kickingtone

TMV World Legacy Member
  • Content Count

    483
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

kickingtone last won the day on January 11

kickingtone had the most liked content!

About kickingtone

  • Rank
    Top Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334721200214X Isn't this the point? Although we may be able to pick out the odd short phrase of birdsong here and there out of the hundreds that exist, and match them to some phrase in the hundreds of well-known musical compositions, that does not mean that the bird is using harmonic intervals. You would have expected someone by now to have written a "whole" (up to 95 per cent) birdsong by now. Even a dictionary of birdsong in musical notation would probably exist. But all we seem to have is a random collection of coincidences, involving very short phrases. Playing it by ear, which I am all for, the birdsong I am more familiar with comes from the blackbird, robin, wren, and chaffinch. All of them sound "off" to me, if I listen with human bias. The blackbird has a great timbre, imo, but I definitely remember having to "get used" to its "singing", probably because I had first to subconsciously dismantle the expectations I had. Actually, I now liken the blackbird to an orator, more than a songster, although that may also have to do with the way it imperiously sticks its yellow beak in the air, and pauses between phrases and looks around, as if for effect.
  2. That's really stretching it, I think. (The opening of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is an example of stretching things to the limit!) Birds don't sing in human scales. Musicians may adjust and incorporate the odd couple of characteristic notes, or leave the whole thing "out of tune", as with some nightingale accompaniments. Even the cuckoo's "two notes" are approximated/adjusted in examples that I recall. But if you do have a good source demonstrating a bird singing "in tune" from any known human perspective, that would be very interesting.
  3. They say so -- "trust me, I am a musician..." -- "as a qualified sound engineer, trust me..." -- "trust me, I do this for a living"... There doesn't appear to be a "don't trust me" option.
  4. Which rule? State the rule or rules, so that we can be clear what you are saying. Sorry, It was on reddit some while ago.
  5. Different? Very probably. Odd? Not necessarily. I certainly doubt I would be describing it as torture. I like traditional sounds from around the world. The first time I hear a new genre, my most usual impression is that it sounds different or has a new quality. I am rarely cringing. Organizing music into genres is fine. I just find extreme reactions (like the ones in the comment section of the video) to be a sign of narrow-mindedness, not musicality. Being able to hear the difference is one thing. Becoming nauseous over it is another.
  6. Yes. Didn't say he wasn't. Just read the comments -- "cringe", "torture", "hilarious", "tone deaf" etc. etc. + a heap of analysis about the keys. That suggests that a lot of "musicians" think it is more than normal "dissonance". Are you saying that this particular dissonance is common in some forms of music? Why then all the extreme reactions?
  7. In the comments section you have a bunch of self-professed musicians boasting about how they are so "musically" aware, that this makes them cringe. And others saying how "hilarious" it is. Right. That reminds me of folk who say they find Shakespeare funny. "A trade, sir, that, I hope, I may use with a safe conscience; which is, indeed, sir, a mender of bad soles." --- wooahahahahaha-ha! A handful of people didn't hear anything particularly amiss. (Why should they? They didn't buy the rule!) A couple of people said that "after a while" it sounded fine! <---- basically what happened with me. Easily by the end, my ears had tuned in with the F#.
  8. But these are not rules. You can speak and produce all those things. Syncopation is even the opposite of a rule.
  9. Sounds like fewer rules/boundaries. From what I have read, ABBA, wrote songs "by ear", neither Benny nor Bjorn being able to write musical notation. They jammed backward and forward on a guitar and "out-of-tune piano (as Bjorn put it)" until something sounded good to them. Benny was the "keyboard wizard", and I get the impression that he didn't stick to rules. When they transcribed his keyboard music for the ABBA musicals, that was a problem they had to overcome.
  10. (People can produce their own music these days, so the influence of record companies is not so strong). Even so, it all depends on the cachet of the artist as to how much of his original idea gets through. The listener will also gravitate towards what he likes. He is not totally at the mercy of the whim of marketeers. There are artists of all kinds who don't even care about maximizing the size of their listener base. Some are quite happy to be niche artists. And then you get groups like ABBA who were able to do both. They only published what they liked, and they were successful at the same time. Despite all those fickle measurements like "cool factor" and "aura", what mattered actually stood the test of time, and that was generation-proof music. Yeah... that "uncool" clean image didn't change the music. It only changed the experience for those who were into fandom. The music pretty much remains what it is.
  11. Hearing a difference, interpreting a difference and saying whether the difference is good or bad are three different things. for example, someone into heavy rock could ask, "can you hear a difference", and even if I am not into heavy rock, I could say, "yes" or "no". I may then describe the physical quality of the difference as I perceive it, e.g "it's more gravelly/it's shriller/it's more distorted". That could still be useful information to the rock singer even though kickingtone hasn't a clue what the difference is supposed to signify, or whether it represents an improvement. Or, in some situations, someone may want to be reassured that there is NO significant audible difference in a change of placement -- that they can make the same sound two different ways, each being useful in the dynamics of different situations.
  12. My last placement thread, all I asked really was can you HEAR a difference. I didn't ask if it was better. Yes, I had a goal in mind, but it was MY goal of what I thought the song needed. I am prepared for my opinion to be idiosyncratic. To my knowledge, I was not following any rule of any genre. If I do ask if something sounds "better", I am asking for individual opinions. I don't really pay much attention to genre norms.
  13. A baby can cry for 12 hours flat. Now, that's good technique for you.
  14. The art of PRODUCING is not the same as the art of SINGING, though. And the fact that you put "good" in quotes signifies that the whole concept is pretty meaningless when you try to make things objective. You could ask a thousand people and you may get a wide split of answers regarding whether a singer sounded good/bad before autotuning, and better/worse after it.