Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Hi

 

Since I am new to this site, I am using this platform to increase exposure to my theory of Newtonality and the technique Thomes&Phases.

here's the link:

 

http://www.nickcapocci.co.uk/4.html

Views: 142

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

" . . . a considered explanation for why I am going to avoid, for the present, any interaction with your account whatsoever, dependent upon some conditions."

Oy vey with the melodramatics.

"there is no trace of a Streaker Ofinsky before the exact moment of your account's creation,"

How would there be a trace of me? Where?

"but ill advised to mention if one does not want to cite with specificity what that background is, degrees earned, etc."

You'd be ill-advised to put more weight on anything based on that information. Arguments from authority are fallacious, even if the argument is in the field in which the person is or has been recognized in some way as an authority. If their claims are correct (when it's something that can have the status of "correct" or "incorrect"), it is because of the content of the claims and the relation of that to the world. However, claims can be incorrect even if they are claims pertaining to the field in which the person has been recognized as an authority. There are many reasons that can be the case. The only reason I said anything about my background here is because you have to when you sign up for an account.

"I will eagerly admit that I choose to write under a pseudonym, yet I attach a repertoire of music to that name and never use it to troll with anonymity."

Oy vey, now the "troll" accusation tactic. You'll try anything, I guess.

"So there you have it. My suggestion, and it is only that, is that you post some music here and cite specific credentials, if mentioning them at all, by which I and other members might weigh your opinions."

I'll choose to not pander to fallacies, thanks.

You're interacting with me by telling me why you do not want to interact with me. Nicely ironic. But I'm more interested in talking about musical ideas, not having you derail someone's thread because you have personality or ideology issues with me. If you have issues with me to an extent where it would cause you to make me and my "style" (in the personality sense) the topic rather than whatever musical issues we might be discussing, then I'm more than happy for you to ignore me, but please carry through with that instead of grandstanding. I'm interested in talking about music,composition, philosophical issues about music, etc. I'm not interested in a prolonged debate about my personality with folks who don't care for me. You're free to not care for me and go about your business. Let's stay on topic, please.
This – your latest “contribution” (if such it can be called) – to this discussion, only confirms what I had begun to suspect from our previous encounter. I have been as patient and diligent in replying to your queries as could reasonably have been expected, believing you to be genuinely interested in further enhancement and clarification.

I have studied your comments. Not only do you not have the faintest comprehension of what Newtonality and Thomes & Phases is all about, but neither, clearly, are you remotely interested in acquiring one.

I am too old to start taking prisoners. This is not Twitter, nor a blog: it’s supposed to be a discussion: I do not trade in idiotic, supercilious jibes. Your comments are simply INANE. If you don’t get the topic, or know what on earth you’re talking about, or you are incapable of constructing a cohesive argument to support whatever position it is you think you’ve adopted: don’t bother. Be advised: I will not be replying to further posts by you in this discussion.


Streaker Ofinsky said:
"Look up *happiness* in any dictionary. You’ll find all the symptoms but not a mention of its origin. People are unhappy not because they don’t know what happiness means, but because they don’t know its cause."

The conversation isn't about happiness, though, it's about tonal and atonal. Those are well-defined musical terms. Some terms are well-defined. Some are not.

"Lots of dictionaries will tell you that atonality is the absence of consonance and dissonance."

Really? What is an example of that?

"For a composer confronting a sheet of blank manuscript, this definition is useless."

I don't know why a _definition_ should be useful for writing music anyway.

"unless one has first precisely defined what consonance and dissonance are?"

Do you own a music dictionary?

"But they are not conventions; they are *assumptions* which have acted as an impediment to a rational assessment of atonality."

Huh??

"But can you not see that this sentence only makes sense after you have specified a defined precisely what you mean by *tonal*"

I don't know why you're pretending that "tonal" isn't defined in music dictionaries, texts, etc., but you are.

"You simply cannot bandy them about on the basis that *Well, it doesn’t really matter what they mean*!"

No one said anything like that. You're claiming the terms are not conventionally defined. I'm claiming that you're wrong about that. Open up a music dictionary. If you don't understand the definitions there, we can help explain them to you.

"its one long “D” phase. Totally different concept."

No idea what you're talking about there.

"Where did you get the idea that there is anything subjective about the topics in hand?"

Definitions come from the way that humans use terms. Humans are subjects. In that sense, they are subjective. Also, not everyone defines everything the same way. There are no objective facts about whether something is a correct definition, it's just whether it's a definition that's used by some population or not.

Also, whether something [i]sounds[/i] tonal or atonal is a subjective matter. You can talk about objectively common tendencies there, but you'd still be talking about a subjective phenomenon.

"I certainly consider the definitions I have given objective realities."

There are no objectively correct definitions, period. Just more or less common ones.

""’atonal’ is a subjective designation”. No. It is not:"

Yes, it is. It's about what the pitch relationships sound like to individuals.

"it’s a state in an evolved language which must have an exact definition."

Music isn't like the fields of mathematics or physics. Many of its terms are never going to have the kind of widespread consensus of formulation by practitioners that terms in those fields have. However, even without universal formulations similar to "F=ma", terms like "tonal" and "atonal" have common, conventional definitions that are non-controversial. You simply need to look them up.
"Not only do you not have the faintest comprehension of what Newtonality and Thomes & Phases is all about"

Which I said from the start--put me in the "it's incomprehensible" camp, unfortunately. I would say I have a smidgen of an idea about it, but not much, and I'm okay with saying instead, "I haven't the faintest idea/comprehension of it".

"but neither, clearly, are you remotely interested in acquiring one."

That I do not agree with, but just put it this way. It would take a LOT of work on both of our parts for me to begin getting it--and I've upped the estimate of how much work it would take based on our interactions so far. I'm fine with you believing it's not worth your time to try to explain it to me so that I could understand it. If you did want to work on it more, I think that chatting would be a better way to do it, though.

"I am too old to start taking prisoners."

I don't know how old you and Kristofer are, but you've got to be either already collecting or just about to collect Social Security if you're much older than I am.

"it’s supposed to be a discussion"

Talking back and forth like this is what I consider to be a discussion, although for something like this, I believe it works better in real time.

"I do not trade in idiotic, supercilious jibes."

I'm guessing you're referring to the dictionary comments. I wasn't jibing there. I'm being serious. It seems to me like you're unfamiliar with the standard definitions of the terms "tonal(ity)" and "atonal(ity)". I was hoping that if you're familiar with that, we could actually talk about some specific instances of those definitions, rather than what seemed to me to be wild guessing that didn't at all resemble the conventional definitions and/or just making weird stuff up..

"Your comments are simply INANE."

Well, and my impression of your theory so far is that it might just be nonsense, or something like a fantastical schizophrenic construction. I was willing to try to figure out why it doesn't seem that way to you. I guess ascriptions of inanity are subjective, too, right?

"or know what on earth you’re talking about"

I'm trying to make sure that you know what you're talking about. That's why I was asking about your familiarity with the definitions of the terms in question in a music dictionary, for example.

"I will not be replying to further posts by you in this discussion."

Okay. Thanks for replying as much as you did, though. Seriously.
“Marketing”? Since there is nothing for sale, “marketing” what exactly?

“…the heat of this kitchen…” Who is kidding who? The discussion, in case you hadn’t noticed, is about tonality and atonality in relation to an original theory. I am up to any heat you care to deliver, my friend, but I will not be inveigled into wasting my precious time in frivolous banter with individuals who don’t understand what they’re talking about.

“I heard the thesis in your music you posted that adheres to this verbiage ( or not)….
Could you please get someone to translate this into plain English?

“Composition .. is an art”. In fact, composition is more science than art, but that would be a subject for a separate discussion.

“… quit kidding us” US? I suggest you read ALL the responses in this thread.


Jan Civil said:
"I am using this platform to increase exposure to my theory..."
Sure feels/smells/sounds like you marketing to the rest of us. Some talking points about a music, when you are the proponent of the music, smacks of a Press Release; advertising, marketing...

There's a discussion here, you started it and found some resistance (reasoned and which addresses specific points) and you aren't up to the heat of this kitchen, judging by the reaction.

I heard the thesis in your music you posted that adheres to this verbiage (or not). It isn't new. There isn't something real new to discuss here. So, my first impression of 'some marketing' is what I'm going with. The music speaks for itself (or not).

Composition of music is an art. It's subjective in most cases. It isn't a science. Your thesis is not a thesis in the realm of science.

Nothing personal, you may be a great guy and all, but that's as pretentious as it gets. 'It's not about ego'. well to present a link to a 'dissertion' when you are new to a place, sure has the aroma of an ego seeking a playground. No problem, I'll do it, whatever... but quit kidding us.
Hey Nick... Been busy lately, and started writing a piece weeks ago (which isn't finished; Also I failed in combining the so called thomes: It's a mess!).

However, I wanted to say, that I'm following up on this thread and gotta say, you sure caused yourself a hard task, teaching a chaotic group of semi-pros and amateurs (including myself, a semi-amateur)!

Regards and good luck on further work
Ario
Thank you, once again, Ario, for taking the trouble to respond.

It will probably interest you to know I will be shortly uploading to Sibelius the score - with accompanying explanatory notes - of the thomic I recently posted. Hopefully this will clear some of the waters a bit. (Did you hear this?.... http://composersforum.ning.com/forum/topics/newtonal-fugue-thomic )

By the way, I'm NOT a professional composer!

Cheers Nick

Ario said:
Hey Nick... Been busy lately, and started writing a piece weeks ago (which isn't finished; Also I failed in combining the so called thomes: It's a mess!).

However, I wanted to say, that I'm following up on this thread and gotta say, you sure caused yourself a hard task, teaching a chaotic group of semi-pros and amateurs (including myself, a semi-amateur)!

Regards and good luck on further work
Ario

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2020   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service