# Discordant music



## anthonyferguson (May 5, 2010)

Something that's been bothering me recently is that the majority of people, musicians or not, seem to dismiss any music that isn't of a typically 'pleasant' nature. TV talent shows are a great example of this. While I know they're all fixed and crap and all that, it still pisses me off that people make complete ignorant bullshit comments based on 'ooh that sounds nice' (or vice versa) without a single clue what they're on about. I liken it to modern art (even though I see the main difference; sound is forced upon someone, whereas vision is a voluntary thing) for the reason that people pushed the boundaries and made abstract, shocking works that were truly disturbing and offensive to begin with. Modern music that is of a style that is not ordinary, i.e. it is not in any particular key, follows a pattern that is not necessarily conventional, or even has an 'abrasive' timbre is, for the most part, completely blocked out and is responded to in a very rude way in some cases, and it is likely that it will remain to be viewed in such a way for the most part, regardless of the raw talent and work involved. For example, I take great offense when people openly tell me they dislike what I play on my guitar, or out of my earphones, for the reason that It's something personal that I take pride in and enjoy listening to. To tell me that it's not music or it's just rubbish is a great insult in my opinion. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? Am I overreacting to something that's not really that significant?

/rant


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 5, 2010)

People will always have differing opinions (on everything). 

Don't take the haters too seriously, as there's nothing you can really do about it, as:


----------



## Spondus (May 5, 2010)

I hear you, my girlfriend almost vomits whenever I play any Blotted Science. I don't think anyone is pushing the boundaries further than Ron Jarzombek, his circle of tones makes for some music unlike anything I've heard before.


----------



## sevenstringgod (May 5, 2010)

This happens to me all the time. I always try explaining to people who bash metal/jazz/etc. the beauty in this kind of music, and obviously there's people how actually get it and respect it, even though they probably won't listen to it ever, and then there's just the assholes and haters who think fame = how good a guitar player is. So what I do is try to share my tastes in music, even if people end up hating it, or just not getting "it" like we do, they still have to accept the fact that there's an insane amount of talent going on in the "underground" scene. So try to share with those who you think will understand, and leave the brainless bandwagon douchebags to die


----------



## sevenstringgod (May 5, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> People will always have differing opinions (on everything).


 
I agree with you 100%, the thing is that most people just categorize music that is not popular and not as easy to listen as "bad" right out of the box. One thing is saying "I don't like it, but damn he is a great musician", and another is to say "It's shit and it sucks."


----------



## Antimatter (May 5, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> People will always have differing opinions (on everything).
> 
> Don't take the haters too seriously, as there's nothing you can really do about it, as:


 
This.

I need a shirt that says this


----------



## Necris (May 5, 2010)

I love writing and listening to atonal/discordant music, for me the interest is in both the melodies as well the textures the notes working together can create. It has always suprised me how opposed musicians, even the vast majority of the Metal community, of all things, are to it. As always "diffrent styles for different people" rings true.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 5, 2010)

sevenstringgod said:


> I agree with you 100%, the thing is that most people just categorize music that is not popular and not as easy to listen as "bad" right out of the box. One thing is saying "I don't like it, but damn he is a great musician", and another is to say "It's shit and it sucks."



Though, you have to realize that not everyone is a musician. In fact MOST people who do listen to music aren't. 

Let's use another example, cars for instance or better, the noise they make. A few friends of mine are REAL gear heads when it comes to cars. They can tell how "great" a car is just by hearing the noise the engine and exhaust make. I on the other hand, am pretty ignorant of what that particular "clanking" or "whistling" noise means in relation to performance. Thus when I hear a very load car, I tend to think it's annoying, while one of my "car friends" will drool and start getting an erection. It's all in how people perceive different things.


----------



## MSalonen (May 5, 2010)

While I personally don't enjoy listening to or playing discordant music, it's obvious that musicians like Jarzombek are very conscious and deliberate in what they are doing, and are amazingly competent. It may not be the kind of thing I enjoy, but I try to give credit and respect where it's due.

That said, I also feel like a lot of players and "musicians" abuse the idea of music being discordant for the sake of purposely trying to make it complicated, abstract, jazzy (when it's very much not), evil/heavy (in the case of a lot of metal bands). And they do so without real comprehension of what they're doing, and like it almost purely for its own sake. Rather than, for example, a player like Loomis using diminished melodies for explicit and well executed purpose.

I'm not surprised most people don't appreciate it, that's just the way it is. No one likes to feel stupid, so if they don't understand something, they tend to discredit it. And while that is not fair, you can't be surprised by it, or try to act defensively or inversely _overly_ proud.

When it comes down it, music is simply music. And like any art, it's almost entirely based on personal opinion and enjoyment rather than any sort of objective scale.


----------



## John Strieder (May 16, 2010)

MSalonen said:


> That said, I also feel like a lot of players and "musicians" abuse the idea of music being discordant for the sake of purposely trying to make it complicated, abstract, jazzy (when it's very much not), evil/heavy (in the case of a lot of metal bands). And they do so without real comprehension of what they're doing, and like it almost purely for its own sake.



I love to play atonal _and_ dissonant - simply cause I love how it sounds  Why should I play (or hear) music I don't like?

But I don't see the point in mentioning in this Thread, that people do things without "comprehension of what they're doing". Cause those are everywhere, regardless of the musical approach 

When you say "purely for its own sake", what would be the opposite/better in your opinion?


----------



## Jay Jay (May 16, 2010)

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the people who make it Atonal/Dissonant just because of that fact that it's different and because other people don't like it, much the same way that teens these days do the whole hardcore-scene-image-thing.

They take "pride" in the fact that their music makes people cringe, rather than making music that they're proud of musically.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (May 16, 2010)

It doesn't get much uglier than this, and I love it!
Some people just like weird shit, and find their own way of doing things. Others don't.
However, I'm not so sure that anyone plays music they don't like just because they know how uncomfortable it'll make others feel. When you play ugly music, it's usually because you don't really care what others think. You do it because you want to.


----------



## kung_fu (May 17, 2010)

^^^
Man, I gotta get me some Gaza. That shit was awesome .

One of my fav guitar players is Derek Bailey. That should tell you where I stand on dissonance . With respect to making "dissonant music for the sake of it", i really don't see it as a problem either. It's like with movies. When you write/direct a horror movie the ultimate goal is to make the viewer scared and uncomfortable.


----------



## MSalonen (May 17, 2010)

Jay Jay said:


> I'm pretty sure he's talking about the people who make it Atonal/Dissonant just because of that fact that it's different and because other people don't like it, much the same way that teens these days do the whole hardcore-scene-image-thing.
> 
> They take "pride" in the fact that their music makes people cringe, rather than making music that they're proud of musically.



Exactly what I meant.


----------



## John Strieder (May 17, 2010)

Jay Jay said:


> I'm pretty sure he's talking about the people who make it Atonal/Dissonant just because of that fact that it's different and because other people don't like it



I'm not sure that a worth-mentionable number of such people exist. There's no difference between making music just for people liking it ... and ... making music just for people liking it not. Except, if you make music of the second category, you probably hardly find mates. And why should anyone prefer this? It's so easy to play some random major/minor chords and people say "oooh it's so niceee" ... or become part of the "hardcore-thingy"? 

What about all the other bands who make their music just for the sake of consonances, or of pleasing people, or of just making money ... ?

As said, I don't see the point mentioning such things in this thread of all, you could write the same stuff in any other thread about any other musical direction. Is there a thread about "*merican *dol" on ss.org?


----------



## EliNoPants (May 17, 2010)

kung_fu said:


> With respect to making "dissonant music for the sake of it", i really don't see it as a problem either. It's like with movies. When you write/direct a horror movie the ultimate goal is to make the viewer scared and uncomfortable.



making dissonant music for the sake of making dissonant music is different than making dissonant music for the sake of making the listener feel distressed or uncomfortable, one is doing it almost more as a technical exercise, the other is doing it either as an expression, or an attempt to evoke those feelings

it's the same with any musical tool/technique/style, there are people who get so caught up in the technical aspects of it that they forget to use it to create art and express something...but there are also those who use it well enough to not only express, but get the listener to feel the same things too...that is the point where it goes from just playing an instrument to creating art via the instrument


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 17, 2010)

I thought the reason for discordant music was because it's fun to hear "It's so dissonant!" in the whiny voice. 

Really, though. People desire and reject sounds for different reasons. Palestrina wrote copiously consonant counterpoint for the purpose of praising god. I appreciate his expertise, but Palestrina bores the shit out of me. Look at somebody like Toru Takemitsu; he deliberately embraced Western music trends while rejecting traditional Japanese music due to his hatred for Japanese imperialism during World War II. (He later reconciled his Japanese musical heritage and drew from it extensively, becoming one of the best-known Japanese film composers of the twentieth century.)

People like what they know. I won't say that somebody who is accustomed to diatonic pop harmony cannot possibly cross over into heavily chromatic and dissonant music, but it is likely that somebody who has been exposed to pop all their life will probably listen to similar music thereafter. Being a musician only increases one's chances of accepting unfamiliar sounds, but there are still many, many close-minded musicians.


----------



## John Strieder (May 17, 2010)

Elliott Carter - Shard 


(or played on the electric guitar: YouTube - Elliott Carter - Shard)

Carter wrote this piece at age 89 and it's totally kick-ass music! (Today he's 102 and still writes great music)


BTW, What I *really, really hate* are people who construct theories based on their personal dislikes to prove, that they are right. And to prove that those people, who like such stuff, are wrong. Some of them smear their shit all over the internet, others wrote whole books - on why atonal (or whatever) music is ugly, degenerated, sick, etc. Those bastards really can go to hell!


----------



## Espaul (May 17, 2010)

^ That piece sounds like crap on the electric guitar but awsome on acoustic 

Anyways, yes none of us likes when people just come up and say "how can you like this shit?" It's just noise..I say "No, it's not noise, you just don't have the musicality in you to hear the music in it"


----------



## jymellis (May 17, 2010)

yup, i know exactly what you mean. i get tired of people making fun of me for wearing tight pants and listening to attack attack. no seriously though. i have been made fun of all my life for one reason or another. it was easier to deal with when i was young though cuz fighting was the norm and all it was at school was detention


----------



## Acatalepsy (May 17, 2010)

It's an acquired taste, I think, but one well worth acquiring. It took some time for me to get into, but dissonant music is really enjoyable to me now, and a lot of my favorite artists write in that style (Ulcerate, Olivier Messiaen, post Si Monumentum Deathspell Omega...)

People occasionally give me grief about it, but I don't really care, because I really love the music. I also remember what this kind of thing sounded like to me before I 'cracked' it, so I let them off, for fear of being hypocritical...


----------



## kung_fu (May 17, 2010)

EliNoPants said:


> making dissonant music for the sake of making dissonant music is different than making dissonant music for the sake of making the listener feel distressed or uncomfortable, one is doing it almost more as a technical exercise, the other is doing it either as an expression, or an attempt to evoke those feelings
> 
> it's the same with any musical tool/technique/style, there are people who get so caught up in the technical aspects of it that they forget to use it to create art and express something...but there are also those who use it well enough to not only express, but get the listener to feel the same things too...that is the point where it goes from just playing an instrument to creating art via the instrument



 True, though making the artistic choice to work exclusively with dissonance, I feel, is totally valid. It's like an artist choosing to work exclusively in clay, or utilizing only certain colors. Like you said though, its all about expressing something. If you can't convey your feelings through your music, you're stuck in that emo "nobody understands me" mode .


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 17, 2010)

kung_fu said:


> If you can't convey your feelings through your music, you're stuck in that emo "nobody understands me" mode .


----------



## cycloptopus (May 17, 2010)

To the op. I think it's worth mentioning that you have these thoughts because you are thinking ahead of the curve. Most people only want to hear music that sounds "nice". That's all they search for. For you and/or descerning music lovers of all types, that's not all that's out there. You may be searching for new sounds because you're tired of "nice" and you want more/new sounds. The more "out" the better because it is the anti-"nice". But that's because you're hungry and you've got a brain to feed.


----------



## Antenna (May 17, 2010)

cycloptopus said:


> To the op. I think it's worth mentioning that you have these thoughts because you are thinking ahead of the curve. Most people only want to hear music that sounds "nice". That's all they search for. For you and/or descerning music lovers of all types, that's not all that's out there. You may be searching for new sounds because you're tired of "nice" and you want more/new sounds. The more "out" the better because it is the anti-"nice". But that's because you're hungry and you've got a brain to feed.


 
You sir have said it perfectly, its what seperates the activist from the news watcher. Hunger to know whats outside the box.


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2010)

Some foods are easy for everyone to understand. Normally, the more center of the road a food is, the more universally liked it is. Sweet and/or fatty are appreciated across the world, although some prefer them in small doses.

As soon as one moves to more extreme tastes, fewer people will enjoy it. One starts to educate one's palate in order to appreciate more nuances. Some folks might just go to the spiciest food possible. Some will search out foods like jumping salad (with live shrimp moving around) for the experience, regardless of how it tastes to most. 

----

There are some kinds of music which are easy for everyone to understand. Even though a lot of music taste comes from the cultural matrix one grows up in, simple chordal development and easy harmony are common for many musics.

As one moves to more extreme musics, fewer people will enjoy it. One starts to educate one's ear in order to appreciate more nuances. Some folks might just go to the most difficult music possible. Some will search out music like (insert type of music which discards normal ideas of harmony/melody/progression) for the experience, regardless of how it sounds to most.

----

For most people moving beyond the lowest common denominator, the greatest music contains musical surprise, with introduction of themes, and then changes which elude expectations... but without moving too far away from where it was to begin with. 

I've heard all kinds of modern metal and classical music where someone composed something which didn't satisfy my need for well developed musical surprise. A lot of people in both genres feel that they have to throw away all the rules in order to write something truly original. I've laughed when I've been at classical concerts divided between old and new compositions; at the point where it's clear what's being developed is just rhythmic ideas which don't fall easily on the ear, and which don't have any kind of understandable melody to boot, the old folks leave in droves. 

----

I'm in an interesting place when I read a lot of the posts here on SS.org. Although I do listen to some metal (and attended the Monsters of Metal before it turned to Ozzfest, for those who know how long ago that was), I'm definitely in the minority here in terms of musical tastes. I like well written music off all genres, and can even talk intelligently about how certain money chord progressions have appeared in pop music over the years (like, for example, the hit-generating chord progression used in both NSYNC's "It's Gonna Be Me" and Rob Thomas' "Lonely No More"). 

Does it bother me that I'm probably the only one here who listens to the works of Astor Piazzolla? That I'm a fan of the works Barry Manilow chose to record early on, both self-written and from others? Not at all! Why should I care about someone not liking '80s King Crimson? I know what I like, and I can't imagine having bought Bruce Springsteen's "The River" instead. (And yes, I had to order the f**king CDs from Germany because I couldn't get them from a normal music store in the US at the time, and yet they had "The River" in every store with a huge display!)

There's no accounting for tastes, and although I can point out that I'm greatly satisfied by strong writing (melodically, chordally and lyrically) and great arrangements, that doesn't mean that a music is necessarily bad if I can't find a hook from which to hang some enjoyment. 

----

Who cares if they don't like your music? However, there is one more thing in the posts to be dealt with... how rude some can be without a second thought. There are remedies for that.

The classy thing to do, in my opinion, is to comment cheerfully... "Wow! I find it interesting when someone is so negative towards others! I try to be kind to others... but I guess we just come from different backgrounds! Thanks, though!" When said in a genuinely friendly way, the people start to feel like complete dicks... which is obviously a delayed but much deserved reaction, given how they've been acting like exactly that.

And, even if they just get annoyed, I guarantee you that they will be turning over what you said and getting mad, because they can't really turn your cheerfulness against you, and the only thing you noticed was that they were negative. What are they going to do, insult you? That just points out their lack of kindness even further. Knowing you've given a gift that keeps on giving warms the heart, don't you think? *laugh*


----------



## Antenna (May 17, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Knowing you've given a gift that keeps on giving warms the heart, don't you think? *laugh*


 
so what I gathered from that is if someone doesn't like your music, give them herpes?


----------



## MSalonen (May 17, 2010)

cycloptopus said:


> To the op. I think it's worth mentioning that you have these thoughts because you are thinking ahead of the curve. Most people only want to hear music that sounds "nice". That's all they search for. For you and/or descerning music lovers of all types, that's not all that's out there. You may be searching for new sounds because you're tired of "nice" and you want more/new sounds. The more "out" the better because it is the anti-"nice". But that's because you're hungry and you've got a brain to feed.



While I understand and mostly agree with your logic, I have a problem with the inference that something that sounds "nice" lacks depth.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 18, 2010)

One of my favorite examples is Gorguts, most people I know will be like, "Wtf is this shit". But they're one of those bands you have to keep listening to in order to appreciate.


----------



## Necris (May 18, 2010)

I love gorguts to death, hearing they had reformed made my year.
Some more discordant music:


----------



## getaway_fromme (May 18, 2010)

It's all OPINION. If someone says your stuff sucks, then that's all them. Don't get mad, just ignore them. You OBVIOUSLY aren't writing it for them. 

On the other hand, everyone is welcome to fuckin hate whatever they want to, if they understand it or not, it doesn't matter and it's not really your place to tell them that they're wrong or ignorant, they just simply don't like it. I, for the most part, hate discordant music even if there is a pattern or solid idea, it doesn't matter if i HATE it. I completely understand it from a historical perspective but you can't make me like it. I don't want you to!

So, however your music sounds, don't get mad at other people who don't like it. They will always let their hate be known. And don't blame them for hating it, just hate them


----------



## snuif09 (May 18, 2010)

i dont really care what others think about it i just perceive music different i dont want to dance to it i want to think about it while i listen to it.
my favorite a-tonal band is pretty much portal =)

love my self some sunn O))) too


----------



## cycloptopus (May 18, 2010)

MSalonen said:


> While I understand and mostly agree with your logic, I have a problem with the inference that something that sounds "nice" lacks depth.


 For the record, I'm a huge fan of Vivaldi and Mozart, which I would call "nice" music. I agree, just because it's "nice" doesn't mean it doesn't have depth. I didn't mean to infer otherwise.


----------



## The Somberlain (May 18, 2010)

I will give you the gift of STOCKHAUSEN!!!

```
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N1ta1nXIdyg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N1ta1nXIdyg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
```
and if it doesn't work: YouTube - Stockhausen, Klavierstuck IX


----------



## Acatalepsy (May 18, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> One of my favorite examples is Gorguts, most people I know will be like, "Wtf is this shit". But they're one of those bands you have to keep listening to in order to appreciate.



Gorguts is blatantly the business!


----------



## jymellis (May 18, 2010)

does anal cunt count?


----------



## shredfreak (May 18, 2010)

Can listen to gorguts all day here but when i listened to that sun vid i pretty much kept waiting to hear something interesting. producing feedback is not music imo


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 18, 2010)

The Somberlain said:


>




Fixed. The tag for Youtube videos is


----------



## MSalonen (May 18, 2010)

cycloptopus said:


> For the record, I'm a huge fan of Vivaldi and Mozart, which I would call "nice" music. I agree, just because it's "nice" doesn't mean it doesn't have depth. I didn't mean to infer otherwise.



Fair enough.  

In that case I believe your previous statement is very much in accordance with my own opinion.


----------



## jymellis (May 18, 2010)

snuif09 said:


> i




int this the wylde stallyns? their picking technique is so similar


----------



## telecaster90 (May 18, 2010)




----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 18, 2010)

If your into SunnO))) Check out Nadja as well.


----------



## Necris (May 18, 2010)

I don't really consider Sunn to be discordant at all. Their songs are _usually_ fairly tonal, the relatively large time between chords just makes it less apparent.


----------



## The Somberlain (May 18, 2010)

SchecterWhore said:


> Fixed. The tag for Youtube videos is


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 19, 2010)

snuif09 said:


>




In ancient times,
Hundreds of years before the dawn of history,
Lived a strange race of people... the Druids!

No one knows
who they were
or...
what they were doing.

But their legacy remains,
hewn into the living rock
of Stonehenge


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 19, 2010)

telecaster90 said:


>




Shoenburg (sic?) is a genius. Does anybody know of other dissonant composers? I'v been looking for a faster version of Shoenburg but can't seem to find anybody


----------



## getaway_fromme (May 19, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> Shoenburg (sic?) is a genius. Does anybody know of other dissonant composers? I'v been looking for a faster version of Shoenburg but can't seem to find anybody




In the Western Art Music realm?

Shostakovich
Stravinsky
Milhaud
Messiaen
Wagner (to some extent)
SCANDINAVIAN choral composers of the 20th century nailed the Post Tonal beauty in my book)
Charles Ives
Satie
Liszt's late works
Poulenc
Debussy (impressionistic, but still somewhat discordant for the time)
Ligeti
Anton Webern
Alban Berg
Gesualdo! (for his time!)



I'll think of more later


----------



## Necris (May 19, 2010)

I like Leo Ornstein alot. On youtube check out: YouTube - musicaignotus's Channel
YouTube - Hexameron's Channel
YouTube - John11inch's Channel
They have quite a bit of dissonant modern works between their channels. Musicaignotus is actually hexamerons new channel.


----------



## Antimatter (May 19, 2010)

jymellis said:


> does anal cunt count?


 
I hope you aren't a fan, because that would make you gay


----------



## John Strieder (May 21, 2010)

I deeply love this one:


(unfortunately bad sound quality in this video)

This is great too:


----------



## John Strieder (May 21, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> Shoenburg (sic?) is a genius. Does anybody know of other dissonant composers? I'v been looking for a faster version of Shoenburg but can't seem to find anybody



Oh yeah, *Arnold Schönberg*!  He's my forever Idol 
Well, faster? Do you mean faster piano pieces (I would suggest pieces by Elliott Carter then), or Schoenberg's pieces faster played?  Search for his 3. and 4. String Quartet (and the String Trio) played by the Arditti Quartet. They play those Quartets more brutal and faster than other Quartets. The Ardittis play 99% modern and contemporary music, a lot of premieres, they're fantastic.

BTW, as you mention Gorguts, did you checked out Negativa already?


----------



## Espaul (May 23, 2010)

Just found this vid from Mats/morgan. I'm familiar with some of their work, but I've never heard one before  It intrigues me that it is discordant and classically melodic at the same time!

Song starts about 1:20


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 23, 2010)

Espaul said:


> Just found this vid from Mats/morgan. I'm familiar with some of their work, but I've never heard one before  It intrigues me that it is discordant and classically melodic at the same time!
> 
> Song starts about 1:20




You should check out some of the Canterbury scene jazz fusion if you like this sort of thing.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jun 12, 2010)

Schoenberg's "Serenade"
Here's the first movement


John Zorn's "Magick" Album (Basically a musical 'description' of the Necrnomicon)


Deathspell Omega


Portal


Ornette Coleman


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jun 12, 2010)

Schoenberg's "Serenade"
Here's the first movement


John Zorn's "Magick" Album (Basically a musical 'description' of the Necrnomicon)


Deathspell Omega


Portal


Ornette Coleman


----------



## Antimatter (Jun 12, 2010)

That Portal song is scary D:


----------



## natspotats (Jun 13, 2010)

i have a nice quote from Metal: A headbangers journey i like to think of whenever someone says the stuff i listen to is a less valid form of music.

"Either you feel it or you dont; if metal doesnt give you that overwhelming surge of power and make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, you might never get it, and you know what, thats alright; because judging by the 40000 metal heads standing around me, we're doing just fine without ya"


----------



## Jtizzle (Jun 13, 2010)

Pisses me off the most in Jazz, which is why it's so unappreciated nowadays. 
Usually when improvising over a diminished, augmented, or any form scale which is not Ionian, Dorian, Lydian, or Myxolydian it usually sounds dissonant, which is actually something really hard to think of to play and make it end up sounding good, people don't appreciate things like this when they don't know the process of actually thinking to play over such chord, or progression.


----------



## xwmucradiox (Jun 13, 2010)

MSalonen said:


> While I personally don't enjoy listening to or playing discordant music, it's obvious that musicians like Jarzombek are very conscious and deliberate in what they are doing, and are amazingly competent. It may not be the kind of thing I enjoy, but I try to give credit and respect where it's due.
> 
> That said, I also feel like a lot of players and "musicians" abuse the idea of music being discordant for the sake of purposely trying to make it complicated, abstract, jazzy (when it's very much not), evil/heavy (in the case of a lot of metal bands). And they do so without real comprehension of what they're doing, and like it almost purely for its own sake. Rather than, for example, a player like Loomis using diminished melodies for explicit and well executed purpose.
> 
> ...



I see this all the time where people say players make atonal music because they dont know anything about theory or dont have the knowledge to put together a well crafted piece of melodic music. It seems so narrow minded to me. I get the impression that theory snobs believe you have to earn the right to play an outside note by knowing every inside note available to you and then shirking them to step outside the box. But more often than not, people who play atonal music know exactly what they want and work hard to make it sound like that they want. Some people just like the emotional response to a dissonant tone and like creating music around those intervals.


----------



## darbdavys (Jun 13, 2010)

Spondus said:


> I hear you, my girlfriend almost vomits whenever I play any Blotted Science. I don't think anyone is pushing the boundaries further than Ron Jarzombek, his circle of tones makes for some music unlike anything I've heard before.



Oh, there's a lot of contemporary classical composers, who are pushing the boundaries much further. Take Luciano Berio for example (my favoutite contemp. classical composer) 

But yes, I hate the opinion that if it's not conventional - it ain't music.


----------



## John Strieder (Mar 7, 2011)




----------



## Kali Yuga (Mar 7, 2011)

It should be perfectly understandable why most people would prefer Taylor Swift over Cannibal Corpse.


----------



## John Strieder (Mar 7, 2011)

Kali Yuga said:


> It should be perfectly understandable why most people would prefer Taylor Swift over Cannibal Corpse.



Cause of indifference and conditioning.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 7, 2011)

John Strieder said:


> Cause of indifference and conditioning.



Without my having actually heard either band, I have a prediction.

Taylor Swift probably has easily understood melodies and chords, Cannibal Corpse doesn't. Taylor Swift's music can be sung by the average voice and person, Cannibal Corpse's can't. Taylor Swift's music can be easily sung while being accompanied by an acoustic guitar, Cannibal Corpse's can't.

Am I right?

There doesn't have to be any guesswork as to why even some heavier bands like AC/DC are accessible to the general public. It doesn't have to do with indifference or conditioning at all, because AC/DC managed to do it. 

But you can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better....


----------



## John Strieder (Mar 8, 2011)

Conditioning is everything! We all grow up with a very specific kind of music (that type puked out of the radio all day long). That's for us "normal" and "nature" just cause of this fact.

But let us take a look at the music of other cultures. Try to sing their tunes. Enjoy:


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Mar 8, 2011)

This thread made me think of food. I like chilli, but I don't get bothered if others don't, I just enjoy my chilli, plus, it means more for me. 

Rock on!


----------



## John Strieder (Mar 8, 2011)

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> This thread made me think of food. I like chilli, but I don't get bothered if others don't, I just enjoy my chilli, plus, it means more for me.



Yes  But what if there are people saying, that Chilli tastes awful and it's unenjoyable? What if they don't stop telling you you're doing wrong? What if there are articles in Newspapers who want to objectively prove it? There are some people out there who have nothing better to do than that  .


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Mar 8, 2011)

John Strieder said:


> Yes  But what if there are people saying, that Chilli tastes awful and it's unenjoyable? What if they don't stop telling you you're doing wrong? What if there are articles in Newspapers who want to objectively prove it? There are some people out there who have nothing better to do than that  and that's the problem.


 
I get where you are coming from, I just don't care if someone else tells me my personal opinions are wrong, cause they are just opinions. The problem only really exists when you let it.

Plenty of people have told me that the music I listen to sucks, doesn't mean it's true, and I still enjoy it just as much as I always do.

What everyone needs to keep in mind is that art is NEVER a popularity contest. Like others have said, haters gotta hate. Good luck to 'em, while they waste their time with pointless hate i'll be enjoying my bowl of chilli while rocking out to Iron Maiden. 

Rock on!


----------



## Explorer (Mar 8, 2011)

For those who argue that music from different cultures are too alient to be accessible... there are lots of musics which are more accessible than Cannibal Corpse. That's why so many Americans listen to Indian music, to the point of loving Bollywood extravaganzas, and being able to relax to the strains of Chinese pop music while sitting in a Chinese restaurant. 

Is anyone seriously going to assert that Indian and Chinese music are more familiar to the average American than Cannibal Corpse, as opposed to being more accessible?

And, again, how did AC/DC do it?


----------



## -42- (Mar 8, 2011)

Listen to what you want.

Make this your manta:


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 8, 2011)

Explorer said:


> For those who argue that music from different cultures are too alient to be accessible... there are lots of musics which are more accessible than Cannibal Corpse. That's why so many Americans listen to Indian music, to the point of loving Bollywood extravaganzas, and being able to relax to the strains of Chinese pop music while sitting in a Chinese restaurant.
> 
> Is anyone seriously going to assert that Indian and Chinese music are more familiar to the average American than Cannibal Corpse, as opposed to being more accessible?
> 
> And, again, how did AC/DC do it?



Taylor Swift and AC/DC make music for non-discerning ears. It's music that comes to you. Cannibal Corpse, on the other hand, is for people who are looking for something specific in their music. People gotta seek it out. If I ask the average Taylor Swift, AC/DC, or Cannibal Corpse listener if they like the keyboard sonate of Domenico Scarlatti, they probably won't have any idea what I'm talking about, because it's something they haven't sought out. If I ask the same people what they think of Justin Bieber, they will probably have an opinion, as that music has likely at some point reached their ears through it radio propagation. It's all about exposure.



-42- said:


> Make this your manta:









Also, let's get some gagaku up in here.


----------



## carcass (Apr 25, 2011)

guys, i have got one question on Elliott Carter .. does guitar tab for his compositions Shard or Changes (both solo on guitar) exist? because i am dying to try to learn it, but i have no tab, no sheet, nothing at all and i am not able to find anything


----------



## John Strieder (Apr 25, 2011)

carcass said:


> guys, i have got one question on Elliott Carter .. does guitar tab for his compositions Shard or Changes (both solo on guitar) exist? because i am dying to try to learn it, but i have no tab, no sheet, nothing at all and i am not able to find anything



Great! 

You can get both at Sheetmusicplus (I bought mine there too):

Shard sheet music by Elliott Carter (190 | Sheet Music Plus

Changes sheet music by Elliott Carter (190 | Sheet Music Plus


----------



## Lon (Apr 25, 2011)

turn it around, why cant dissonant music be liked for the sake of dissonance?

the first time i listened to beneath the massacre i appreciated them for taking speed and wankery to the next level, i could not comprehend any of the music at all... now i am able to play a few songs by them and if they release a new song it is accessible to my ear, i can singleout beats, patterns, "melodies" and pronounciations, but it all started with the liking of doing something insane, to push the boundaries... 


and sometimes, i firmly believe this, boundaries can only be pushed when doing it for the sake of pushing it...


----------



## Leaper (Apr 25, 2011)

getaway_fromme said:


> In the Western Art Music realm?Shostakovich



Hellz yeah!


----------



## Murmel (Apr 25, 2011)

John Strieder said:


> I love to play atonal _and_ dissonant - simply cause I love how it sounds  Why should I play (or hear) music I don't like?
> 
> But I don't see the point in mentioning in this Thread, that people do things without "comprehension of what they're doing". Cause those are everywhere, regardless of the musical approach
> 
> When you say "purely for its own sake", what would be the opposite/better in your opinion?


I actually also enjoy how it sounds. I don't nearly enjoy listening to it as much as I enjoy playing it though  Same thing with ambient music, I effing love playing it, I can sit for hours just playing random minimalistic shit. But I get bored easily while listening to it.


----------



## John Strieder (Apr 25, 2011)

eat this


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 25, 2011)

Personally my favorite music has a nice balance and will very likely have some supremely melodic elements while being counterbalanced with atonal or discordant elements.

Listening to music too far in either direction tends to get me irritated myself.

I agree with MoM as well, most people are not musicians and just like something pleasant to listen to.


----------



## John Strieder (Apr 25, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Personally my favorite music has a nice balance and will very likely have some supremely melodic elements while being counterbalanced with atonal or discordant elements. Listening to music too far in either direction tends to get me irritated myself.



As I personally don't like "melodic elements", exploring new bands is often really really frustrating to me. Often a Song starts great (to me), and then some "melodic element", sounding like the Sc*rpions or whatever occurs. That's kind of irritating to me! I think I need to open a Thread to collect suggestions about bands without such Elements :\


----------



## carcass (Apr 25, 2011)

there was a post of Elliott Carter´s song Shard performed on 8-string electric guitar earlier in this thread .. the same guitarist probably on the same session performed this following piece and I love it:



recently I really dig in such music /,,/


----------



## John Strieder (Apr 25, 2011)




----------



## Remission (Apr 26, 2011)

Excellent thread. Though the first thing that came to mind was King Crimson.


----------



## UltimateDooM (Apr 26, 2011)

New recording of Elliott Carter's _Shard_ by Daniel Lippel. It is better than the old one.


----------



## guitareben (Apr 27, 2011)

People have differing opinions on stuff  Some people like stuff, others don't...

Though i wish people wouldn't use ones opinion on something as a reason to hate/abuse or whatever ^^

And i wish people would open their mind and ears a bit too


----------



## petereanima (Apr 27, 2011)




----------



## New Age Moron (Apr 27, 2011)

Madness.


----------



## John Strieder (Apr 27, 2011)




----------



## carcass (Jun 13, 2011)

another great composer is Brian Ferneyhough, here are some examples:


----------



## Floppystrings (Jun 13, 2011)

If you hate people for real...

Then making the unpleasant music you like becomes easier. 

How do you accomplish this? Well...go shopping at Wal-mart and watch the news a lot. lol


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

Okay, guys.

There is a huge difference between "dissonant" and "atonal." Let me see if I can explain it quickly and easily.

"Dissonant" refers to a certain class of interval -- namely, the second (major or minor), diminished fifth, major, minor, and diminished seventh, etc. Even smooth jazz uses dissonance -- an A9 chord (A, C#, E, G, B) contains dissonances, an augmented sixth chord (jazz guys would think of it as something like F7 in the key of Em, I think) sounds really weird to untrained ears. But dissonance is part of tonal, "evil radio easy-listening" music too. It's *absolutely necessary along with consonance* to the "push and pull" of tonal music, and that includes Decrepit Birth and Necrophagist (although one might argue that they're more modal, since they don't seem to use anything that feels like a V chord to me). (For further reading: Consonance and dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

"Atonal" refers to a compositional attitude(EDIT: probably not correct. "approach" would be a better word), and is to be contrasted with "tonal" music -- see Schoenberg vs. Mozart, early Prokofiev vs. Beethoven (<3 Soviet-era modernist composers, by the way). Atonal music tends to be either "cell-based" or "serial" -- the former sounds awesome, the latter sounds like utter shit to my ears; but it's still atonal and dissonant, just boring.

Tonal music has specific patterns of consonance and dissonance that create a specific feel, and set up expectations -- the cool part about this is that when expectations are already formed, it's easy to break them. Note that this is not the same as modal music: Tonal music is only major or minor, at least in the Western tradition I (more or less) have an education in. If you were to use, say, Dorian mode in a tonal piece with tonal chords (that is to say, chords that follow the specific patterns of tension and resolution associated with Western common-practice-period music, or pop music, or jazz -- they're fairly similar), it would still be tonal, and it would still be in a minor key.

Now someone come correct me on everything I got wrong. 

EDIT 2: To make you all feel like shit, I'm going to post this:


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 13, 2011)

failshredder said:


> Now someone come correct me on everything I got wrong.



I'll start with the part in your post which was very wrong: the part about atonal and serial music.


*"Tonal"* means basically that there's a dominating fundamental note.
*"Atonal"* means, that no note or not only one note is dominating the others.

I like to add, that "Atonal" is a word created just by press and not by composers or music scientists. Although it's widely accepted, it's not a correct musical term.

Correct terms would be: *"polytonal"* and *"pantonal"*.
"poly" is greek for "many"or "much".
"pan" is greek for "all", "the whole" etc. 

*"Dodecaphony"* or "Twelve-Note Technique" is not a style and doesn't necessary have to be "Atonal" music. "Serial" stands basically for a motiv organistation form, which helps to create coherence through every part of music is based on a specific interval configuration (of 12 notes). It's a very open system and was developed by many different composers to many different directions.

*"Serial"* means, that not only a interval configuration (not necessary 12 notes) is used, but also - for example - a configuration of durations.




Three random examples for *serial* music:


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

John Strieder said:


> I'll start with the part in your post which was very wrong: the part about atonal and serial music.
> 
> *"Tonal"* means basically that there's a dominating fundamental note.
> *"Atonal"* means, that no note or not only one note is dominating the others.



I'm not exactly sure how what you're saying here is incompatible with what I said. My post was not aimed at you or anyone else who knows what s/he's talking about, but at the myriad posts that basically consisted of "yeah man all that stuff on the radio suxxxxxx and discordant music is just way more gooder why they gotta hate."



> I like to add, that "Atonal" is a word created just by press and not by composers or music scientists. Although it's widely accepted, it's not a correct musical term.



I took quite a lot of music theory in college. The word "atonal" as used quite frequently by the professors there, with the caveat that some people prefer different terms. Also, I'd like to point out that while what music scientists think certainly has weight, what composers think almost never does - theory arises to describe what they're doing, not the other way around.



> *"Serial"* is not a style and doesn't necessary have to be "Atonal" music. "Serial" stands basically for a motiv organistation form, which helps to create coherence through every part of music is based on a specific interval configuration. It's a very open system and was developed by many different composers to many different directions.



This one's a pretty fair objection. I should have said "12-tone technique" a la later Schoenberg or, uhh, was it Berg? -- I was only on my first cup of coffee, sue me.



> "Serial" means, that not only a interval configuration (not necessary 12 notes) is used, but also - for example - a configuration of durations.



I respectfully disagree. "Serial" refers to serialization of any musical element, not necessarily all, most or even more than one of them -- thus why I was wrong to refer so broadly to 12-tone technique as serialism.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

> Modern music that is of a style that is not ordinary, i.e. it is not in any particular key, follows a pattern that is not necessarily conventional, or even has an 'abrasive' timbre is, for the most part, completely blocked out and is responded to in a very rude way


 
Have you ever tried speaking to someone in an unconventional manner or with a harsh or abrasive tone? Was their reaction to this any different?

And perhaps the reason ppl don't like this kind of music is because ppl get all uber-nerd-elitist when talking about it... 

It's intimidating to even approach for some ppl I'm sure.

And what the hell is a music scientist? Is it that serious?


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 13, 2011)

failshredder said:


> The word "atonal" as used quite frequently by the professors there, with the caveat that some people prefer different terms. Also, I'd like to point out that while what music scientists think certainly has weight, what composers think almost never does - theory arises to describe what they're doing, not the other way around.



I don't understand your point. But I guess your words are based on romantic ideas of composers who receive their music through the holy spirit without knowing what they do.



> This one's a pretty fair objection. I should have said "12-tone technique" a la later Schoenberg or, uhh, was it Berg?



Schoenberg of Course ....



> I respectfully disagree. "Serial" refers to serialization of any musical element, not necessarily all or most of them [...]



Why do you say you disagree and then repeat the content of my sentence?  Maybe there's a bit misunderstanding going on, on both sides


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Have you ever tried speaking to someone in an unconventional manner or with a harsh or abrasive tone? Was their reaction to this any different?



 What's your reaction when listening to Metal?



> It's intimidating to even approach for some ppl I'm sure.



My point usually is: Just listen and enjoy.



> And what the hell is a music scientist? Is it that serious?



Music scientists are people making professional statements like "sounds like utter shit".


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

First off: I have a sneaking suspicion that we are talking at cross purposes here: the only actual argument I see is over terms, not actual musical concepts.



John Strieder said:


> I don't understand your point. But I guess your words are based on romantic ideas of composers who receive their music through the holy spirit without knowing what they do.


Nope, I'm agnostic-leaning-towards-atheist. But Schoenberg's early "atonal" (or "pantonal," if you prefer) music certainly follows specific rules that, if I remember right, were only actually codified much later by a music theorist. Given the way the human brain works, many people at many times create brilliant things without realizing what they're doing; that is, the musical machinery of the brain is largely semi-conscious at best. But back on topic: "Atonal" is no longer a pejorative term. It's a good way to contrast music that's not all about I-V-I with the music that is (i.e., tonal music).



> Why do you say you disagree and then repeat the content of my sentence?  Maybe there's a bit misunderstanding going on, on both sides



I think so. 



> And what the hell is a music scientist? Is it that serious?


Yeah, it's someone who studies the structure of music. Most famous composers aren't completely (partially, maybe, but not completely) aware of anything really innovative that they do, so the people that actually codify and write down the "rules" of music are the ones who are studying what's already there. Music theory as a science (as opposed to music theory classes in college) is descriptive, not prescriptive, much like linguistics as a science vs. native-language classes in middle school.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

My musical tastes are quite broad, sir. But you can't expect everyone to be this way. "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...?"


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

failshredder said:


> Nope, I'm agnostic-leaning-towards-atheist.


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


>



UMAD BRO

I grew up around a lot of people who actually believed that, say, Mozart (whom they considered the high point of music ever written and ever to be written) received his music directly from God. Thus I tend to overclarify some things. 



> Music scientists are people making professional statements like "sounds like utter shit".



If they're on the internet, they just might, especially if they finish that sentence with "...to my ears," like I did. I wasn't attacking your art or art you enjoy, however serial it may be. I just don't find 12-tone technique and total serialism aesthetically appealing, for the most part. Ligeti certainly has some cool stuff.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

Good for you...?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

**Deleted**

It just doesn't matter


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

John Strieder said:


> My point usually is: Just listen and enjoy.


 
As is mine, sir. The thing I was getting at is that the type of music OP is describing typically comes along with some stuck up self-proclaimed musical genius (or scientist ) who'll vehemently protest anything you say that doesn't go along the lines of "This is the absolute best music I've ever heard."

Everyone's perception of beauty is different, dig?

I like a lot of atonal music. I'm not speaking against it. I'm just saying I understand why the general public doesn't go crazy over it.


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> You still haven't explained why I as a musician should give a rat's ass. I could make music I enjoy w/ or w/o a "scientist" to tell me it's "right."
> 
> In fact...
> 
> That's what ppl did to begin with which is what I assume led those who could not do it to study it in the first place.



Hell, go for it. I just find that having some knowledge of theory expands my musical vocabulary, as it were. But you definitely don't need to do so to make good music.


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> **Deleted**
> 
> It just doesn't matter



Konfyouzd, of course you don't need to "give an rat's ass", but two more more people should be free discussion musical terms, no? 

This thread is full of great music videos to hear


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2011)

More power to you. Just seems silly is all. It just seems like a lot of these threads pop up saying "Why you no like the kind of music I like?" Then the conversation that ensues immediately answers the question.


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

On a completely different note, I love how much editing of our posts the three of us have done in the last two hours.


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Everyone's perception of beauty is different, dig?



So true. But the problem is, that a lot of people think, only their own perception is true. And there are people who fight against what is in their perception ugly, bad, etc. etc. that's what I am usually talking against 



failshredder said:


> On a completely different note, I love how much editing of our posts the three of us have done in the last two hours.



 I'm preparing for my next edit!

Edit:



failshredder said:


> especially if they finish that sentence with "...to my ears," like I did. I wasn't attacking your art or art you enjoy, however serial it may be. I just don't find 12-tone technique and total serialism aesthetically appealing, for the most part.



Ok, but such a general statements can only be wrong. You don't know all pieces ever composed in this technique, and if you know the technique itself, you should also know that you can generate (especially with regular 12-tone technique) any style with it  Besides the examples I posted, think of Bergs Violin Concerto, Weberns Symphony op. 21, ... It's just a technique, not a style 

Edit 2: To post something productive ...


----------



## UltimateDooM (Jun 13, 2011)

failshredder, i do not agree with your posts and your opinion. I also want to point out that in your comparison of the two terms "serial" and "atonal" you have been writing with a certain claim for universal correctness, while actually you have been posting your opinion.


----------



## failshredder (Jun 13, 2011)

UltimateDooM said:


> failshredder, i do not agree with your posts and your opinion. I also want to point out that in your comparison of the two terms "serial" and "atonal" you have been writing with a certain claim for universal correctness, while actually you have been posting your opinion.



My original post was to put a bit of perspective on the "man this music sounds crazy therefore it is more complex" posts that were scattered all over this thread. My opinion is intertwined with the actual facts that I know, but it shouldn't be too hard to disentangle the two.

OTOH, you are named after a totally awesome video game.



> Ok, but such a general statements can only be wrong. You don't know all pieces ever composed in this technique, and if you know the technique itself, you should also know that you can generate (especially with regular 12-tone technique) any style with it Besides the examples I posted, think of Bergs Violin Concerto, Weberns Symphony op. 21, ... It's just a technique, not a style



On this point you have convinced me, or at least convinced me to go listen to more serial music. I am continually looking for more tools and new sounds with which to write metal (about to take up jazz harmony lessons, actually), so I'm going to take your advice and go listen to Berg and Webern. 

EDIT: Now I want to go write 12-tone brutal-tech-death, just to be a wanker.


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 13, 2011)

failshredder said:


> EDIT: Now I want to go write 12-tone brutal-tech-death, just to be a wanker.



Notice me when I can buy the CD


----------



## TheKindred (Jun 13, 2011)

anyone else ever listen to Scott Walker's later stuff?

Waaay back in the day he was a successful crooner type and then fame and coin made him a bit nutty. He went recluse and then came back and made some really cool "out there" type stuff.

I'm too lazy to look up some of the more interesting songs, so here's the first one that popped into my head.


----------



## CrownofWorms (Jun 13, 2011)

I approve of this thread.

Anyway would Immolation count?


----------



## Explorer (Jun 14, 2011)

Since the subject of editing one's posts has come up...



John Strieder said:


> Konfyouzd, of course you don't need to "give an rat's ass", but *two people should be free to discuss musical terms, no?*



...I'm assuming this was the intention.

Or, in the shorthand of Sevenstring.org... fixed! *laugh*

----

Regarding being able to describe structures, my writing is more effective because I know the parts of speech and how to use them. Sure, I *cudda wing dit*, but there comes a point where understanding how the parts work and how to better put them together makes one a stronger communicator, in the same way that knowing about musical structures and knowing how to put them together makes one a more effective musician. 

Not everyone wants to learn so much about it, and that's valid, but it's just as valid to go in the other direction.

----

Was I to understand that someone didn't think music, like language, has structures which emerge and which are later described, as opposed to having structures defined ahead of time? I always view music like a never ending evolution of language, with pidgins, creoles and full-blown grammars emerging constantly, depending on what someone starts with. Maybe it's that study of the mechanisms of second language acquisition that make it seem so normal to me. 

I must have misread something. I would think that musical theory would be descriptive rather than definitive.


----------



## carcass (Sep 11, 2011)

CrownofWorms said:


> I approve of this thread.
> 
> Anyway would Immolation count?



Close to the World Below  Immolation is one of the best examples of death metal with weird and yet interesting "melodies" if you wish.


----------



## carcass (Sep 11, 2011)

by an accident I found today composer Arthur Kampela, some interesting stuff here:





and a little interview with him:


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 22, 2012)

enjoy ...


----------



## nickgray (Jun 22, 2012)




----------



## John Strieder (Jun 22, 2012)

enjoy this one too ...


----------



## anthonyferguson (Jun 22, 2012)

Cheers for the bump dude! Enjoying these contributions.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 22, 2012)

@Carcass - Dude on the violin is SICK. Reminds me of Tom and Jerry music.


----------



## Ninjahat (Jun 22, 2012)

Although I don't have TOO much to ad that hasn't been said, I think Konfyouzd is right. I make/enjoy dissonant music, but it's perfectly reasonable why other people wouldn't/don't. It takes a fair bit of "dipping your toes in the pool" so to speak, to really start getting into dissonant music, atleast for me. Another side is that I've found that alot of the people (myself included until recently) that play/listen to atonal stuff get *really*defensive when it comes to criticism e.g "You don't understand" or some other crap, when really you can't blame somebody for not liking it (then proceeding to berate pop music *ironic much?*). If somebody says they dislike it in some way or another, I've found it best to suck it up and keep it to myself. Also pop rules, I think it's interesting to make atonal stuff as catchy/poppy as I can! Makes for a good composition and tasteful writing excersise/leads to some cool songs!


----------



## John Strieder (Jun 22, 2012)

Ninjahat said:


> Another side is that I've found that alot of the people (myself included until recently) that play/listen to atonal stuff get *really*defensive when it comes to criticism



Of course, everybody is free to listen what he wants  But those who dislike "discordant" music started this war, not the "discordant"-lovers. Back in 1908 ...

btw., besides I don't care about pop, your musical approach reminds me mine, if I understood you correctly. Instead of going from the tonal side and their strict rules and add stuff so it sounds bad but still good   , I go freely from the atonal side and their unlimited possibilities and see what sounds good to me


----------



## Sikthness (Jun 22, 2012)

Discordant music can be so rewarding once it starts to 'click'. it took quite some time for me, even w/ metal I started off liking the melodic death metal bands most, w/ strong, easilly recognizable melodies up front. Now, I've grown to really love dissonance, and in a way find bands like Deathspell Omega and Ulcerate to be as beautiful in their own way to really melodic bands. I always urge people to give it a shot, even if it takes a little work. Its certainly not for everyone, and thats cool, but imo they are really missing out.


----------



## John Strieder (Jul 17, 2012)

A new facebook-Page with Discordant Music, sorted by Years. Enjoy:

*DissonanceIsAwesome | Facebook*


----------



## Polythoral (Jul 17, 2012)

I don't enjoy most dissonant and atonal music, and I will say I don't like it, but I will never say to someone who enjoys it that it is bad music and that it sucks or whatnot. There's a difference between saying you don't like something and that something is shit.

Now to contribute to wonderfully strange awesome stuff (check around 7:20 if you don't wanna listen to it all or something.):

Also check 13:15. WUT.


----------



## Semichastny (Jul 17, 2012)

I used to be really into the avant-garde dissonant stuff like Xenakis, Brotzman, and Schoof. Now I'm more interested in making unique dissonance in the vein of late orchid.


----------



## John Strieder (Jul 17, 2012)

But ... that Furrer-Piece *is* atonal and dissonant


----------



## Polythoral (Jul 17, 2012)

John Strieder said:


> But ... that Furrer-Piece *is* atonal and dissonant



Yeah, for whatever reason I do love extremely weird and experimental classical/piano music (Ligeti is wonderful. Alkan is one of my favorite composers, though he mostly sticks to very consonant/tonal sounding stuff.). With metal, not so much, though it may mostly be because dissonant/atonal metal is typically just at splintering paces with guttural vocals the entire time, at least in my opinion.

I guess I like it in other contexts. See The Heartland and Blakfish:



Blakfish is obviously not WAAAY out there or anything, but I think it's rather dissonant mostly in that track and I love it.

I also love Fall Of Troy and Number Twelve Looks You You, which are known for quite a lot of dissonant stuff. *shrug*

Also, I apologize for not using words correctly, I'm not overly musically literate.


----------



## wakjob (Jul 17, 2012)

Jan Garbarek & Disharmonic Orchestra got a lot of play time in my car years ago.

OH!, and anything Buckethead. Especially Death Cube K.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Jul 17, 2012)

Sun Ra...


----------



## John Strieder (Dec 11, 2012)

...ins Dunkel geschlagen on SoundCloud


----------



## John Strieder (Mar 5, 2014)

My latest premiere on youtube:


----------



## Rizzo (Mar 5, 2014)

I didn't read the whole thread at all, but i will share my opinion: i'm anything but an accomplished musician, still i'm about "fed up" with "pleasant, ordinary" music.
Nowadays I tend to better appreciate who's able to use atonality and dissonance in a creative and original way (well, if the piece actually makes some sense in the end, that's for sure, but it's subjective too) just because i think it's natural to the human being (and then "easy", sort to speak) to come up with melodies and things we innately label as "good sounding". Well, "consonance".
So I feel that coming up with a nice and working "discordant" idea is like an "added value" in creativity, because it's almost fighting against our "natural clichès".
Get what I mean? Anyone thinking the same?


----------

