy). Or should they be asked to tackle Beethoven's original score? What about a church congregation singing a "simplified" version of this piece?
Arrangements of popular pieces from the classical repertoire are an invaluable teaching tool. A child is infinitely more likely to continue learning an instrument if he or she, at the beginning stages, begins learning tunes he is familiar with, whether it's Popular, Folk, or Classical music. The same applies to ANYONE learning a new instrument, young or old. A student of mine wanted desperately to learn Liszt's Liebestraum No.3, not realizing how difficult it actually is - she wasn't physically ready to play it. I personally had no problems arranging a simpler version for her, so she could show it off in front of her friends and family. Classical music isn't always played in concert and recital halls.
What i DO consider "dumbed-down" is groups like Bond, playing (though not very well) snippets of String Quartet standards, complete with drum beats and guitars, the resulting recordings being purchased by people claiming to "appreciate classical music". Play those same people a Shostakovich or Bartok String Quartet, and they'd quickly change the disc to the latest Clay Aiken CD.
In short, you had good intentions, but poor analogies.
Hopefully you are now aware that your statement about Fake Books is dead wrong, so there's no point on commenting on it again.
What I AM going to comment on is your outright dismissal of "simplified classical pieces that are easier to play". Might I ask what is wrong with a 7-year old beginning piano student learning a "simplified" arrangement of Chopin's Funeral March, one note per hand? Or what about students in a Grade 5 orchestra playing a "simplified" version of the finale of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Ode to Joy). Or should they be asked to tackle Beethoven's original score? What about a church congregation singing a "simplified" version of this piece?
Arrangements of popular pieces from the classical repertoire are an invaluable teaching tool. A child is infinitely more likely to continue learning an instrument if he or she, at the beginning stages, begins learning tunes he is familiar with, whether it's Popular, Folk, or Classical music. The same applies to ANYONE learning a new instrument, young or old. A student of mine wanted desperately to learn Liszt's Liebestraum No.3, not realizing how difficult it actually is - she wasn't physically ready to play it. I personally had no problems arranging a simpler version for her, so she could show it off in front of her friends and family. Classical music isn't always played in concert and recital halls.
What i DO consider "dumbed-down" is groups like Bond, playing (though not very well) snippets of String Quartet standards, complete with drum beats and guitars, the resulting recordings being purchased by people claiming to "appreciate classical music". Play those same people a Shostakovich or Bartok String Quartet, and they'd quickly change the disc to the latest Clay Aiken CD.
In short, you had good intentions, but poor analogies.
These "random" elements which John Cage used in much of his music are a far cry from the "randomness" that would be generated from a computer program using algorithms to calculate random instances of pitch, duration, tempo, velocity, etc.
The latter would probably end up looking and sounding, ironically, nearly identical to music composed using serialism, set theory, 12-tone music, etc. in which all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are arranged into a "row", which can then be used in retrograde, inversion, rotation, transposition, among others, all at the compsoer's discretion. The music of Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, and other serialists tend to be more respected among mathematicians these days.
John Cage's "randomness" stems from his intense studies of Eastern Religions, especially Zen Buddhism. For a large portion of his life, much of his music was derived, at least in part, from quasi-random decisions determined in the I Ching (The Chinese Book of Changes). Much has been written by and about John Cage on using random (aleatoric, as we musicians refer to it) elements, and of his philosophies on music in general
To give you an example of his aleatoric compositions:
4'33 - in 3 movements, the performer is instructed to sit silently at the keyboard for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, closing and opening the lid between each movement. the interpretations are too many to list here.
Imaginary Landscape No.4 - the score calls for the prescribed manipulations of knobs on 12 radios. The aural result is dependent on what happens to be on the airwaves at the instant of performance.
Other works have been "composed" by filling in notes, articulations, etc. wherever tiny imperfections appear on a sheet of manuscript paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Playing a I-IV-V-I progression is not the same as playing over a I-IV-V-I progression.
Just because you don't understand how classical musicians work (and I'm sure this is what you're referring to), please don't make an outright arrogant statement such as this. By your line of pathetic reasoning, Ben Kingsley doesn't have a creative bone in his body because he does nothing but "read other people's scripts all day". Ben Kingsley interprets scripts, just like Marc-André Hamelin interprets musical scores, and they're both frigging incredible at it.
And yes, I'm a trained semi-professional musician, who has been playing/studying piano for 20 years, earned almost two degrees, and will be doing a masters in music very shortly. And you know what? I think this was seriously one of the coolest videos I've ever seen. But I avoided commenting, because I knew it was just going to turn into a pointless argument over whether or not he qualifies as a "musician", and sure enough, that's exactly what happened.
So ligthen up everyone, and give give the kid a break...he was only having a bit of fun, for christ's sake...
My point was that upon first opening WMP11, I felt lost, which is NOT a good thing for a piece of software that %99 of computer illiterate people will be using in the near future. Sure, I exaggerated a bit...but the overall fact remains that the interface is way more complicated (at first glance) than it should be. Like most people who have replied to the OP have said, they want a player that will easily play their tunes, then get the fuck out of the way.
/. mentality of "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to Microsoft (not like they'd get a fair trial). I just think WMP11 is pure crap, and that Microsoft tried "too" hard this time. Sorry if you disagree.
I did figure it out after some time, but I'm confused by your statement that the general interface is almost identical to iTunes. Where you got THAT from is beyond me. I actually found that the more that I tried to figure out the interface, the more the interface changed, and the more confused I got. The features you described are neat, yes, but as far as basic usability goes, I still think it is miles behind other players. Don't get me started on that "library".
And no, I'm not trolling. I get extremely frustrated by the
I'm still keeping it on my system though, mainly for videos that my main player won't play. Viewing a fullscreen video in WMP10 was utter torture - as soon as you moved the mouse, the bars would appear at the top/bottom of the screen, and the video would resize, and it would stay this way for 5 seconds. Christ that was annoying - I'm glad they got rid of that.
I consider myself pretty adept at figuring out things for myself, especially when it comes to new software, especially when it comes to audio software. After a short ammount of time, I have been able to get advanced, professional audio programs up and running (mind you, on a basic level), even with such daunting software as Pro Tools, Cubase, Sibelius, Finale, etc.
So I downloaded WMP11, and I suddenly found myself staring at the screen, not having a friggin' clue where to even begin. It was literally the first time I felt like I had been stumped by a seemingly simplistic piece of software. Yes, there were all sorts of pretty buttons, some of which I REEEEEEEALY wanted to press - but all I actually wanted to do was play some fucking Zeppelin. Clicking on those fancy buttons only made things worse...I got lost and actually gave up. This has to be the worst GUI I have ever seen. I can't WAIT for my father to download this, a man who has to be reminded every time he touches the remote to press the CBL button, or he'll change the channel on the TV rather than the Cable Box.
It brought back a memory I thought I had repressed, when after almost 20 years of piano training, I began playing the organ which includes a four-octave keyboard to be played by your feet. I felt like a 5 year old all over again, my co-ordination just vanishing. My ego took a huge beating then, and it's taken another one just now.
I stick with iTunes because I like the "browser", which filters the songs by Genre, then Artist, then album. Yes, I know it's bloated, but I've managed to forgive them for that. Meanwhile, I found JetAudio to be a pretty good plyaer, and am downloading Media Player Classic as I type.
I'm still searching for the one player that "gets it right". Any more ideas? Send'em my way...
True, but you're forgetting the fact that the exact same thing happens if you make a rational argument that says something POSITIVE about Microsoft. You get attacked immediately. THIS is the major problem with Slashdot's moderation system: the automatic bias FOR Linux/OSS/etc and AGAINST Microsoft.
The same thing will undoubtedly happen to this post, because I'm basically saying that it's VERY annoying.
I tell ya, it'd be friggin' sweet if someone would work on making a functional Music OCR program. Scanning a score using the piece-of-crap Photoscore into (the not-so-piece-of-crap) Sibelius always ends taking longer than actually inputting the music manually. I don't know about others who dabble in this software, but I'm sick and tired of a piece of dust being interpreted as a meter change.
Reading through this utter nonsense, I came to the conclusion that you are either:
a)a lousy teacher
b)a lousy teacher in a private school system
c)a troll
d)all of the above.
I was going to respond to all of your claims, but I think there have been enough posts already outlining how utterly wrong you are. It's obvious you have no respect for both teachers and their students. I hope you never set foot in a classroom.
I , however, agree with the school boards firing the text book publishers. You might be onto something there...
You hit the nail on the head. The parent poster's suggestion is absolutely ridiculous for the exact reason you said...this is the kind of proposal that sounds like it was from the 1940's; completely antiquated, without an ounce of consideration for any of the advances in educational theory, philosophy, sociology, etc.
The most succesful educators know that the lowest form learning is through rote and repition, but this is exactly what will happen by adjusting their rate of pay to the student's test results...they will teach the curriculum, and nothing more. Sure, the student might memorize a formula or two, or be able to spit out the themes of the Catcher in the Rye...but what has he actually learned? Has he gained a love for math, or for great literature? No, he learned that the correction answer to question 3 is C. Pass the test, then forget about it.
The reality is, the students will let-on to the teacher's selfish "game" of trying to earn another grand in a year, and they won't like it. Respect the students, and they will respect you.
Bartok constantly used references to the Fibonacci series in his music. In the first movement of Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste, the bar numbers are marked in the score according to the numbers of this sequence (8 13 21 34 55), and if I remember correctly, there are 89 bars in the piece. Also, a movement in his fourth string quartet contains 2584 beats.
Bartok wasn't the first composer to conciously use the Finonacci series...I believe Debussy made extensive use of it, and it's found all the time in the Javanese Gamelan music of Indonesia.
What separates Bartok, Debussy and Javanese Gamlelan apart from the TFA is that their music is actually good. Mod me down all you want, but I'll never respect music created by some idiot at a computer who punches in a couple of notes, hits play and then decides if he likes it.
But that's just me...
ahh, poop...I forgot to put in HTML tags...and preview it...here it is again, in more coherent form...
Hopefully you are now aware that your statement about Fake Books is dead wrong, so there's no point on commenting on it again.
Might I ask what is wrong with a 7-year old beginning piano student learning a "simplified" arrangement of Chopin's Funeral March, one note per hand? Or what about students in a Grade 5 orchestra playing a "simplified" version of the finale of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Ode to Joy). Or should they be asked to tackle Beethoven's original score? What about a church congregation singing a "simplified" version of this piece?
Arrangements of popular pieces from the classical repertoire are an invaluable teaching tool. A child is infinitely more likely to continue learning an instrument if he or she, at the beginning stages, begins learning tunes he is familiar with, whether it's Popular, Folk, or Classical music. The same applies to ANYONE learning a new instrument, young or old. A student of mine wanted desperately to learn Liszt's Liebestraum No.3, not realizing how difficult it actually is - she wasn't physically ready to play it. I personally had no problems arranging a simpler version for her, so she could show it off in front of her friends and family. Classical music isn't always played in concert and recital halls.
What i DO consider "dumbed-down" is groups like Bond, playing (though not very well) snippets of String Quartet standards, complete with drum beats and guitars, the resulting recordings being purchased by people claiming to "appreciate classical music". Play those same people a Shostakovich or Bartok String Quartet, and they'd quickly change the disc to the latest Clay Aiken CD.
In short, you had good intentions, but poor analogies.
Hopefully you are now aware that your statement about Fake Books is dead wrong, so there's no point on commenting on it again. What I AM going to comment on is your outright dismissal of "simplified classical pieces that are easier to play". Might I ask what is wrong with a 7-year old beginning piano student learning a "simplified" arrangement of Chopin's Funeral March, one note per hand? Or what about students in a Grade 5 orchestra playing a "simplified" version of the finale of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Ode to Joy). Or should they be asked to tackle Beethoven's original score? What about a church congregation singing a "simplified" version of this piece? Arrangements of popular pieces from the classical repertoire are an invaluable teaching tool. A child is infinitely more likely to continue learning an instrument if he or she, at the beginning stages, begins learning tunes he is familiar with, whether it's Popular, Folk, or Classical music. The same applies to ANYONE learning a new instrument, young or old. A student of mine wanted desperately to learn Liszt's Liebestraum No.3, not realizing how difficult it actually is - she wasn't physically ready to play it. I personally had no problems arranging a simpler version for her, so she could show it off in front of her friends and family. Classical music isn't always played in concert and recital halls. What i DO consider "dumbed-down" is groups like Bond, playing (though not very well) snippets of String Quartet standards, complete with drum beats and guitars, the resulting recordings being purchased by people claiming to "appreciate classical music". Play those same people a Shostakovich or Bartok String Quartet, and they'd quickly change the disc to the latest Clay Aiken CD. In short, you had good intentions, but poor analogies.
How does Thunderbird provide any protection? When I was using it it didn't seem to have any spam filters.
These "random" elements which John Cage used in much of his music are a far cry from the "randomness" that would be generated from a computer program using algorithms to calculate random instances of pitch, duration, tempo, velocity, etc.
The latter would probably end up looking and sounding, ironically, nearly identical to music composed using serialism, set theory, 12-tone music, etc. in which all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are arranged into a "row", which can then be used in retrograde, inversion, rotation, transposition, among others, all at the compsoer's discretion. The music of Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, and other serialists tend to be more respected among mathematicians these days.
John Cage's "randomness" stems from his intense studies of Eastern Religions, especially Zen Buddhism. For a large portion of his life, much of his music was derived, at least in part, from quasi-random decisions determined in the I Ching (The Chinese Book of Changes). Much has been written by and about John Cage on using random (aleatoric, as we musicians refer to it) elements, and of his philosophies on music in general
To give you an example of his aleatoric compositions:
4'33 - in 3 movements, the performer is instructed to sit silently at the keyboard for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, closing and opening the lid between each movement. the interpretations are too many to list here.
Imaginary Landscape No.4 - the score calls for the prescribed manipulations of knobs on 12 radios. The aural result is dependent on what happens to be on the airwaves at the instant of performance.
Other works have been "composed" by filling in notes, articulations, etc. wherever tiny imperfections appear on a sheet of manuscript paper.
Moose. The plural of Moose is Moose.