Composer Density

[the_rizzler]

No, I'm not referring to intelligence,


I'm referring to how dense your songs are!

On a scale from one to ten, how dense would you rate the average of all your songs (approximation)? Also, please post your most dense song.

Please do not include "30000 notes of chromatic crap in a measure" sequences.




1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10
l   .    l        .       l
l        .       l        .      10000 notes in 4 measures
l         .     l
l        .       2000 notes in 4 measures
l
20 notes in 4 measures






No cheese flavoured chicken!

[les-toilettes-skibidi]

Probably 3 or 4

##1055342

[LucentTear]

this is a *****ty scale, probably about 1.5 and i'm known for being the most dense piano composer on average

[Kirbyderp]

1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10
l         .         l        .                l
l         .         l        .              10000 notes in 4 measures
l         .         l
l         .        2000 notes in 4 measures
l  
20 notes in 4 measures

Although I'd much rather have a quantitative scale that lets us find exact points on where we can fit on the scale, I guess I'll have to work with this. Now that I've gotten a chance to see just how it was formatted (as, at least to me anyway, it shows up a bit out of wack on your forum post), I'll assume that from the 1 to 5 (20 notes in 4 measures to 2000 notes in 4 measures) it is a logarithmic scale, due to the seemingly exponential growth as 20*100=2000.

In other words, on the 1-5 part of the scale, I'll assume that we can approximate the point on it from using the formula 2*log10(x/2)-1, where x is the # of notes in 4 measures. I put the "/2" because 2 and 2000 are both 2 multiplied by a power of 10, and using numbers on the endpoints where one can be raised to an exponent to find the other makes things a lot simpler. The logarithm itself is multiplied by 2 and then 1 is subtracted from it in order to expand out the logarithmic formula so that the endpoints of 20 and 2000 actually output 1 and 5.

It seems that recently, for me, my sequences have had roughly 200 notes on average per adjusted measure (Adjusted measures because in many of my sequences I doubled the tempo and stretched out the notes, keeping the same feel as if I hadn't. Not doing this would cause many sequences to appear less dense than what they actually are.), which meant that there are roughly 800 notes on average every 4 adjusted measures.

Putting this into the formula produces the result of roughly 4.2 for me. If anyone else wants to use this formula, be my guest! I've always been intrigued with sequence densities and it would put people on a common scale.

Oh yeah! You also want my densest sequence. Mine is my Field of Hopes and Dreams remix, at roughly 422.39 notes per adjusted measure. Enjoy!
##1002413

[les-toilettes-skibidi]

The scale does kind of suck, but I was doing it to relativity to popularity. I wasnt really thinking when I made It and if you have a better scale, please send a private message of it.

[Kirbyderp]

The scale does kind of suck, but I was doing it to relativity to popularity. I wasnt really thinking when I made It and if you have a better scale, please send a private message of it.

All a good scale really needs is to provide some relation between individual points on it enough so that it's easy to tell what the value of any unlabeled points are. If all the points are labeled, then there doesn't necessarily have to be a relation between them, but labeling them all wouldn't format that well on OS.

[Jonah]

take it from a guy whos been over the scale's 10 multiple times, density has very little to do with popularity, quality, or even complexity of music. (also i agree with lucent)


also whats with making the thread with your alt and then posting on it with your main???