|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> And, apropos of not much, this was pretty cool:
>> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v1VdJU7scps
>>
>> But the Bach sounds pretty good for someone who does it for fun. :-)
>
> I don't think that's Bach. :P
Andrew's Bach sounds pretty good for someone who does it for fun. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> By the way, I looked up "fugue" on Wikipedia. It's quite interesting.
>>> It seems a fugue is basically a musical fractal. How neat is that?
>>
>> You should read Godel, Escher, Bach. The whole Bach part is about how
>> his music is all self-referential like Escher and Godel's stuff is.
>
> ....Godel is self-referential?
Rather famed for it. His proof, at least.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Andrew's Bach sounds pretty good for someone who does it for fun. :-)
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye...
And then it's all fun and games, but with a cyclops! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ....Godel is self-referential?
>
> Rather famed for it. His proof, at least.
Oh, right.
I haven't seen it. All I know is that he's the guy who famously proved
that mathematics is actually hopeless and we should all give up now.
(But you have to admire the way everybody has ignored this and carried
on anyway.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> It seems the score I have is a simplified version as it is...
>
> Hmm, it sounds quite like the original to me.
I had a look here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o
There seem to be more harmonies to it than what's on my sheet.
>> Counterpoint, MUCH??
>
> Yes, very much! :)
Counterpoint and harmony is something I have never been able to master.
This saddens me greatly.
But then, in general, I'm very good at copying other people's work, and
hopeless at composing my own. (I can never decide what notes would sound
interesting together...)
>> That's what I'm saying. Having an audience makes me all shy and
>> self-concious and I start making dumb mistakes and stuff...
>
> Having a passion for organs doesn't help... ^_^
Well... no... ;-)
And Widor's Toccata *opens with* triple forte. It's a loud, bold, joyous
piece of music. It cannot be played quietly. ;-)
>> Knowing the camera is rolling makes you kind of try to keep going no
>> matter what... Hey, the 3 clips I've posted online are cut from a reel
>> of about 15 seperate takes! o_O
>
> Aha!
Hmm, yes, it is true...
OTOH, my mum could spent 4 weeks making endless recordings and never
produce a single one that compares to what I have on film, so I won't
feel too bad about having to take a couple of tries at it. 0;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Counterpoint and harmony is something I have never been able to master.
> This saddens me greatly.
You know who I really admire? Those people who program music boxes.
I mean, each note of a music box is just a tooth on a comb being
plucked. It sounds dull and uninteresting. To compensate, the designers
pin elaborate and complex harmonies and rhythems into the pinwheel...
Certainly I could never write anything nearly as impressive. :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> ....Godel is self-referential?
>>
>> Rather famed for it. His proof, at least.
>
> Oh, right.
>
> I haven't seen it.
It's basically of writing "this theorem cannot be proven." If it's true,
you can't prove it. If it's false, you've proven something false.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> But anyway, drums&bass seem to be the only way of getting people to listen to a
> violin today. This and "Girl with electronic violin" with violin sounding like
> a guitar... :P
Personally, I happen to like many different styles of music.
I really liked the theme music to Pirates of the Carribean. But I also
really liked the techno remix I found on YouTube. I thought it was
really clever how somebody could take a piece of music in one style and
play it in a completely different style, yet have it still immediately
obvious that it's still the same piece. I like *both* performances, for
different reasons.
Similarly, a few years back I found a rock performance of [the simple
parts from] Bach's Toccata & Fugue. (Actually just the toccata, really.
And only the bits you can easily play on an electric guitar with a
drummer and some backing.) It's much simpler than what Bach wrote, but
it's still quite entertaining.
And then the other day I heard a bunch of hill billies playing 80s rock.
THAT was funny! :-D But in a weird way, it kinda works...
(In a similar theme, the heavy metal version of Mrs Robinson.)
So getting people to listen to a particular style or a particular
instrument is... meh. People will listen to whatever people want to
listen to. The point is that *I* know what *I* like to listen to. (And I
don't care if anybody else likes it!)
OTOH, my car stereo refuses to play The Beach Boys for some reason...
Maybe it's trying to tell me something?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> ....Godel is self-referential?
>>>
>>> Rather famed for it. His proof, at least.
>>
>> Oh, right.
>>
>> I haven't seen it.
>
> It's basically of writing "this theorem cannot be proven." If it's true,
> you can't prove it. If it's false, you've proven something false.
So... it's the liar paradox?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |