[ music / chill ] [ discord / rules ] [ wiki / twitter / facebook / youtube ] [ search ]

/music/ - Music

Password (For file deletion.)

Check out the latest album from the Musikians!!

File: 1513173121611.png (186.34 KB, 481x428, ClipboardImage.png)


>The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's Class of 2018 has been announced and the eligible alternative rock acts were almost entirely shut out. In their first year of eligibility, Radiohead and Rage Against the Machine, both of whom were considered to be among the favorites for induction, did not get in. Neither did Kate Bush. Eurythmics or Depeche Mode.

>In terms of alternative-minded artists, only the Cars, who mixed new wave with rock and pop to great effect in the late '70s and early '80s made the cut.

>Instead, the Hall also chose Bon Jovi – who won the fan vote – the Moody Blues, Dire Straits and Nina Simone.

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



There are rap artists in the R&R Hall Of Fame, so they will fit in just fine.


I see your point for RATM, but, even if they don't fit the rock archetype very well, I think depeche mode are generally more classic than either aerosmith or bon jovi


I didnt realize that the hall of fame included non-rock artists. Ok then, Depeche Mode definitely deserves induction.

Yeah, I stand by RATM not being inducted. They were probably put on the list because of general political turbulence. In the grand scheme of things, they werent even active for that long. Might as well put Limp Bizkit in the hall of fame.

I didnt realize that the hall of fame accepts non-rock artists. That being the case, I would absolutely argue for the induction of Depeche Mode. I would say that their big songs are as classic as any band in the hall of fame.


Of course they throw a hissy fit as soon an artist critiques our lord and savior's THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME


>I need an authority to tell me what is good

File: 1514250753607.png (1.15 MB, 1440x1080, ClipboardImage.png)




In case you were wondering whether or not Kompressor dances


File: 1514098609017.gif (1.85 MB, 375x281, giphy.gif)


What do you guys think about computer music transcription? I've tried using it before to generate sheet music and while the accuracy was impressive, the mistakes were noticeable enough to be bothersome. I'm not skilled enough to fix these mistakes or just transcribe the music myself. Having perfect pitch must be great…


File: 1514136006245.png (281.14 KB, 470x312, ClipboardImage.png)

I think they are good if you need something transcribed quickly and your ear is not very good. Otherwise, it is better to transcribe by ear.

i have had similar problems when scanning a score into a notation program like Sibelius. It is 90% accurate, but fixing the 10% is time consuming and annoying.

You dont need perfect pitch in order to transcribe. Work on your relative pitch and your transcription skills will grow rapidly. If you are interested in working on your ear, let me know and I will give what knowledge I am able to give.


Yeah, I would like to improve my ear. I've heard conflicting things about the practice of listening to the same note everyday for hours on end to try to memorize how it sounds. I've also heard that drugs that increase neuro-plasticity could re-enable the ability to develop perfect pitch. I don't really know much about relative pitch.


Relative pitch is when you are in a key such as C major, and you can always find your way back to C because it is the root note. That is what solfege is used for. Relative pitch can be developed at any age. All you need to do to develop it is ear training.

When you listen to a song, try to find the root note of the song. The root note is the note that all of the other notes gravitate towards. If you are in C major, C is the root note. If you play a D, your mind will hear that it wants to go to C. If you play an E, you may hear it going E-D-C. The best way to develop your ear is to do solfege, play a lot of music and sing along, and also ear training apps.

If you sing everything that you play, your ear will develop very quickly. Solfege will also help. In your spare time, get an ear training app and use it daily. 10 mins a day is enough. My favorite app is Melody Ear Training for ios. It plays a series of notes and you play them back. You can choose to have it play within a scale. If you do this, it will help your relative pitch and transcription abilities.


Also, play a lot of music and try to figure things out by ear on your instrument. In time you will improve.

File: 1509631571379.png (650.08 KB, 882x635, ClipboardImage.png)


Post ITT after you hear your first Christmas song of the year.

When did you hear it?
Where did you hear it?
What song was it?


>When did you hear it?
Yesterday. November 1st.

>Where did you hear it?

The grocery store in my neighborhood. They usually go full Christmas, but its a little early even for them.

>What song was it?

Mannheim Steamroller - Deck The Halls



I heard White Christmas played in a store today. Hot damn, that singer definitely was being paid by the volume. Pretty surprised that I hadn't heard (or at least noticed) Christmas music until today… usually I appreciate hearing it, too.


Heard this and shazamed it, pretty good chillout christmas music


Wow, I have never heard this and I live in an area where I hear a lot of rnb Christmas music. I imagine hearing this in a really hip boutique.

Here is a classic one that I hear in my local grocery store and in the lobby of my apartment building many times each year.

Whitney Houston - Do You Hear What I Hear

Its interesting when you travel and listen to the radio. You will sometimes hear regional differences in music preferences. I traveled to Virginia recently and heard this one on the radio. I always love Carol of the Bells, but I had never heard this version.

Ray Conniff Singers - Ring Christmas Bells


I also heard this recently. I had forgotten it existed. In the realm of pure pop Christmas songs, I think it is rather underrated, probably due to the fact that it doesnt have a memorable tagline in it.

Britney Spears - My Only Wish This Year

File: 1511030446219.jpeg (265.03 KB, 1200x848, ACDCMALCOLM_Philip-Morris….jpeg)


File: 1508537741189.png (386.69 KB, 960x646, ClipboardImage.png)


Can musikchan answer this question?
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>1p = 30t
>60p = 180t
See, here is where you made your mistake. If 1p=30t, 60p=30(60)t, which can be simplified to 1800t

It would take the players 30 hours to play the symphony



is this the drone version?


Yep. In fact, the relationship between number of players and time taken to play a piece (as in OP's pic) is a more obscure and seemingly absurd advanced music theory principle that is derived from the better know principle that the fewer players in a band the more likely they are to play drone music. Even this seems absurd at first to some plebs, but consider…

>John Cage had both his legs amputated right before writing As Slow As Possible, meaning 3/4 a member of the band

>Bull of Heaven is actually a literal bull, totaling 0 band members
>La Monte Young is actually doll sized
>A lot of kids and infants make drone music


verified. 4'33 shows that if you add one person to a totally silent composition that it still takes at least 4'33.



I once tried to submit 4'33 to Musikians. It got rejected. Topkek

File: 1509132356726.jpg (15.4 KB, 240x135, 465156_6b7c_3.jpg)


For those of you who know theory:

Does theory work well in evaluating non-classical genres? Are there some genres it works a lot better for than others? How about classical music, does theory readily apply to ancient music or atonal music? What about some stuff that's really out there, can theory be applied to field recordings or noise music?


Yes, music is all about analyzing patterns(mostly used in field recordings and noise, rhythmic). Ancient music uses patterns or frameworks that we now call "modes." and the atonal music requires you to know about harmony and study a lot in regard of the pattern making and harmonic progressions. It's a lie when they tell you that studying music is limiting your imagination, it rather opens you to new stuff the more you study and explore it.


>It's a lie when they tell you that studying music is limiting your imagination
Yeah, I agree with this. I just wonder if theory is at all tailored to certain genres better than others. I'm sure you're right that it's applicable to all genres, but maybe there's still some difference in degree.

To that end, I wonder if there are alternative/supplementary theories out there, aside from what would normally be taught as theory, to suit specific purposes


Yes, all music is sound in time. If you are playing any kind of music that has harmonies then you will benefit from music theory. Academic music theory mostly focuses on the classical repertoire, but every genre has its idioms. Studying theory enables you to hear and identify those idioms and also see where they relate so that you may mix them.

>ancient music

there are entire fields of study deidicated to this

>atonal music

probably the most theory heavy music there is

>field recordings

i dont know what this is

>noise music

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1508875800151.jpg (49.11 KB, 600x600, vGh1z0D.jpg)


What do you guys think of plagarism/sampling/quotations/obvious inspiration and so on and so forth (however you want to phrase it)?
Do you think the idea of intellectual property has any relevance to art?


Intellectual properly has all the relevance to art, since it's what protects original artwork. It seems stupid to me how in the world of visual art, you can't even copy minor things, while in music, it used to be common practice to take another's art and use that for your own.

The harsh reality is that in music, using any copyrighted audio is simply theft. And you know what? That's alright. Because a whole new market has arisen around sampling. You can just buy samples, loops, complete vocal kits for tracks and the like. Thus creating more jobs in the music industry. It may have also created a lot of basement producers, but that's fine. With sampling, only creativity can make it truly proper. And that's where brilliant minds will shine.




I get what you mean. As you say, intellectual property does protect artwork, so it serves the practical purpose of creating jobs in the music industry. And this makes it relevant to the way art is made.

However, I think as far as the art itself goes, plagiarism is irrelevant. Like you say, when it comes to sampling (or any of the other things I listed in the OP), there's a possibility to do it well or poorly. Sampling/reference fits the definition for art in every other way I can think of too.

This isn't to excuse shitty bedroom producers. Sampling/reference is done ineffectively a lot of the time, just like anything else in art. But I get that the concern a lot of people have is that it can sometimes be done badly without going noticed just because the source material is good. I'll admit there isn't much justice in rewarding bad artists for albeit effective art.




In a way though, isn't that like anything? I would say things like a high quality instrument, an instrument itself (built and invented by others to make good sounds), a high quality microphone, and a knowledge of theory are similar to "source material." There are also other factors that don't even relate to the sound of an artist's music that could be seen as leading to injustice in the "reward" the artist receives- chance, privilege, personality, etc. Finally, I don't think an artist will get very much critical acclaim if their sound owes too much to its source material, because people can notice that stuff, and the more people who listen the more likely someone will notice.

So, overall, I think it's probably good that artists are paid royalties where they are due. But the concept of intellectual property shouldn't restrict any type of expression. "Where they are due" is where emphasis should be placed, and I think generally, not much is due, especially if not much money is being made off it.


One other point- not to be anti-capitalism, but consider that if it weren't for capitalism, intellectual property would have NO bearing on art


> It seems stupid to me how in the world of visual art, you can't even copy minor things

i am not sure that is true. Appropriation is a longstanding tradition in visual art


>With sampling, only creativity can make it truly proper. And that's where brilliant minds will shine.

I do agree with this. Whether it is a band playing an arrangement of an existing folk song, or sampling a well known song, but making something new out of it, true creativity it what will make it unique.

>I don't think an artist will get very much critical acclaim if their sound owes too much to its source material, because people can notice that stuff, and the more people who listen the more likely someone will notice.

there are plenty of massively popular songs that rely on an entire chorus from a preexisting massively popular song. See Flo Rida - Right Round for just one such example.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1490812709037.jpg (61.86 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)



Anyone into private press albums? I figure I should start collecting some obscure records and tapes I find at goodwills and wherever, I've been really digging a ton of stuff on this list. What have you heard on the list? What would or wouldn't you recommend?
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.





"you're so baby" - donnie and joe




File: 1508528399588.png (3.14 MB, 1989x1557, ClipboardImage.png)


>he thinks his favorite musicians are better than Dolly Parton


Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
| Catalog
[ music / chill ] [ discord / rules ] [ wiki / twitter / facebook / youtube ] [ search ]