Music making | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 337 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614081
Today 1
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
Music making
 

offline CS2x from London (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 13:06 [#02210240]
Points: 5079 Status: Lurker



Is it possible to make music for oneself and oneself only?
If you knew that nobody would ever possibly hear a piece you
spent hours creating, would that bother you?

It's just something that I've been vaguely thinking about.
Lots of artists I'm into claim they create just for
themselves...but they are economically sustained by their
listeners, and they can only be so free in their approach
because their audience expects them to innovate and will
keep them afloat through all their artistic twists and
turns. If there were no listeners there to sustain them,
would they be so driven? Would they be out in their desert
studios spewing out strange audio landscapes with such
ferocity if there was nobody there to lap it up? They often
claim they would.

I've always thought that you're always somehow
subconsciously aware of an audience, wherever you are in
music, and to claim otherwise is a bit absurd. It's a
strangely social thing, even if you have no direct
communication with any listeners. The fact that people might
hear the fruit of your labours drives you, even if it's your
mum and your dog. It's fine to claim to be uncompromising in
your approach, but to claim that you have absolutely no
concern for anybody who might hear what you're up to seems
slightly odd at this drunken moment.

Mind you, it makes perfect sense at other moments.



 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-25 13:09 [#02210241]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker



If I made it knowing that no-one else would ever hear it, it
would probably be a hundred thousand million times easier.


 

offline swift_jams from big sky on 2008-05-25 13:09 [#02210242]
Points: 7577 Status: Lurker



I would have no problem with it, but its human nature to
share things and want others to feel the same as you about
something.

I write music because I enjoy it. I don't have to let
others hear it. But occasionally I figure why not.


 

offline noseburger on 2008-05-25 13:19 [#02210250]
Points: 1198 Status: Lurker



if you could pay the bills by doing something you enjoy,
most people would.

i've only played about less than 10% of my musical output
to other people. last count i have just over 1000 tracks in
various stages of completion.


 

offline dave_g from United Kingdom on 2008-05-25 14:04 [#02210264]
Points: 3372 Status: Lurker



Most things I have never shared with other people. I make
things for my own enjoyment. I have a day job so I don't
need to let people hear it.

There's far too much music floating around these days. I
don't think I need to dilute the talent of others with my
efforts.



 

offline larn from PLANET E (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 14:35 [#02210270]
Points: 5473 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



I enjoy writing music, but for me it's just a hobby, like
many others on here, I like learning about sound, it's so
much fun, and you loose yourself in it. i'l tell ya if i
wasn't doing something creative i'd go nuts


 

offline futureimage from buy FIR from Juno (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 15:01 [#02210283]
Points: 6427 Status: Lurker



I think I already do it.


 

offline cx from Norway on 2008-05-25 15:17 [#02210288]
Points: 4537 Status: Regular



I think this inherent want to show others your own work
comes from a pride in your own work, and also it feels like
all your work pays off when people recognize it as a good
track.
If I knew nobody would ever hear my music, which is almost
impossible for me to comprehend because I'm indeed very keen
on others listening, I would not have any external need to
do anything in particular.

One thing I do notice is that if I'm very happy with a track
im not bothered if someone else doesnt like it, because i
know i like it and thats enough for me.

That being said, i still get a reward when others take the
time to listen and comment, and in a sense i want them to be
wow'd and whatnot and appreciate me as an artist.

but right now i have a fine line between my own reward, and
the reward i get through others. and that suits me perfectly
fine atm


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-25 16:33 [#02210305]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



"It's a strangely social thing, even if you have no direct
communication with any listeners."

This is a main feature of all of human life. Would a
non-social homo sapiens sapiens be human?


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-25 16:45 [#02210307]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210305



I expect by definition it would have to be.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-25 16:51 [#02210311]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210307 | Show recordbag



Not necessarily.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2008-05-25 16:54 [#02210312]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker | Followup to larn: #02210270



yes i agree, the life of messing with sounds is really
interesting and fun, i think the whole thing about being
appreciated for your music is totally acceptable and should
not be looked down on,

although sometimes people might not congradulate you on a
track well done, either because they are maybe a little
jealous, or into their own thing too much, and get inspired
from it and go make their own music, i think it's defenitely
positive to put music out for others to hear it, especially
if you want to, because then you get feedback, especially if
youre unsure of yourself or your music, not too confident,
it will help kind of guide your attitude toward music, and
the balance you need.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-25 16:56 [#02210313]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210311



Explain; as far as I can tell "homo sapiens sapiens" is the
technical term for "human".


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-25 17:05 [#02210314]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210313 | Show recordbag



No, it's the biological term for a certain kind of animal.

In social terms, the term human often differs from that of
animal, savage and beast. All of these other terms can also
apply to any specimen of the subspecies homo sapiens
sapiens. Being human has different criteria from being a
homo sapiens sapiens.

Note the difference in definition from homo sapiens sapiens,
humans and so-called feral children.


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2008-05-25 17:13 [#02210316]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular



Right! back to the question.... Yes ofcourse! Music has
it's own immediate rewards.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-25 17:17 [#02210318]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210314



Cool, this can be used to dehumanise groups we don't like.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2008-05-25 17:32 [#02210323]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker



just noticed a blooper thing in Back to the Future II - when
they show the scenes from the first movie when he's playing
Johnny B Goode, you can see that his eyes are brown in the
first movie, in the second, they are blue

but maybe i'm on crack



 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 17:33 [#02210324]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Followup to pulseclock: #02210323 | Show recordbag



OH MY GOD FUCKING HELL


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 17:36 [#02210327]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



I make music because its better than stabbing myself in the
eyes. Sometimes I think, 'hey someone might enjoy this' so I
post it on here or somewhere else and a few people listen to
it and say 'yeah thats ok' and I get a warm fuzzy feeling
like someone likes my track, it was worth it! but I
don't really think less of the stuff I never play to anyone
because I still like it so yeah, I cant remember my
point.


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2008-05-25 17:40 [#02210330]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular



100% of this is for himself. Music can be very
social but it's also solitary fun.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-25 17:40 [#02210331]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to pulseclock: #02210323



the blooper is retconning a white man to invent Rock 'n'
Roll. the film leads up to this point: The white man will go
through history and take all the achievements of the
blackman and pretend they were his own. The extended version
has M J Fox making an impassioned "I have a dream" speech.

You'll note in Teen Wolf that they have M J Fox becoming
fabulous at Basket Ball, the famous Afro-American sport
(first he fights who he is, then he accepts his white
dominance).

M J Fox is a total white supremacist.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2008-05-25 17:43 [#02210333]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker | Followup to Indeksical: #02210327



Fuh Q


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2008-05-25 17:43 [#02210334]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker | Followup to JivverDicker: #02210330



nice man


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2008-05-25 17:45 [#02210337]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular | Followup to marlowe: #02210331



Haha! I never looked at it that way before.


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 17:46 [#02210338]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Followup to marlowe: #02210331 | Show recordbag



You just blew my mind man.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2008-05-25 17:48 [#02210340]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker | Followup to Indeksical: #02210327



i think that warm fuzzy feeling is a senior-ctizen woman
massaging your balls with her gums,

enjoy


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-25 17:55 [#02210344]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210318 | Show recordbag



Indeed it has been. So has the biological criteria. What's
your point?


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-05-25 17:57 [#02210346]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Followup to pulseclock: #02210340 | Show recordbag



I wish... Oh how I wish...


 

offline wimp on 2008-05-26 00:23 [#02210373]
Points: 1389 Status: Lurker



the kokopelli will be awfully lonely if yr just playing it
for yourself


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-26 03:48 [#02210391]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210344



I didn't make a point.

oh btw if something stops being human then it stops being
homo sapiens sapiens; I wasn't talking about social terms or
philosophical terms because as humans we're all very
different socially. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a
biological term, bot a sociological term.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-26 04:35 [#02210398]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210391 | Show recordbag



"oh btw if something stops being human then it stops being
homo sapiens sapiens"

That the terms currently have the same extensions doesn't
mean that they are synonymous; if all things remained the
same, except for that we were a different species from homo
sapiens sapiens, we would still be humans; even if all
renates are also chordates, that doesn't make the terms
synonymous. This should be basic introductory course
philosophy, but I don't know if you have the same kind of
introductory course thing in England as we have over here...


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-26 05:17 [#02210405]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210398



As usual, your pomposity has puffed your chest up so much
that it's blinded you.

Although I know you never seem to admit you're wrong (at
least not that I've ever seen - when challenged your
sentences just get longer and you retreat into
patronisation), we are not talking synonyms: the O.E.D.
"...humans, who first appeared in the upper palaeolithic
period, are classified as H. sapiens sapiens."

But I imagine, as usual, you know best.



 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-26 05:20 [#02210406]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker



Why would we still be classed as "human" if we evolved
beyond homo sapiens sapiens? If evolution is to be
believed, we evolved from fish and lizards and they aren't
classified as humans: if our very biological make-up evolved
then we wouldn't be humans, we would be whatever comes
afterwards and then we could apply a shiny new label on it.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-26 05:39 [#02210408]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210405 | Show recordbag



I admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. I'm only wrong once every
10.000 years ;)

I've been thinking about the long sentences thing, and I
guess it must be because of the copious amounts of
phenomenological texts I've been reading. They're not known
for brevity, nor for avoiding complex sentences and sentence
structures. This probably relates to Husserl's original
style of writing, as well as Heidegger's attempts at freeing
himself from the constrains put upon him and his ability to
express his thoughts properly. I also strive for accuracy in
expression.

When it comes to patronisation, I knew the thing about the
introductory course thing would seem patronising, but I was
just asking a question. If your system isn't so that you all
have philosophy as an introductory course when first joining
university, it's not your "fault." It also doesn't
necessarily make our system superior to yours, nor does
knowledge of philosophy make me superior to you. In the name
of political correctness, it just makes us different unique
individuals; you know stuff I don't, I know stuff you
don't.

"Why would we still be classed as "human" if we evolved
beyond homo sapiens sapiens?"

I said that if all other things remained the same, e.g. if
our culture, language and history remained the same, but the
one single fact that we are the creatures biologically
classifiable as homo sapiens sapiens was different, we would
still be the creatures referred to as humans (even if only
by ourselves).

As homo sapiens sapiens is a biological term, and as biology
studies animated but "dead" things (they study things as
static objects), biology can't study the social thing, the
human being. We have other sciences for that.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-26 05:45 [#02210409]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker



We might continue to call ourselves human through
convenience or habit, and who knows, maybe we'll end
classification at human - as it stands now, humans
are the current end-point of hominids - of course we are
constantly evolving in subtle ways so I guess if this
biological change is as minor as it is now, then
human is as good a tag as any.

Anyway, you're probably right and it's more interesting to
discuss humanity from a sociological and cultural point of
view than just a biological point of view.



 

offline Falito from Balenciaga on 2008-05-26 05:48 [#02210410]
Points: 3974 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



exploding dogmas...i fly over your suffering,i understand
what intentions here is.

stop breathing and eyaculate over nobody*



 

offline Falito from Balenciaga on 2008-05-26 05:48 [#02210411]
Points: 3974 Status: Lurker | Followup to Falito: #02210410 | Show recordbag



bro you cunt


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-26 06:20 [#02210416]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210409 | Show recordbag



I wasn't really talking about evolution.. it was more from a
modal point of view. Taking a cue from modal logics, it can
be conceptualised by the introduction of "multiple worlds."

Imagine a world where everything is as it is here, but where
the creatures called humans are what we would call lizards
(from a biological point of view). The question to be
answered is whether these creatures would be justified in
calling themselves human, and if it isn't indeed possible
that this could have been our world if circumstances were
only slightly different.

The surprising conclusion, and the title of my next song, is
that "we could have been lizards!"

Do you realise what this means?!?!§


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-26 06:34 [#02210417]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210416



According to David Icke, some of us are
lizards!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-26 06:41 [#02210418]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02210417 | Show recordbag



OMG!

<--- Even Alan Turing is surprised!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2008-05-26 07:11 [#02210421]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Shit! I just received this letter:

To whom it may concern

We, Queen Triceratops Isis Subzero the Third, supreme ruler
of the Draconians, have decided that today will be my day of
play. I have calculated the current Zeitgeist of the
Internet and arrived at the conclusion that today the
subject of the "Draconian Conspiracy Theory" proposed by
man's greatest thinker, David Icke, would be discussed at
the messageboard at xltronic.com.

Because we Draconians have succeeded in hypnotising every
single human being on earth with the help of our "Idol"
franchise, no-one will believe you when you tell them that
this letter is "for real," and that you didn't in fact write
it yourself, We find no harm in playing with your fragile
minds by sending you this testimony to our existence.

We do this because our first experiment with revealing
ourselves, David Icke, amused us greatly, and We find that
We are no less amused by any other individual of your
species fighting the futile fight of getting everyone else
to acknowledge our existence. We also fear that the constant
frustration of David Icke's attempts might lead him to
suicide. We would regret this greatly, as he is very amusing
indeed, but he is not irreplacable.

Actually, We find that the thought of all you puny humans
committing suicide just because your fragile minds can't
handle the frustration quite amusing in itself.

Best regards

  Queen Triceratops Isis Subzero the Third
  Supreme ruler of the Draconians



 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2008-05-26 07:44 [#02210424]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker



you guys are homo sexual sexuals


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2008-05-26 08:19 [#02210436]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02210421



Did they ask for your bank account number?


 

offline rad smiles on 2008-05-26 10:54 [#02210469]
Points: 5608 Status: Lurker



ALL the music i make is for my ears only. MAYBE like one or
two more people.


 


Messageboard index