R.I.P. Karlheinz Stockhausen
category: general [glöplog]
two plus two is ten... in base four!
i agree with ps here.
i agree with ps here.
jeez for the first two rounds i seriously thought buttler was shane and we'd all go oh hehe shane you funny loveable huggable troll we love you!
"I disagree therefore you are retarded. STFU! RETARD! STFU! FUCK OFF! PWNED! TROLL! and various other Internet buzzwords"
I'm assuming most people in this thread are under the age of 15 or oversensitive menopausal women.
Look at you, getting all frustrated and insulting just because someone disagrees with you. How do you expect me to respect your opinion when you can't even conduct yourselves like civilised adults?
I'm assuming most people in this thread are under the age of 15 or oversensitive menopausal women.
Look at you, getting all frustrated and insulting just because someone disagrees with you. How do you expect me to respect your opinion when you can't even conduct yourselves like civilised adults?
you're right buttler, i'm sorry. from now on i'll just ignore your clueless idiocy instead of bothering to explain you it's logical falace in hopes you'd atleast try to understand why most of everyone is finding your opinions ridiculous. good luck with your musical career.
Quote:
good luck with your musical career.
Thanks! :)
buttler: why should anyone care whether you respect their opinion of Karlheinz or not? and why do you care to comply with that expectation in the first place? surely nobody wants to force you to "respect their opinion" of Karlheinz? because to do that you would also have to have enjoyed his work - which you clearly did not.
i think this thread was created for people who appreciated his work and want to express thier condolences, not a thread where we debate his relative value and all compete to convince each other of the pros and cons of his work. that would be stupid because the only quantifiable "value" in his music comes from how his music made people feel, on an individual level. there is no external reference for such evaluation so there is no right or wrong answer here.
he was an artist. he expressed himself and if your personal preferences synchronized with his creations, great. if not STFU. and if you don't like that others did not like him, also, STFU! ALL JUST STFU!!!!!
where is the argument?! why waste so much energy on futile circular debates? humanity is doomed! SO STFU!!!!!
i think this thread was created for people who appreciated his work and want to express thier condolences, not a thread where we debate his relative value and all compete to convince each other of the pros and cons of his work. that would be stupid because the only quantifiable "value" in his music comes from how his music made people feel, on an individual level. there is no external reference for such evaluation so there is no right or wrong answer here.
he was an artist. he expressed himself and if your personal preferences synchronized with his creations, great. if not STFU. and if you don't like that others did not like him, also, STFU! ALL JUST STFU!!!!!
where is the argument?! why waste so much energy on futile circular debates? humanity is doomed! SO STFU!!!!!
Quote:
The kid who claims 2+3=2 is different and is breaking convention, but it just means he sucks at maths. In the same way, music has conventions and if you can't work within those conventions, it means you suck at music. At least that's my opinion.
So you're saying that music stoped evolving in 1800?
In the begining of the 20th century everyone thought that there wasn't anything more to discover in physics until a guy no one had heard before discovered relativity. Since then we had GPSs, computers, cellphones, an endless list of inovations that would never be possible without Einstein's (or his wife's) ideas.
When I listen to modern music I think everything sounds like stuff David Bowie did 30 years ago. And Britney sounds like what Madona did 20 years ago. May not sound like much of a time scale but it's about 1/3rd of your life.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XwhV1ivYNsQ <- this song was composed in 1961 by an hospital clerk and it's much more complex than your guitar melodies.
Oh and...
Captain Zed Yago: BAN.
Captain Zed Yago: BAN.
Quote:
this song was composed in 1961 by an hospital clerk and it's much more complex than your guitar melodies.
On what basis?
Don't get me wrong I think the guy is brilliant, but I want to know what makes you define this as "more complex" than my melodies.
As for music evolving...it has done so in so many ways and gone in all sorts of directions, new sounds have been discovered, but good music still adheres to the fundamentals. Even Einstein's great discoveries and theories adhered to the fundamentals of mathematics.
Ladies and gentlemen, internets are now closed.
Come back tomorrow. (KTHXBYE)
Come back tomorrow. (KTHXBYE)
"but I want to know what makes you define this as "more complex" than my melodies."
its called individual perception. some find complexity in minimalist bleeps. the real problem is that you yourself are probably not very complex and require consensus and established fundamentals to measure "complexity" and value in music.
jesus chirist...it's ART! sure, you can use mathematics to discover patterns in music, Euclid done this centuries ago. but in the end music is not defined by science and there are no formulaes for "good music"
its called individual perception. some find complexity in minimalist bleeps. the real problem is that you yourself are probably not very complex and require consensus and established fundamentals to measure "complexity" and value in music.
jesus chirist...it's ART! sure, you can use mathematics to discover patterns in music, Euclid done this centuries ago. but in the end music is not defined by science and there are no formulaes for "good music"
Quantum Physicists have already tried to describe the properties of light using your sacred fundamental mathematics and fundamental Newtonian physics. you know what? it doesn't work. laws are only valid until they no longer work and become a hindrance to "progression"
adherence and fundamentals probably make you comfortable and feel you know it all but actually you don't. humans never will know it all and periodically old ideas and beliefs will be shattered. let go and quit being so childish!
adherence and fundamentals probably make you comfortable and feel you know it all but actually you don't. humans never will know it all and periodically old ideas and beliefs will be shattered. let go and quit being so childish!
Quote:
nah, just dissing the work the man devoted most of his entire life, heart and soul into.
Come on, ps. That's not a valid argument, is it really? I mean, does it become valid, because we are talking about music here (or something that vaguely resembles what is mostly known as "music"), or does that argument fit on all passions of this world? I mean, if a serial killer put his soul, heart and entire life into ending the lives of others, should we not diss him, if we felt what he was doing was not something that we liked?
Now, I respect people who take music in a different direction - hell, I respect just about any kind of artist, who tries to do something extraordinary, but some artists become a little too radical for my taste. "It's a necessity to evolve art", you say. Well, I say that there's got to be more than the extreme way to evolve - what about looking hard at what your artform already resembles and then take just that and do something different, while not breaking the general "rules" (or whatever we should call it), so that most people can still enjoy it and relate to it, while it's still totally fresh and new?
Quote:
Look at you, getting all frustrated and insulting just because someone disagrees with you.
Ever heard of the internet? It's this wonderful place, where people can call you an ass for not agreeing 100% with them. On the internet, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but pay the price deerly for having one. So, to put it in popular terms: If you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out. Or, learn to play the game.
Quote:
he was an artist. he expressed himself and if your personal preferences synchronized with his creations, great. if not STFU. and if you don't like that others did not like him, also, STFU! ALL JUST STFU!!!!!
Oh, how I loathe arguments like that (I can't really pinpoint whether or not it was written ironically, but still...). What is up with people who can't take it when someone question things? Where would the world be (or rather, what IS the world coming to) if noone questionned the work of others?
Quote:
where is the argument?! why waste so much energy on futile circular debates? humanity is doomed! SO STFU!!!!!
\o/
Putting energy into a pointless debate seems so...pointless.
And, sometimes that's just what makes it worthwhile...
Quote:
there are no formulaes for "good music"
I agree, but I want to go even further: There is no good music (just think about it).
For fuck sake. Stop uttering the three-letter word, it's disgusting.
Knos: You're a three-letter word. o/
Nutman is right. there is no good music per se.
an influental composer dies and some hobbyists decide to throw some rocks at him on the grounds of "good music". great, just great.
remember:
tonality=sign of a good music
composers with wigs=masters
stockhausen=john cage
britney=madonna
an influental composer dies and some hobbyists decide to throw some rocks at him on the grounds of "good music". great, just great.
remember:
tonality=sign of a good music
composers with wigs=masters
stockhausen=john cage
britney=madonna
carlos paredes: verdes anos <3
i must admit i'm a bit of a stockhausen fan. probably he wasn't for anyone, as we can see by this thread being pouetised and heavily trolled ;)
RIP
RIP
And as you can see by watching this video:
A kid could have done this and only a freak of nature would be able to tell a mistake in 2 different performances
Personally, I don't get the idea behind doing something SO extremely weird - but I guess most of you already knew that about me...
A kid could have done this and only a freak of nature would be able to tell a mistake in 2 different performances
Personally, I don't get the idea behind doing something SO extremely weird - but I guess most of you already knew that about me...
Then again, I'm a Giger fan and he certainly isn't for anyone either, so I might make no sense at all. Kind of like Stockhausen! ;)
He did some experiments with sound. There were some new technologies for generating sound and associated artforms opening up (sometimes audio combined with video), as well as changes in sound distribution.. so I'd say there was plenty of reason for some people to be experimenting, even in the boldest ways imaginable.
I'd say it's pretty silly to call any art superior or inferior without specified context or qualification. If a piece of art (whatever that is) is not pleasant to you when you consume it in the way that you choose to consume it, I don't think that is enough to find it inferior or worthless. In a fairly direct way, art that is unpleasant when consumed alone can serve as creative inspiration to artists who are more committed to producing art that is pleasant to the end consumer. An artist seeking inspiration does not necessarily limit themselves to only that which is pleasant, and in some cases will specifically seek that which is not.. and some will also seek to produce that which is unpleasant in order to fill this need. As an unfamiliar (for me anyway) field, it's difficult if not impossible to understand the motivations of the people involved unless you've been a part of it for some time.
I'd say it's pretty silly to call any art superior or inferior without specified context or qualification. If a piece of art (whatever that is) is not pleasant to you when you consume it in the way that you choose to consume it, I don't think that is enough to find it inferior or worthless. In a fairly direct way, art that is unpleasant when consumed alone can serve as creative inspiration to artists who are more committed to producing art that is pleasant to the end consumer. An artist seeking inspiration does not necessarily limit themselves to only that which is pleasant, and in some cases will specifically seek that which is not.. and some will also seek to produce that which is unpleasant in order to fill this need. As an unfamiliar (for me anyway) field, it's difficult if not impossible to understand the motivations of the people involved unless you've been a part of it for some time.
I agree to the superior/inferior argument, but in this case, and in the case of abstract paintings, for instance, it simply resembles something that ANYBODY with any kind of talent could have done, just by moving the hands and arm, controlling whatever instrument or brush that might be at the end.
To me, real art takes TALENT - an ability to do something that not just about anybody can do. You know, these people muttering about "just hooow easy it is to do that stupid dance music" always made me laugh - and, seen from that point of view, me arguing the same way about the works of Stockhausen might put me at a ridiculing spot, I STILL find it not special at all. Not hard to do... aaaahr, hard to find the right words here. I am not neglecting the genius of it, though. Part of the idea of being a genius does also include the ability to do something that anybody COULD do, but just never thought about doing. And, with that in mind, Stockhausen was great.
To me, real art takes TALENT - an ability to do something that not just about anybody can do. You know, these people muttering about "just hooow easy it is to do that stupid dance music" always made me laugh - and, seen from that point of view, me arguing the same way about the works of Stockhausen might put me at a ridiculing spot, I STILL find it not special at all. Not hard to do... aaaahr, hard to find the right words here. I am not neglecting the genius of it, though. Part of the idea of being a genius does also include the ability to do something that anybody COULD do, but just never thought about doing. And, with that in mind, Stockhausen was great.