Guitarists arent real, you cant change my mind

guitarists arent real, you cant change my mind

Attached: 58602725_10205237779620852_4458188817890803712_n.jpg (544x608, 49K)

Musicians are overrated. They can never make good music again and are basically just clowns hired to look like they're doing something cool. Computers are the future.

>*bends a note in your path*

Attached: guitar.jpg (800x800, 71K)

The only person I know who still believes that is a 10 year old aspie.

big retards

Attached: 58374568_834034563613231_6204487001064865792_o.jpg (1280x720, 156K)

Lol.

* breaks high e string

do you understand linguistic relativity?
use this as an analogy when it comes to the way in which music is composed

to rely on one approach to composing is a path to complacency, which can sometimes be fine, but every way has upsides and downsides compared to a different way. Guitar can offer inspirations more spontaneously, for example, while on a piano all the notes are laid out in a more accessible way for more intentional melodic ideas.

A severely overlooked aspect of music creation is the method which is behind the end result, this is absolutely just as important as just what is on the surface. There is a real difference between music being played live and a performance cobbled from artificial resources in a DAW. Both are equally valid, but one will never ever be the same as the other. It depends on what is being aimed for. Strictly computer produced music (for example, in the vein of OPN, Arca, Holly Herndon, etc, I'm paraphrasing the examples but insert your own) is honestly probably the most interesting "new" thing happening currently with what is hot (and therefore interesting) right now and are opening really cool new doors. But separate from that, as for what is happening right now, it is severely downplaying the value in spontaneity and in vivo situations. The end result does not override the method. Most of what is happening right now isn't as interesting as those kinds of examples.

>isnt a musician
>has opinions on music

In an artform that is only (duration)x(amplitude), the method is 50% of the equation. I don't respect OPN or Arca's methods because there's zero risk, and with zero risk, there's zero fun and zero expression. Only exhibitionism, and that's why all these people come and go so quickly. It leaves an empty pit in your stomach once the novelty wears off.

am a musician
OPN is at least doing interesting endeavors though there's a lot of hit and miss (a lot of hit and miss with these kinds of people in general honestly). To be fair I do like Arca but I don't think I've listened to much past his first few albums and early EPs/mixtapes or his s/t album. I don't really disagree with you but what would be an example for you of something like this that would have more fun or expression?

Can you rephrase this? What the fuck is (duration)×(amplitude)?

Time by volume
It's not exclusive to any kind of music, but the more ways you give yourself to screw up, the more expressive you can be with it. Setting rules in opposition is necessary for being creative. Making novelty and newness too important is the best way to sound hokey and dated.

honestly horrible "opinion"

the guitar is the most versitle instrument that transcends genre/play-styles. keyboard/piano/synth comes in close second but i prefer guitar due to its portability.

Elaborate

>Making novelty and newness too important is the best way to sound hokey and dated.
Sure, and in my opinion this seems to be a big problem with like a lot of so called current post-modern music, but I do also think there can be something interesting in this vein as well if done in a good enough way (which seems to be hard to find and am still open to suggestions as to where I can find this from anyone). There is a lot of novelty with like OPN for example with the whole "TECHNOLOGY" kind of vibe everything he does has, but there is a real unique element to his work (that I've heard) that still isn't really touched by even his contemporaries. A lot of this type of stuff will likely age hard though, good point, but the best of these I still think will in the end still have value even if aged.

Well firstly, the technical aspect of music being measured by three metrics; frequency, amplitude, and phase. Secondly, with the artists you mentioned, you randomly assert that zero risk equals zero reward. But I and many others enjoy technical electronic music. Pioneering electronic musicians probably enjoy their own music, however academic and sterile sounding it might be to a laymen. Why does having absolute control over the medium negate enjoyment? It might make it so there "is no risk" but the process of creation is still a struggle that is rewarding both to composer and listener

It shouldn't be a struggle is what I'm saying. It should be a game.
I'm not seeing how frequency is distinct from time and I don't see how phase isn't one of several ways to affect volume. I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm interested.

All sound can be decomposed into elementary sine waves, which are only made distinct from one another by their pitch (frequency), amplitude (volume), and phase. All other sonic phenomenon are either emergent traits resulting from the interactions of these parameters by the constituent sine waves or the result of the auditory system interpreting them.

I know what the words mean on their own but what are the consequences of the statement? Are you reducing music to time×volume?

How is phase not volume as it pertains to harmonic partials?

That the method means a lot when if there is no sequence of events, there is no longer music.

I think you answered your own question - phase is distinct from amplitude. It affects amplitude but it is a distinct entity that represents the relationships of cycles between waves

Impressive. You should be a teacher.

glad it makes sense

Is that Yngwie? Heh