10-15-2018, 02:06 AM
this idea has good bones, but it's really unrealistic in most cases...
i mean, to critique not just an album or an EP, but entire artists is just...
In order to make a semi-correct assessment, you'd have to listen to all of their sequences.
My reason for believing this is some of the rules you made don't really make sense in the scheme of a whole artist.
For example, most rules in "General Composition" are rules that could be applied to a single sequence better than an artist. Decomposition (Bad rule in general imo) is a great example of this.
Genre variety is gonna make your life hell. After all, most people DO make sequences in a large plethora of genres. However, the majority of sequences they make, and the majority of the sequences you've seen won't be like that.
Why? People have to practice their own style... If they don't, then they don't HAVE a style. (Good thing you didn't make that a rule.)
So if you have to actually actively search for other genres... how are you gonna do that?
Are you trying to tell me you're actually going to sift through all 2k of Xstep's sequences to find ones that match what you're looking for? If so then bless your soul, but I just don't think that's a reasonable idea.
Worst thing about this is that applies to every time you want to find uniqueness within a composer. You'd have to look through all of their sequences, and keep up to date with the ones they add in order to maintain the thread, and that's just not realistic.
anyway, I know I sort of helped bring this kind of stuff to the forums a long time ago with the "feel free to post your own top 10, or top 5, or top 69" I put at the end of my "Top 10 composers thread" which lead to guests ranking system... and i guess now this...? Maybe there's no connection there. Anyway, point is I did pretty much the same thing. I won't try to justify that thread completely, because it was really *****ty. But the difference is that it was always intended to be just my opinion, not fact. I mean, I *****ing screwed up because I advertised it as "Top 10" which is always used for stuff like "Top 10 facts about the ocean!" and ***** like that.
Another problem with it was that people took it too seriously. I feel like I seriously offended people when i did that, when in reality it was just meant to flatter them.
there was a sentenec here but i realizedit was too personal for a publec thread... ugh
jesus ***** im so... idontevenknowanymore.
i literally hallucinated unicorns a couple minutes ago. well.. unicorn. not plural.
idk why i always type up rants when im least cognitively functional. maybe only dysfunctional peolple rant??
anyway, i feel like im leaving some stuff out, but i think you probably got my poinr by now some im just gonna pst it anyway and call it good. ***** im probably gonna regret this. i dont even have the brain cells left to fix all the spelling errors i got from flopping my hands around at the speed of light and calling it typicng
lol bet you werent expecting this on your thread lucEnt hahahah yuore atree now.
i mean, to critique not just an album or an EP, but entire artists is just...
In order to make a semi-correct assessment, you'd have to listen to all of their sequences.
My reason for believing this is some of the rules you made don't really make sense in the scheme of a whole artist.
For example, most rules in "General Composition" are rules that could be applied to a single sequence better than an artist. Decomposition (Bad rule in general imo) is a great example of this.
Genre variety is gonna make your life hell. After all, most people DO make sequences in a large plethora of genres. However, the majority of sequences they make, and the majority of the sequences you've seen won't be like that.
Why? People have to practice their own style... If they don't, then they don't HAVE a style. (Good thing you didn't make that a rule.)
So if you have to actually actively search for other genres... how are you gonna do that?
Are you trying to tell me you're actually going to sift through all 2k of Xstep's sequences to find ones that match what you're looking for? If so then bless your soul, but I just don't think that's a reasonable idea.
Worst thing about this is that applies to every time you want to find uniqueness within a composer. You'd have to look through all of their sequences, and keep up to date with the ones they add in order to maintain the thread, and that's just not realistic.
anyway, I know I sort of helped bring this kind of stuff to the forums a long time ago with the "feel free to post your own top 10, or top 5, or top 69" I put at the end of my "Top 10 composers thread" which lead to guests ranking system... and i guess now this...? Maybe there's no connection there. Anyway, point is I did pretty much the same thing. I won't try to justify that thread completely, because it was really *****ty. But the difference is that it was always intended to be just my opinion, not fact. I mean, I *****ing screwed up because I advertised it as "Top 10" which is always used for stuff like "Top 10 facts about the ocean!" and ***** like that.
Another problem with it was that people took it too seriously. I feel like I seriously offended people when i did that, when in reality it was just meant to flatter them.
there was a sentenec here but i realizedit was too personal for a publec thread... ugh
jesus ***** im so... idontevenknowanymore.
i literally hallucinated unicorns a couple minutes ago. well.. unicorn. not plural.
idk why i always type up rants when im least cognitively functional. maybe only dysfunctional peolple rant??
anyway, i feel like im leaving some stuff out, but i think you probably got my poinr by now some im just gonna pst it anyway and call it good. ***** im probably gonna regret this. i dont even have the brain cells left to fix all the spelling errors i got from flopping my hands around at the speed of light and calling it typicng
lol bet you werent expecting this on your thread lucEnt hahahah yuore atree now.