Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Musical Genius - HOW TO BE ONE

I can't notate my music without using music notating software.

The confusion of how it's possible to create without the eye part raises an interesting idea.. I think notated music has been seen as the 'only way' for a while .. but as technology improves, I can now record audio files, layer them, edit them, create midi patters (very similar to how one would edit the music on paper) But instead of having to read the music back each time, it's just a matter of pressing 'play'. Then focused listening is possible... and fine tuning the sound I imagine is a lot easier. Instead of calling for a string quartet to rehearse parts and play with what sounds good, it's all done on the computer. Download the sounds for strings, then mix and match and edit.

At this point they obviously don't sound as good as real strings but it works fine for the composing process. That being said... It's easy to see the direction things are going in.. it's only a matter of time before a fake instrument can not be differentiated from a real one in terms of audio recordings.

There are some 'virtual pianos' out there that are becoming amazingly, scarily similar to real grand pianos, Because they are created by recording each note and each length of note and each volume of note on REAL grand pianos. e.g. This one is amongst the leaders of the pack I believe... http://www.artvista.net/Virtual_Grand_Piano.html

There are "virtual instruments" for just about every instrument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-suUtxIrA&feature=related.

So essentially pressing each key on the keyboard triggers a recording of a real recording of the real instrument.

basically, I can create all the songs with all the parts with music software first, then the very last thing to do is have it transcribed to paper for the one purpose of having it recreated by other musicians in a live setting.. with technology, while it doesn't sound completely 'real' now, the creation process doesn't seem to be held back by the fact.

Yeah thats true, sure software makes things possible but software is not always and completely the answer, I find some things inhibiting one is that the music is recorded as 'too' precise that it is unplayable by other musicians. I'm curious to where you studied, because I would think that you would HAVE to read and use notation when you studied...

Just a question - what classes are you teaching Year 11 and 12?

(just a little tangent .. I'm starting to notice quite a few Aussie members! This is wonderful! .. Hopefully none of my teachers read this... LOL )

Rebekah!!
You should be practising your scales!

I can guess.

Hey, I love this! (posted in PC)

@ Caroline LOL
and KBK that is classic!

I didn't study at any institution. I just played a lot and learned as I went. I'd hear songs and imitate them, hear what sounds good and always be trying new things.

- Instrumental music: which is basically helping the kids with guitar, piano, drums and bass when they want it.

- Music performance: which is everything from song structures, set structures, stage presence... how to use dynamics and intensity in each song and in the whole set. How to set up equipment effectively.. tips for improving the live show e.g. Audience participation, not leaving gaps between songs, style variations, big endings, how to get the sound balanced with volume and EQ and amp positioning etc.

Basically... they have a band with an act... and I help make it translate to an audience and for their examiners.

1- I would like to meet this young excited colleague of yours!

2- The title was created to be ironic.. It also shows me all the people who are able to see passed labels. whether or not people were going to respond without attacking is interesting in itself! Some spoke.. some refused to speak and defended. That is interesting.

3- women and makeup.. hmmm...

Why do you feel the need to wear makeup for self confidence? I have to assume, that you believe there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to look. You believe that without makeup you look 'wrong'. This is self consciousness.

Who is to say what looks 'right' and 'wrong'? I believe it is other people, but you are agreeing with them.

Why are so many people self conscious? I believe it's because people focus on external elements and therefor miss what is important. The internal. In this case, it seems you can not see through your own exterior either.

Do you believe that if everybody in the world suddenly believed 'makeup is ugly', you would still wear it because it's about YOU.. and not appeasing other people?

My beliefs clash with "women do not wear makeup for other people". And so I am interested

I think it's interesting that you're conducting experiments on people, and classifying them based on the reactions you get, or don't get.

Carry on, I've got stuff to do. While it is sometimes fun to listen to somebody who sounds like they just got done with a 2 day acid trip that concluded with some sort of psychological/transcendental/existential enlightenment, it gets old, fast.

+1!

+1 from me, too - and thread win IMO

I 'conduct experiments' on people to better understand people. From understanding other people, I can better understand myself. I do also 'conduct experiments' on myself and question why I do things etc.

Understandably, It may look like I am classifying and judging people. I'm not. I'm not doing this to make myself feel above anybody. I believe we are all the same underneath the incessant thinking patterns and mindsets.

I am interested in hearing why the ideas were at first 'fun' but now annoying. What part of the sharing of ideas made them annoying? Or at what point in reading the ideas did you feel annoyed? Which of my beliefs are you annoyed at?

Probably your deep thoughts on makeup. Even though you and I might agree that if we were women, we probably wouldn't choose to wear any or much makeup, or to apply it to our hands instead of our faces.

I enjoyed considering your ideas about music, listening, conformance, etc.

I used to enjoy a song called the Screams of Passion, written by Prince, I think, but the version I enjoyed most was performed by The Family. One of the lines, as I recall, goes something like "A robin sings a masterpiece and lives and dies unheard." I always enjoyed that line, and your initial thoughts about putting down an instrument and listening made me think about that, and all of the works of art that exist, unappreciated.

But there is a line between sharing ideas and pontificating, and whether or not you intended to do so, and without regard to whether you actually did so, it seems to me that you crossed that line. Many people cross that line--some more than others--but it's no unusual or great sin. I expect, rather than think about whether or not you've crossed that line, and whether the annoyance you detect is justified, you'll think about why I and others feel the way we do, and claim it's for your own edification. Then you'll ask why I have this expectation. And so on.

Very tiresome.

It might be more productive to apply your beliefs to your own life, accomplish greatness in whatever form you desire, be that acclaim or irrelevance, and then let those results speak for your ideas, even at the risk of going unheard.

To everybody else, there is an acronym that expresses an idea: DNFTT. I have violated this, and I apologize.

Yumo, I PM'd you.

You say I have crossed the line sharing my deep thoughts on makeup. I don't understand this at all. Until I understand why some topics are considered fine to share beliefs on, while other topics are not, Until I understand where the line is, I don't think I can stop accidentally crossing it!

Please help me understand where that line is so I don't cross it in the future and create any further annoyance.

At the moment, I don't feel I am crossing any line, but rather, the topic I am expressing beliefs about is crossing a line.

I also believe that some people can be sensitive to certain topics. Therefore, they react differently to discussion about certain topics. Forgive me for putting you in this basket. I just don't quite understand this yet.

The idea that some topics are fine and some are over a line is confusing. It's confusing because other people are happy to discuss all sorts of topics like makeup etc they find it stimulating and interesting, not threatening, pontificating or tiresome.

help.

+1

You didn't cross 'the' line HM, you crossed his line. I don't have a problem with what you wrote because I understand you wanted to open up discussion. You just didn't do it in the way some might approve of. Good for you. Keep posting and don't let other's opinions or deragatory comments sway you.

Well you may want to think that, but there are certainly certain "ratings" that are quantitative measures (e.g. faster) where there are people that are "better" than other people. As well, even with piano there are more quantitative measures, e.g. "person A is better at playing the music as written than person B", and I'm not talking about minor variances, the _fact_ is that my daughter can play Clair de Lune "better" than I can (considering I can't play it at all). And again, careful not to be exclusive in your inclusiveness. Though you claim ratings hold no purpose, that obviously is not true since by making that statement you are assigning value to a particular belief over another, you've "rated" them and choose the one that was "better" for you. Human beings label, rate, make assumptions, etc because that's the way our grey matter works (yours too).



The "ego" is not just a defense mechanism nor is it's only purpose to "separate one being from another". The more extremes of the word may imply this (e.g. "egotistical", "ego maniacal") but the word ego by itself does not necessarily.



As someone else has mentioned, someone calling you "a genius" or "attractive" is relative to the person assigning you those labels only. If someone is inclined to use such terminology because it describes the context in which they've assigned particular attributes they perceive in you why is that somehow related to your particular reaction. Are you also implying that you don't find anyone or anything more attractive/beautiful/aesthetically pleasing than anything/one else? Do you never have the emotion of "admiration"? Do you honestly get the same emotion from every single piece of music you listen to?



Just because a baby can assign the label to you, it doesn't make the label itself meaningless. In the context of the baby, you _are_ a musical genius. It sounds like the concept that you are discounting is that the majority of labels are relative and contextual. If a pauper considers me rich and a billionaire considers me poor, does it make either label meaningless, no, in each context they are correct. If you use measurable labels (e.g. poor = those making below 50% of average median income) then you can ascribe a less relativistic label.



Again I would disagree, to make an all encompassing statement "All labels" actually defeats your argument vs "proving" it. Not all, and let's be specific here, self ascribed labels are for "self satisfaction", to say so shows a lack of understanding of human nature and human interaction (and forum rules ).



But you're not saying "the sky is red", you're saying "the sky has no color and any attempt to label it a particular color is wrong". We can talk about more concrete measurements (e.g. light wavelength) and then we can come to an agreement about what labels we decide to assign those wavelengths and then we can agree on a particular label to use.



But you yourself are doing exactly what you are ascribing to others. You are making assumptions based purely on "labels" on how people view themselves. You say if one uses labels that one must be a certain way, you've now "labeled" them based on external criteria (posts on this forum). People use from 0 to (n) number of criteria when it comes to "judging" things, external factors play a part in this as well as "internal" factors. Different people have different weights on each of those factors. Why is being attracted to someone for their "sense of humor" any better or worse than liking someone for the shape of their body? Either way some criterion is used to make an assessment that will eventually end up excluding some and including others?

And lastly, what about human nature leads you to believe that any type of focus on "non-external" attributes will lead to "no more competing, no more pain, no more self consciousness"? So if I focus on someones belief system or skills of logical analysis that will make me not want to classify, categorize, label, like, dislike them? I think that will not be the eventual outcome.

Anyway, back to music. I think it's great to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The "classic" method of music training is certainly not for everybody and I applaud and encourage those who can figure out ways to make a living teaching those who don't fit that mold. As for actually contributing to this thread, I think that one area that is often overlooked is context and background. When it comes to getting my family members more interested in things that they might not find otherwise interesting is to provide some context and background. For example, I listen to a lot of opera, not exactly most peoples favorite form of music. I would play it in the car when I drove the kids to school in the mornings. Generally they would just read or zone out. One morning when one of my more favorite pieces was playing ("Un bel di vedremo") I described what the song was actually about to the kids and explained what the various parts were (from what I could remember). This instantly made my daughter more interested (alas my son was not impressed ). I did this with several other of my favorites and she now has much more interest in opera. I've done this as well with my wife and sports/motorsports and it actually works quite well. I think it creates a more emotionally involvement thereby drawing the person in more. I know that often teachers are happy if students can remember the name and composer of the piece and any type of background/context for the piece itself is never mentioned. Perhaps as the students get older and have to "get into the piece" more, but not at an earlier age.