3 ms·

I'll buy it, save for the music. Simple music is .. simple, `if it sounds good, it is good`. Who after a certain age can sit down, turn on the radio and hones

by drhodes 17y ago

I'll buy it, save for the music. Simple music is .. simple, `if it sounds good, it is good`. Who after a certain age can sit down, turn on the radio and honestly enjoy the new cookie cutter tunes pushed out of LA? Good music changes the rules. See the hair standing on your arms - you didn't expect that chord change. It goes further than that - Take a favorite piece. find a *.mid version of it. load it into a sequencer, take out all the dynamics and rhythm so the song is just chord changes, one per measure. It's unbearable. Unlistenable - except maybe to a student of music theory. It takes a human ear to bend the sound and forge emotion clearly enough that the receiving end gleans something from it. anyways, in music, more nuance is always better.

tel 17y ago
I disagree. I think the more primal idea (to be taken with all the requisite salt) is that you need to make things as simple as possible but no simpler. [Maybe attributed to Einstein? I'm not sure] In music "more nuance" often can go to far. I went to a concert a few days ago that was had a green noise-pop band as an opener. I really enjoyed their concept, but I wanted to go up there and physically remove some of their nuance. It was too layered, too complex, too cerebral. The pivotal thing though is that I liked their concept. I think the things they were trying to build, and the emotions they were trying to invoke were great. They just needed to spend more time whittling away to that solid core and less time playing with loops on their laptops. So yeah. "If it sounds good, it is good." But that's the kind of statement that takes "simpler is better" more or less axiomatically.
- drhodes 17y ago
  by nuance, I mean the precision of that moment, not layers of masks, which I agree take away from the whole thing. -- A slight accent staggered across multiple instruments, the subtlety and artfulness of the performers. So maybe resolution would a better term, surely who could argue against too much resolution?

by drhodes 17y ago

tel 17y ago

I disagree. I think the more primal idea (to be taken with all the requisite salt) is that you need to make things as simple as possible but no simpler. [Maybe attributed to Einstein? I'm not sure] In music "more nuance" often can go to far. I went to a concert a few days ago that was had a green noise-pop band as an opener. I really enjoyed their concept, but I wanted to go up there and physically remove some of their nuance. It was too layered, too complex, too cerebral. The pivotal thing though is that I liked their concept. I think the things they were trying to build, and the emotions they were trying to invoke were great. They just needed to spend more time whittling away to that solid core and less time playing with loops on their laptops. So yeah. "If it sounds good, it is good." But that's the kind of statement that takes "simpler is better" more or less axiomatically.

drhodes 17y ago
by nuance, I mean the precision of that moment, not layers of masks, which I agree take away from the whole thing. -- A slight accent staggered across multiple instruments, the subtlety and artfulness of the performers. So maybe resolution would a better term, surely who could argue against too much resolution?