New TM Song

Disregarding the fact that I got bored at 38 seconds and gave up listening a minute and a half, because it was too repetitive (if you insist on using the same chord progression, at least modulate after repeating the A section), it was actually quite good...for TM's standards. However, it wasn't great by a long run:[br][br]- Too highly reliant on triadic arpeggios. That's alright if it's just a backing track, but it either needs a melody line interwoven with the arps, or a separate instrument playing a melody over them (preferably two instruments playing counterpoint, as that'd work rather well over this style of arpeggiating)[br][br]- Too repetitive - very little variation, and the chord progression is not interesting enough to last longer than two repeats without variation.[br][br]- Too little musical tension - few or no points of tension (dissonance), which means that there can also be no release. That's ok in itself, but somehow I feel that it wasn't the intention to make ambient wallpaper music.[br][br]On the upside:[br][br]- The synthesizer support for the piano-line worked well. But that's mainly because it matched the piano in boredom.[br]

[QUOTE] [b]fatty wrote: [/b]I'm editing this because I made a sarcastic comment without actually listening to the song. I had originally said that it sounded like the pap you hear in elevators. In actual fact it's good enough to be the pap that's played on a low quality wedding video.[br] [br] Keep up the good work TM.[/QUOTE][br]XD[br][br]After giving it a considerable amount of thought, I was able to find one thing I liked about it, though. The synthesizer part was not *completely* obnoxious.[br][br][br][br][br][br]

[QUOTE] [b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]Disregarding the fact that I got bored at 38 seconds and gave up listening a minute and a half, because it was too repetitive (if you insist on using the same chord progression, at least modulate after repeating the A section), it was actually quite good...for TM's standards. However, it wasn't great by a long run:[br][br]- Too highly reliant on triadic arpeggios. That's alright if it's just a backing track, but it either needs a melody line interwoven with the arps, or a separate instrument playing a melody over them (preferably two instruments playing counterpoint, as that'd work rather well over this style of arpeggiating)[br][br]- Too repetitive - very little variation, and the chord progression is not interesting enough to last longer than two repeats without variation.[br][br]- Too little musical tension - few or no points of tension (dissonance), which means that there can also be no release. That's ok in itself, but somehow I feel that it wasn't the intention to make ambient wallpaper music.[br][br]On the upside:[br][br]- The synthesizer support for the piano-line worked well. But that's mainly because it matched the piano in boredom.[br][/QUOTE][br][br]TQ, I applaud you. You've done something TM has failed to ever do: *provide detailed constructive criticism, and reasoning for it all at the same time*[br][br]I'd have done that a long time ago, had I actually taken music lessons, as well as music theory.[br]My musical terminology is very limited :-(

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]Disregarding the fact that I got bored at 38 seconds and gave up listening a minute and a half, because it was too repetitive (if you insist on using the same chord progression, at least modulate after repeating the A section), it was actually quite good...for TM's standards. However, it wasn't great by a long run:[br][br]- Too highly reliant on triadic arpeggios. That's alright if it's just a backing track, but it either needs a melody line interwoven with the arps, or a separate instrument playing a melody over them (preferably two instruments playing counterpoint, as that'd work rather well over this style of arpeggiating)[br][br]- Too repetitive - very little variation, and the chord progression is not interesting enough to last longer than two repeats without variation.[br][br]- Too little musical tension - few or no points of tension (dissonance), which means that there can also be no release. That's ok in itself, but somehow I feel that it wasn't the intention to make ambient wallpaper music.[br][br]On the upside:[br][br]- The synthesizer support for the piano-line worked well. But that's mainly because it matched the piano in boredom.[br][/QUOTE][br][br]you talk alot of nonsense! we dont know any music theory but we DO know whats good and what has feeling. With all your knowledge in music theory i doubt you could even write something as good as that song. If you can then POST IT!![br][br][br][br][br]

[QUOTE] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]Disregarding the fact that I got bored at 38 seconds and gave up listening a minute and a half, because it was too repetitive (if you insist on using the same chord progression, at least modulate after repeating the A section), it was actually quite good...for TM's standards. However, it wasn't great by a long run:[br][br]- Too highly reliant on triadic arpeggios. That's alright if it's just a backing track, but it either needs a melody line interwoven with the arps, or a separate instrument playing a melody over them (preferably two instruments playing counterpoint, as that'd work rather well over this style of arpeggiating)[br][br]- Too repetitive - very little variation, and the chord progression is not interesting enough to last longer than two repeats without variation.[br][br]- Too little musical tension - few or no points of tension (dissonance), which means that there can also be no release. That's ok in itself, but somehow I feel that it wasn't the intention to make ambient wallpaper music.[br][br]On the upside:[br][br]- The synthesizer support for the piano-line worked well. But that's mainly because it matched the piano in boredom.[br][/QUOTE][br][br]you talk alot of nonsense! we dont know any music theory but we DO know whats good and what has feeling. With all your knowledge in music theory i doubt you could even write something as good as that song. If you can then POST IT!! [br][br]-----------------------------------[br][br]There is little music theory in TQ's excellent post (in any case no 'heavy' or 'difficult' theory). If you ask me, this is just basic and good constructive criticism on how to compose a simple song in a few steps. In any case, if you think that this is already difficult music theory, and you can't work your way round this, than you are the one that doesn't know anything about music.[br]

[b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]Disregarding the fact that I got bored at 38 seconds and gave up listening a minute and a half, because it was too repetitive (if you insist on using the same chord progression, at least modulate after repeating the A section), it was actually quite good...for TM's standards. However, it wasn't great by a long run:[br][br]- Too highly reliant on triadic arpeggios. That's alright if it's just a backing track, but it either needs a melody line interwoven with the arps, or a separate instrument playing a melody over them (preferably two instruments playing counterpoint, as that'd work rather well over this style of arpeggiating)[br][br]- Too repetitive - very little variation, and the chord progression is not interesting enough to last longer than two repeats without variation.[br][br]- Too little musical tension - few or no points of tension (dissonance), which means that there can also be no release. That's ok in itself, but somehow I feel that it wasn't the intention to make ambient wallpaper music.[br][br]On the upside:[br][br]- The synthesizer support for the piano-line worked well. But that's mainly because it matched the piano in boredom.[br][/QUOTE][br][br]you talk alot of nonsense! we dont know any music theory but we DO know whats good and what has feeling. With all your knowledge in music theory i doubt you could even write something as good as that song. If you can then POST IT!! [br][br]-----------------------------------[br][br]There is little music theory in TQ's excellent post (in any case no 'heavy' or 'difficult' theory). If you ask me, this is just basic and good constructive criticism on how to compose a simple song in a few steps. In any case, if you think that this is already difficult music theory, and you can't work your way round this, than you are the one that doesn't know anything about music.[br][/QUOTE][br][br][br][br][br][br]As i said, all that nonsense means nothing!  that song is NOT easy to come up with, if it is i want to see this thomas post something! do it

Swedefag (yes, that's your new name), the jig's up.[br][br]TQ clearly makes sense. I don't study music theory, yet I can understand what he's talking about.[br][br]You on the other hand are dodging any serious attempts to answer questions sensibly, and by doing so you are further digging yourselves a bigger hole (have you reached Beijing yet?).[br]I don't give a rat's ass anymore what you say. You are clearly NOT a band anymore at this point.[br][br]You're full of lies, lies, lies, and bullshit attempts at making 'rock music'.[br]Your excuses for the supposed video of the alleged recent concert have run out as well. There should have been more than ample time and opportunity to meet your crap drummer to get a copy of the video.[br][br]Just do us a favour and leave this board, and don't come back until you can come with something that even sounds remotely like a band (ie. not a solo person pretending to be a whole band on his own)[br]

I don't know if a certain someone here understands this, but it takes a whole lot of genius to write a 3-chord hit, more so than any" 240 km/h guitar solo + a million chords"-song.

[QUOTE] [b]Poo, again wrote: [/b]I don't know if a certain someone here understands this, but it takes a whole lot of genius to write a 3-chord hit, more so than any" 240 km/h guitar solo + a million chords"-song.[/QUOTE][br]Is that a trick statement? :-)[br][br]If so, you've described virtually every screamo band we unfortunately have to play with sometimes at local shows, or that we've had to sit through at shows we've attended but not played at otherwise.[br][br]Pretty sad, actually...[br][br]Ironically enough though, I'll admit my band had a song, 'Three Chord Progression', which as the name implies was just three chords, repeated over and over till the end (I wasn't a member then, thankfully!).[br]Needless to say, we don't play it anymore (I think it was only played once or twice...? I never heard them play it live *once* since I'd started attending shows in late 2005)[br][br]Our current stuff has gotten a LOT more advanced since then! :-)[br][br]Now if only TM could reach our level, 'that would be a miracle'[br]

[QUOTE] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b][/b][br][/QUOTE][br][br]you talk alot of nonsense! we dont know any music theory but we DO know whats good and what has feeling. With all your knowledge in music theory i doubt you could even write something as good as that song. If you can then POST IT!! [br][br]-----------------------------------[br][br]There is little music theory in TQ's excellent post (in any case no 'heavy' or 'difficult' theory). If you ask me, this is just basic and good constructive criticism on how to compose a simple song in a few steps. In any case, if you think that this is already difficult music theory, and you can't work your way round this, than you are the one that doesn't know anything about music.[br][br][br]As i said, all that nonsense means nothing!  that song is NOT easy to come up with, if it is i want to see this thomas post something! do it[br][br]------------------------------------[br][br]This song IS easy to come up with. Like I said, hundreds of people with basic piano knowledge and who know a few chords on the piano can improvise these sort of things. I make these things up when I'm bored. Besides that, songs are a lot more than 'chords' or some 'chord progressions'.[br][br]If you want to hear good instrumental music, than study some Bach, or if that is beyond your abilities, look up someone like Leo Kottke on youtube. Two worlds totally apart, but they were the real geniuses. And there are many many more, and you don't belong to them.[br]Maybe they can inspire you in some way. I don't think that by the way, since you consider yourself and you brother already better than them even if you hadn't heard them.[br]

[QUOTE] [b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b][br]There is little music theory in TQ's excellent post (in any case no 'heavy' or 'difficult' theory). If you ask me, this is just basic and good constructive criticism on how to compose a simple song in a few steps. [b][i]In any case, if you think that this is already difficult music theory, and you can't work your way round this, than you are the one that doesn't know anything about music.[/i][/b][br][br][/QUOTE][br][b]TM: OWNED[/b][br]

[b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b][b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b][/b][br][/QUOTE][br][br]you talk alot of nonsense! we dont know any music theory but we DO know whats good and what has feeling. With all your knowledge in music theory i doubt you could even write something as good as that song. If you can then POST IT!! [br][br]-----------------------------------[br][br]There is little music theory in TQ's excellent post (in any case no 'heavy' or 'difficult' theory). If you ask me, this is just basic and good constructive criticism on how to compose a simple song in a few steps. In any case, if you think that this is already difficult music theory, and you can't work your way round this, than you are the one that doesn't know anything about music.[br][br][br]As i said, all that nonsense means nothing!  that song is NOT easy to come up with, if it is i want to see this thomas post something! do it[br][br]------------------------------------[br][br]This song IS easy to come up with. Like I said, hundreds of people with basic piano knowledge and who know a few chords on the piano can improvise these sort of things. I make these things up when I'm bored. Besides that, songs are a lot more than 'chords' or some 'chord progressions'.[br][br]If you want to hear good instrumental music, than study some Bach, or if that is beyond your abilities, look up someone like Leo Kottke on youtube. Two worlds totally apart, but they were the real geniuses. And there are many many more, and you don't belong to them.[br]Maybe they can inspire you in some way. I don't think that by the way, since you consider yourself and you brother already better than them even if you hadn't heard them.[br][/QUOTE][br][br][br][br][br]Hah, i checked out Leo kottke, skilled guitar player BUT boring simple predictable songwriting and in no way at the same level as TM.[br][br]

Swedefag, put up or shut up[br]

[QUOTE] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b] [b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b]knakenrudi wrote: [/b][b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b][b][/b][br][/QUOTE][br][br]you talk alot of nonsense! we dont know any music theory but we DO know whats good and what has feeling. With all your knowledge in music theory i doubt you could even write something as good as that song. If you can then POST IT!! [br][br]-----------------------------------[br][br]There is little music theory in TQ's excellent post (in any case no 'heavy' or 'difficult' theory). If you ask me, this is just basic and good constructive criticism on how to compose a simple song in a few steps. In any case, if you think that this is already difficult music theory, and you can't work your way round this, than you are the one that doesn't know anything about music.[br][br][br]As i said, all that nonsense means nothing!  that song is NOT easy to come up with, if it is i want to see this thomas post something! do it[br][br]------------------------------------[br][br]This song IS easy to come up with. Like I said, hundreds of people with basic piano knowledge and who know a few chords on the piano can improvise these sort of things. I make these things up when I'm bored. Besides that, songs are a lot more than 'chords' or some 'chord progressions'.[br][br]If you want to hear good instrumental music, than study some Bach, or if that is beyond your abilities, look up someone like Leo Kottke on youtube. Two worlds totally apart, but they were the real geniuses. And there are many many more, and you don't belong to them.[br]Maybe they can inspire you in some way. I don't think that by the way, since you consider yourself and you brother already better than them even if you hadn't heard them.[br][br][br][br][br][br]Hah, i checked out Leo kottke, skilled guitar player BUT boring simple predictable songwriting and in no way at the same level as TM.[br][br]--------------------------------------------[br][br]LOL[br][br]Each their own :-)[br]At least you said he's skilled![br][br]

So, to summarize, TM says he knows everything, we say he doesn't, he says he does, we *prove* he doesn't, he throws a tantrum. Funny how topics like these always end the same way. Like TM songs, I'd almost say...