And maybe this should be renamed to be "all time greatest memorable game songs". Inevitably, only melody-driven, easy-to-remember tracks get put in. Oh well.
Your probably right. "All-time Most Memorable Game Songs" would be most fitting I think. But an admin has to change the title. I don't have the power.
Nah, it was just off-handed comment about why Mitsuda and Uematsu are getting overrepresented. Nice thread anyway.
you've got to be fucking kidding me. Uematsu has more talent in his little finger than your entire family tree. If anything he's underrepresented.
and what the hell do you mean melody-driven? So you just sit there, with drool pouring from the side of your mouth, as you clash woodblocks together, when you want to make music? Why the hell should you judge video game music from a technical or otherwise perspective? There is the video game music that serves the game, and the vgm that stands as amazing songs. Uematsu does both, all the time. LAMe dude
Thanks a lot Nikk! Where did you find the MP3 for it?
I have the OST for DKC and DKC2, downloaded by torrent some time ago. I'm sure you can find them on PirateBay or Demonoid, or if you want you can PM me a screen name for AIM or MSN and I'll send you whatever you want.
And maybe this should be renamed to be "all time greatest memorable game songs". Inevitably, only melody-driven, easy-to-remember tracks get put in. Oh well.
Your probably right. "All-time Most Memorable Game Songs" would be most fitting I think. But an admin has to change the title. I don't have the power.
Nah, it was just off-handed comment about why Mitsuda and Uematsu are getting overrepresented. Nice thread anyway.
you've got to be fucking kidding me. Uematsu has more talent in his little finger than your entire family tree. If anything he's underrepresented.
and what the hell do you mean melody-driven? So you just sit there, with drool pouring from the side of your mouth, as you clash woodblocks together, when you want to make music? Why the hell should you judge video game music from a technical or otherwise perspective? There is the video game music that serves the game, and the vgm that stands as amazing songs. Uematsu does both, all the time. LAMe dude
Well if you want to discuss Uematsu's talent or the nature of game music in general (I suppose this is the thread for it...if not we can start another), I'm all for it. I think a valid framework for discussing most game music is using the language of music theory and criticism from classical music, especially since most game music attempts a pseudo-classical style. There has to be some way to describe what makes a song an amazing song, and compare between different tracks. Why is it that you think Uematsu's music is great? That's what we're interested in (I'm being serious here, and I like some of his stuff too).
I'll spoiler the rest to not take up as much space: + Show Spoiler +
Of course, as you mention, VGM really should be taken within the perspective of the game itself, as it's a programmatic (incidental) form much like the music you see for movies and such. A track can sound pretty boring by itself yet sound great when you're crawling through a dungeon.
But a key characteristic, and one that lends itself towards the de-legitimization of VGM as art (not saying that this is an ideal VGM should necessarily strive towards), is the fact that in most cases, the music must be able to loop infinitely. Thus, there's little development of ideas to be had within a particular track, as any development would just repeat along with the introductory material, and that doesn't make much sense. So you get simplistic AABBC (repeat) forms and such, sure. Granted, you do have some development in the sense that the main theme of a game and maybe one or two other themes is used as a basis or countermelody in other tracks.
So what is it that VGM has to work with if the structure or form is somewhat limited? Here's my list: 1. Melody 2. Harmonizations 3. Countermelody 4. Rhythm 5. Transitions between sections 6. Instrumentation
all the usual. I'm sure there's stuff I'm forgetting.
I'd still contend that Uematsu writes a nice melody often, but there's usually not any complexity, interesting progressions, adept use of different "instruments", challenging rhythms, or the like. (btw I'm not saying that you should always have all of those things, and not necessarily all at the same time!)
But going back more into the discussion at hand, the reasons I think Uematsu is overrepresented here: 1. Good melodies are easy to remember, thus people remember to nominate them Nobody gets too excited about something like this (from Vagrant Story, by Sakimoto)--a random example btw, where the melody or lack of one isn't as much a focus, even if that has little to do with the compositional quality. 2. Lots of people relatively have played FF, so Uematsu gets a lot more exposure than most every other VGM composer. 3. VGM gets associated with the game it's from for those who've played the game. A lot of people have played and liked FF games, so they're quick to associate these good times with the music.
Anyhow if you'd like to describe why you think Uematsu's music is so exceptional, with whatever terms come to mind, I'd like to hear it (no sarcasm).
edit: just to qualify I'm not implying there's a particular "right" answer or that rigorous analysis is the best way to deal with VGM, just trying to start some talks if there's any takers =)
Lots of classical genres and movements in the 20th century heavily emphasized percussive sounds actually. Orchestral music generally (a very broad statement) emphasized the strings less and the percussion more. People actually wrote music for pure percussion ensemble, etc. Maybe you shouldn't write them off so quickly.
About the Uematsu finger comment, my cousin (a lot older than me) has taught and teaches at schools such as the New England Conservatory. Her husband, Robert Levin, was head of the music theory department at Curtis, teaches at Harvard, was once a student of Nadia Boulanger who taught composers such as Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Phillip Glass, George Gershwin, etc. and was invited to fill her place teaching when she became too ill to to teach anymore. Not that I have so much talents myself lol. But wrong family tree.
Can I start by saying that I won't address you on an insulting or patronizing level because you obviously know what you're talking about. I agree with all of your objective statements.
To answer your most answerable point, why do I think Uematsu's music is great. The same reason I think the beach boys' music is vastly, vastly superior to some bullshit like dream theatre. The Beach Boys is about tunes, harmonies and striking your heart chords. It's by no means simple music, but it's not painfully complex. The musicianship is mediocre at best. That is exactly how I would describe Uematsu. He knows what the fuck he is doing to make good music, he doesn't get lost in technicalities or bound by extraneous opinion. He takes a share of the interest pie, if you know what I mean. He can make any of his songs stand out, as more memorable than the section of the game they are used in, or just let them blend into the background.
From a more technical aspect, it's Uematsu's combination of simple melody with creative phrasing and excellent orchestration that gets me. For a good example, the opening song of final fantasy VII combines several parts to create a rich tapestry of sound which works exceptionally well. A very exciting and well stated piece.
So you just put forward a case that vgm is not legitimate art. This is a pretty typical mis-definition (so to speak) of the word art; in my opinion. If art is the practise of communication and expression, which in almost all cases it clearly is, I fail to see how vgm cannot be considered a rich part of it. Furthermore, if art is the creation of aesthetically pleasing work, then I fail even more to see how it cannot be considered legitimate.
Your basic approach to music, essentially, like most other classical enthusiasts (or even partakers) personally appalls me. And I mean that sincerely, not flippantly. Whilst I analyse a huge amount of the things I listen to, I can still feel and connect with them regardless of the depth of analysis used. It feels like, in my opinion, you are one of those people who are stimulated by the technical practise of composition, rather than the end result. Specifically talking about themes developing, and complexity, I mean that just doesn't speak to me at all.
What is important for me is a great melody, an original way of expressing it, emotion and personality in the parts; and fitting instrumentation. Connection with the piece, so you can hear the artist singing their melody to you.
Personally, when I listen to a mozart or a beethoven or a stravinsky I am left stone cold. I actually found this very interesting- that you mention VGM being limited as an art form . That is in fact why I consider most popular styles of music to be more challenging than classical. Because you have to basically provide variation- people are only interested if you have variation; with less variables. You aren't ripping out vital variables, mind, only the ones that are the least emotive. You can't make someone cry with a 7/8 conga rhythm let me tell you.
Plus all this bullshit omg...when I listen to classical music sometimes, I just think 'HELLO' 'can you even hear these notes?'...it just sounds like the composer has spent FAR too much time thinking about the exact thematic developments, note lengths and phrasing rather than the actual music. So it is this indulgence that classical music is steeped in that annoys me.
Finally, I personally feel that no degree of complexity in music composition is ever actually that challenging. I think you are on a wild goose chase if you think you can rank composers up in talent. You have an infinite amount of time to write a song lol, you can take however bloody long, coming up with whatever bloody complicated method of chord analysis you want; you're still gona get the job done as long as you have the music in your head. I just think that most people stop, naturally, before they get into heavy classical music because it's not aesthetically pleasing except for old grandads and people who have had their soul burned out by endless technical exercises.
PS I think vgm is getting worse and worse nowadays and it's probably due to people like you, no offense intended. And that annoys me because vgm is where i got most of my enjoyable instrumental music from .
But I still can't get what your main point is.
"I'd still contend that Uematsu writes a nice melody often, but there's usually not any complexity, interesting progressions, adept use of different "instruments", challenging rhythms, or the like. (btw I'm not saying that you should always have all of those things, and not necessarily all at the same time!)"
I mean I don't know about you, but interesting doesn't = good for me. And I contend with your opinion about his use of different instruments. And challenging rhythms. I'm a drummer and I can tell you now that I've never heard a classical piece with complex enough rhythm to take on a jazz fusion drummer like dave weckl or vinnie colaiuta.
Good rebuttal Myrmidon. I would like to continue this discussion so long as it doesn't get too heated, and can remain civil (no need for personal insults, please).
I admit I don't know much about music theory, so I could be quite ignorant with my following statements, but I don't agree with your notion that you can apply some abstract theories to game music to compare it to classical music and come to the conclusion that it is a "psuedo" version of it. For me that comment only serves to cheapen the value and worth of the genre, which simply isn't right, and I was hoping with this thread to prove otherwise. If I were to classify the general genre of game music I would say it is "neo-classical".
Also I don't like the idea of analyzing music as if there is some objective, impartial way of stating whether a song is "good" or "bad", because I don't think you can separate music from emotions, and so long as there are emotions involved (i.e. matters of taste) there is no absolute objective ground someone can stand on and say Song A > Song B.
But with that said, there is something interesting in the phenomenon that certain songs seem to be widely accepted as being greater than other songs (i.e. there is some objective basis for Song A > Song B). For example, "Chrono Cross - Time's Scar" [insert shameless plug here to mention it was composed by my all-time favorite game composer, Yasunori Mitsuda] was the third fastest song is get inducted into the hall in this list, and in the Top 100 game music thread made by deadhaji, it was No.1 on that list. Now there has to be something objective about how great it is, otherwise how could it receive such unanimous praise? Perhaps, here you could inject some theory and analysis, but to me the reason is simple: We just feel good when we listen to it. That reason may seem woefully ignorant, but I think if you want a better answer the starting point is understanding how the human brain responds to auditory stimuli, and how its emotional centers interact with its sensory processing centers.
So to bring this discussion back to square one, I don't know (objectively) why Uematsu's songs are so great. I cannot elucidate the exact reasons for it. All I know is that when I listen to most of his songs (even if I've never played the game) I "feel" good, and I think that's good enough for the common man.
Thanks for the replies, guys. My ideas come too much from a tradition of classical, or "art", or "serious" music that has managed to isolate and divorce itself from the people. It's the shortsightedness of many classical musicians today that has created a gulf between popular music and classical music, one that didn't really exist back in the 19th century and before, and one that's leading to the weakening and perhaps even incestuous decline of classical music as a whole.
About music as art and art in general:
If art is the practise of communication and expression
Although I've got no good definitions for art, and this subject has been discussed to death like...yeah...I think that's a bit too inclusive. Commercials, advertisements, letters, etc. fit, but don't quite seem to fall into the same category as theater, painting, etc., at least to me.
if art is the creation of aesthetically pleasing work
This idea would appall many modern artists, but perhaps not many artists of earlier times. I strongly disagree with that. Some ideas are well expressed in shocking, uneasy ways. A depiction of war may not be pleasing, but it might tell you very important things about yourself or society. An aesthetically pleasing works can be shallow, empty, superficial.
Maybe I went too far in describing VGM as limited or deficient. It serves a very good purpose, and I like to listen to it. The point I was making is that the looping is a great hindrance if you're trying to create a masterpiece. How can you write a novel without a climax or a conclusion? It's the same idea. But you still can create VGM that's interesting, pleasing, and perhaps even challenging. It's just that nobody really tries to create masterpieces because that would be difficult, incredibly time-consuming, probably not well-received, etc. So instead they write these cutesy tunes, simple melodic tracks, or exciting romps. It's very likely that these cutesy tunes and such fit games better than more complicated music. Just some people write these things better than other people, and that's what we're all interested in. It's not that VGM aside from the looping is limited IMHO but that nobody tries to do more with it.
For me, "challenging" would mean depth, the capacity for many interpretations that can speak from many different emotions and ideas. Most popular music you dance to, chill to, etc. Damn if that's not the music I want if I want to dance or chill, but if you listen to it (as opposed to simply hearing it; the focus is on your objective and intellectual involvement), there really isn't much to listen to in many cases. Of course there's a continuum; some popular music has some depth if not a lot. Jazz in general, especially the styles of the 40's-60's and modern avant-garde styles, is considered to be as deep as most classical music, even by some of the snootiest, most out-of-touch musicians out there. Part of the reason is just sheer complexity--a curse of musical training in many cases is that you by default (for some people it's always) analyze everything you hear; if music lacks depth and complexity, you might start to get bored or annoyed by it.
I think you mischaracterize classical music as being enamored with the language of music (the note lengths, the phrasings, the thematic development, the chord changes, etc.). When people talk about these things, some people might go into saying how they used X and Y just like you say omg I haves 400 APM. But the reason we talk about these things is that they are building blocks. All "actual music" is built out of these parts, consciously or subconsciously (maybe better words are "intentionally" or "unintentionally"). Even if you ignore these parts and any analysis, they still exist.
Anyway, the analysis is useful because it can be used to say something like, drawing from movies as an example: "in this movie I really liked the portrayal of character X. In particular, the cinematography at portion Y was particularly effective when the camera kept surrounding character X with bleak, empty, white spaces, as opposed to her counterpart Z who wore bold, active colors, which helped to quickly and powerfully make apparent Y's loneliness or desolation (or whatever)" or such. In other words, the analysis can be used to understand something and communicate that on another level. Somebody else might say, "yeah it was good" but have no meaningful explanation. The cinematography wasn't the end-all product but rather a component that contributed to the experience.
A piece of music can make you feel like you reached the summit of a mountain. How? Well, you can say that the beginning was like kind of sad, but the ascent was dramatic leading to a real pretty, thick celebration at the end. But then you have the problem of how the beginning was sad, and that somebody else thought it was expectant instead (two valid views, but how did two people come to two different answers)? You don't need to know the details to appreciate it, sure. You don't need to realize that the melody at the beginning was actually used at the end too, but in changed form. Or that the ascent was marked by 2-against-3 rhythms that cause tension, or that that's called hemiola. However, it might tell you something about how the music did what it did, and why the next piece you hear does nothing for you. Or why the person next to you fell asleep.
Just to clear up something, just having these components doesn't make something good. There's still no truly objective ground to say A > B, but it's something.
About ranking composers in talent...it's a hard thing to do, but I think it's akin to ranking songs as good or not. There are some valid soft metrics, like how well they can emotionally move people, how easily they come to clever or fresh ideas, etc. I think there's some basis here as long as there is consensus.
You know one particular reason why you (HamerD) might not like recent VGM as much as older VGM? Recent VGM is more likely to be complex (and btw complex in of itself doesn't mean good, and lot's of good stuff is simple but does what it does well and appropriately by being simple), because the technology is no longer so limited. You can have more channels, more "instruments". Maybe people are trying to be too fancy rather than doing something simpler that gets the job done. But that's just my wild guess; can't exactly read your mind. ~_~
We just feel good when we listen to it.
Hopefully you picked up in my rambling this point, which I'll restate just in case I really make no sense: "Can you say anything about what makes you feel good?"
Erg, I'm kind of slow and stupid today, but hopefully you still have some objections to some of the above you're willing to talk about.
edit: I forgot to address the Uematsu issue. I think I have a hard time putting it into words too. I'll start by saying that I can't find too many things I like other than some of the melodies here and there. It's sometimes not interesting, sometimes stagnant. Compared to other VGM I don't find it particularly outstanding or brilliant. The end result is it doesn't disproportionately make me "feel good", but how it gets there? It's "ordinary" except in the times it's not. Ugh let me think later.
Forgot this one:
That is in fact why I consider most popular styles of music to be more challenging than classical. Because you have to basically provide variation- people are only interested if you have variation; with less variables. You aren't ripping out vital variables, mind, only the ones that are the least emotive.
Here I'd argue you're taking out variables that can be made to be important in ways that make sense. In very general terms there are ways to use these other variables to nuance, color, enhance the "more emotive" ones for a fuller experience, one that different people will interpret in many challenging, enriching ways.
edit2: "Neoclassical" rather than "pseudoclassical" sounds fine. I was hesitant to use the word "neoclassical" because it already means something else specific already. Especially with RPG music, "neoromantic" is probably a better description as VGM along with most movie soundtracks and the like borrow more from the Romantic than Classical period and ideas of classical music. Just the word was already taken so I ended up picking something that doesn't quite fit because of the connotation (or maybe it does?).
Question(s): Would you say VGM is meant to be taken seriously? What is its goals? Do you think it's musically significant? How about culturally significant? How seriously does it take itself?
Suffice to say that, being a composer myself who wants a job writing vgm, I do not simply have no explanation for why I like music. I'll get into the debate more later.
Very quickly though:
I expressed myself quite badly when I said that popular music is more challenging to write etc. My basic point is that generally, music is rather easy to write. Regardless of the level, in my opinion. What's difficult to write is good music; and the same goes for writing good themes. I completely agree with your points about some of uematsu's music being dull, but I personally think he has a fantastic imagination and a very acute sense of emotional awareness. His important songs are often, almost, supported by the action, rather than the other way round.
Your point about my liking past vgm more is completely accurate. I think vgm composition (especially american) has disappeared up its own ass. It's completely lost the point of vgm in the first place. The guile stage of street fighter is made not just by the background or the fighting, but definitely by the music.
My point about popular music being harder to write still stands in my opinion. I think classical music is basically overrun with variables, it waffles and fails to hit the nail on the head. By having, for example, a 3 minute song like with a band like the beatles, you are forced to present the neatest, most focused thing you can. With classical music you are allowed a huge amount of room to prod in all directions; and therefore in individual sections you are less scrutinized.
I also think that classical music was only ever a large part of the music scene because blues/ rock and roll just hadn't been invented. It was the party music of the day, and most of the composers just ripped out pieces every few weeks. It's all just a big number cruncher, most classical music, in my opinion. Chuck in enough notes that are in key and you have a mozart concerto, basically. It's all really formulaic stuff. And the stuff that isn't formulaic is spending most of its time trying not to be formulaic, as opposed to good. Anyway like i said i have to rush ><
Okay... I don't know how this argument started, but if anyone has any doubts about the "musicality" of game music, just download and listen to the Orchestral Game Concerts. It's 5 discs of game music arranged into full orchestral pieces. Not only do you get that grand, classical feel, it also contains that uniqueness you can only find in game music.
Go download the OGC's (there's torrents out there) and listen for yourself. You just might be very surprised.
There have also been many Final Fantasy concerts consisting of purely Uematsu's work, which I also thought were pretty well done.
On April 30 2008 21:46 teamsolid wrote: Okay... I don't know how this argument started, but if anyone has any doubts about the "musicality" of game music, just download and listen to the Orchestral Game Concerts. It's 5 discs of game music arranged into full orchestral pieces. Not only do you get that grand, classical feel, it also contains that uniqueness you can only find in game music.
Go download the OGC's (there's torrents out there) and listen for yourself. You just might be very surprised.
There have also been many Final Fantasy concerts consisting of purely Uematsu's work, which I also thought were pretty well done.
Nice find solid. But all the torrents for it seem to be dead. Where did you get your torrent?
Responding to teamsolid (HamerD, I'll let you clean your room and such, and finish what you started): + Show Spoiler +
Yeah there's been several VGM orechestral-arrange concerts. I forget the name of a touring show I'd heard about in a blog post here (it'd be worth reposting in this thread), but I've heard parts of a few of them. And some games come out with soundtracks that may or may not be orchestral, piano, or other type of arrangements.
But I don't think you've addressed the issue. Any music at all can be orchestrated. I could write an orchestrated version of Mary Had a Little Lamb. That doesn't say much at all about the underlying material. It just means that you can map the melody to whatever instruments, the other lines onto other instruments, find you have a few instruments left over to write some new harmonies into, and add a couple flourishes (stereotypical or not, depends on how well it was done), and BAM. Orchestrated version.
There's not really anything inherently unique to VGM, aside from extramusical associations to video games (and this aspect isn't trivial). There's some concert music out there that's written with a style seen in some VGM. Some of it's even written by people that write VGM.
I think perhaps you're confusing the content of good classical music (i.e. what makes it be considered one of the "fine arts", if you will...btw I'm not a fan of that phrase but whatever) with the kinds of commonly-occurring orchestral sounds that get associated with some of the body of classical music. Or maybe you didn't at all and this is exactly what you mean, and I'm being a prick about your choice of words for "that grand, classical feel."
As for having concerts for VGM, that they exist doesn't mean much in of itself other than the fact that it appeals to some people, and thus there's an audience and a demand, so they can sell tickets. (And I'm not trying to imply that if people like it, that means it sucks!) Uematsu concerts exist IMHO in large part because of Final Fantasy. I think in a parallel universe if he released albums of his FF music but they never got put into a video game (all his music released, but not in the games they're in IRL), much fewer people would care about him at all. Of course some people would care, and rightfully so, because he's really not bad. But the exposure to have concerts of his music?
This was what I was getting at when I was comparing him to other VGM composers. FF is more popular -> Uematsu gets more representation. Uematsu stuff is easier to remember because melodies are relatively easy to remember compared to background parts -> Uematsu gets disproportionate representation compared to the overall quality of the work compared to other peoples'.
I'm not trying to diss on Uematsu compared to other VGM composers, just to put his success in a different perspective (because IMHO he's way above average but not way above everybody else).
edit: actually HamerD, I'm going to take a few shots at you now anyway because I'm bored. + Show Spoiler +
To start off I probably need to explain a part of my perspective in case anybody missed it. If a movie has awesome car chases and explosions, and little else, that doesn't make it "good", meaningful, deep, challenging. You're not going to interact with it or think about it much at all. It's just going to give you another explosion. That makes it good for entertaining yourself for a couple hours, and probably very good at what it was trying to achieve. It's the same thing for popular music.
With classical music you are allowed a huge amount of room to prod in all directions; and therefore in individual sections you are less scrutinized.
Yeah but if you think there's plenty of people like me and more extreme than me out there doing all sorts of analysis (for their degrees too), than certainly all those individual sections have been scrutinized. You don't think Shakespeare has been more scrutinized than Stephen King?
It was the party music of the day, and most of the composers just ripped out pieces every few weeks.
Sure. The vast majority of classical music out there relatively sucks and that's why nobody cares about those pieces anymore. So you don't hear them.
Chuck in enough notes that are in key and you have a mozart concerto, basically. It's all really formulaic stuff.
No, you get a piece of crap unless you're really really lucky. You can tell the difference easily. And there's a reason why there's a consensus agreement that most of Mozart's earlier music is worse than his later music, even though all of his music is just "enough notes that are in key". Even though I don't like Mozart's music I can still tell and describe ways in that it's of high quality.
On May 01 2008 01:21 Myrmidon wrote: As for having concerts for VGM, that they exist doesn't mean much in of itself other than the fact that it appeals to some people, and thus there's an audience and a demand, so they can sell tickets. (And I'm not trying to imply that if people like it, that means it sucks!) Uematsu concerts exist IMHO in large part because of Final Fantasy. I think in a parallel universe if he released albums of his FF music but they never got put into a video game (all his music released, but not in the games they're in IRL), much fewer people would care about him at all. Of course some people would care, and rightfully so, because he's really not bad. But the exposure to have concerts of his music?
This was what I was getting at when I was comparing him to other VGM composers. FF is more popular -> Uematsu gets more representation. Uematsu stuff is easier to remember because melodies are relatively easy to remember compared to background parts -> Uematsu gets disproportionate representation compared to the overall quality of the work compared to other peoples'.
I'm not trying to diss on Uematsu compared to other VGM composers, just to put his success in a different perspective (because IMHO he's way above average but not way above everybody else).
In a parallel universe Uematsu probably would have composed film soundtracks instead, and if they were quality pieces then indeed many people would care about him. Have you heard of Joe Hisaishi? He's a very well respected Japanese film composer and I think his music shares some traits with Uematsu. He gets plenty of exposure.
Actually, there's plenty of popular games that gets zero exposure. About 99% of games released aren't remembered for their music, because their music is NOT memorable! Do anyone besides the most die-hard fans actually care about the Halo, Gears of War, MGS soundtracks?
On May 01 2008 01:21 Myrmidon wrote: Yeah there's been several VGM orechestral-arrange concerts. I forget the name of a touring show I'd heard about in a blog post here (it'd be worth reposting in this thread), but I've heard parts of a few of them. And some games come out with soundtracks that may or may not be orchestral, piano, or other type of arrangements.
But I don't think you've addressed the issue. Any music at all can be orchestrated. I could write an orchestrated version of Mary Had a Little Lamb. That doesn't say much at all about the underlying material. It just means that you can map the melody to whatever instruments, the other lines onto other instruments, find you have a few instruments left over to write some new harmonies into, and add a couple flourishes (stereotypical or not, depends on how well it was done), and BAM. Orchestrated version.
There's not really anything inherently unique to VGM, aside from extramusical associations to video games (and this aspect isn't trivial). There's some concert music out there that's written with a style seen in some VGM. Some of it's even written by people that write VGM.
I think perhaps you're confusing the content of good classical music (i.e. what makes it be considered one of the "fine arts", if you will...btw I'm not a fan of that phrase but whatever) with the kinds of commonly-occurring orchestral sounds that get associated with some of the body of classical music. Or maybe you didn't at all and this is exactly what you mean, and I'm being a prick about your choice of words for "that grand, classical feel."
Okay... unless you are actually a music major, play music for a living, or are heavily invested into classical music in one way or another, all you really "get" from classical music is that "feel". The melodies in most classical pieces aren't exactly extraordinary IMO, and there's plenty of film, game soundtracks, and even mainstream music that has more pleasing melodies to the ear. As for harmonies, it's not like most people will actually understand or appreciate the intricacies and how they are being used in a Mozart concerto.
How do you define "good" classical music? Just because a classical piece is incredibly complex and full of harmonies, it doesn't make it inherently superior to another simpler piece of work. As an example, Fur Elise is an incredibly simple piece, but just look how popular it is and how it can draw emotions from people listening to it. Sometimes elegance is best.
As another example, opera is sometimes considered a "fine art". Personally, I find it very distasteful, as do countless others. Really, the only reason it's labeled as such is because the rich and the elite in the past declared it to be so, and of course they shaped society. Clearly, they needed to have musical tastes that were above those of "common folk" to reinforce their egos. This applies to classical music to an extent as well.
In the end, what is the purpose of music? To evoke emotion in the listener, no? If it can achieve this in many or most people, then it is good music.
P.S. I suggest you try to find the OGC concerts, because they aren't just "substituting" some instruments like some other VGM concerts. Many pieces are actually orchestral compositions that simply contain within them some of the melodies from the source music. Most of the arrangements were done by composers who have a background in classical music.
On April 30 2008 21:46 teamsolid wrote: Okay... I don't know how this argument started, but if anyone has any doubts about the "musicality" of game music, just download and listen to the Orchestral Game Concerts. It's 5 discs of game music arranged into full orchestral pieces. Not only do you get that grand, classical feel, it also contains that uniqueness you can only find in game music.
Go download the OGC's (there's torrents out there) and listen for yourself. You just might be very surprised.
There have also been many Final Fantasy concerts consisting of purely Uematsu's work, which I also thought were pretty well done.
Nice find solid. But all the torrents for it seem to be dead. Where did you get your torrent?
I've had it since a long time ago. The only tracker that seems to have it now is www.Underground-Gamer.com. I guess either ask for an invite or just get use tracker checker and wait for a spot to open. Or find it from another P2P source like eMule.
This is getting to the point where we probably should have started a new thread. Oh well. + Show Spoiler +
Ah teamsolid, I probably was too unclear on a lot of points because a lot of the things you're saying agrees with me (and maybe what I said didn't come out that way). You might be right about the parallel universe success level, but that was just a poor example by me. Yeah, I'm a little familiar with Hisaishi from Ghibli movies like everyone else I guess, and you're characterization there is pretty astute. We may just be arguing semantics, but I'd say music from Halo etc. gets a lot of exposure because those games are popular, but I of course agree nobody cares about their music because it's not memorable and intended to be cared about.
"Good", deep, challenging music in the art music or classical music tradition (some say "pretentious", perhaps rightfully so) deftly presents and develops ideas through the language of notes and rests, leading them to inevitable, yet profound conclusions. It is nuanced and colored, with room for different valid interpretations, but it is not restricted by pleasantness of sound, complexity, length, or anything else. Good music uses repetition only for balance of form to create the framework from which the variations and developments spring forth. Good music is no more complex than it needs to be to handle its development. A simpler idea may be treated well with a simpler, shorter piece, but inevitably, the greatest masterpieces require deeper exploration to adequately handle the forces it pushes into motion. Effective music evokes emotions. The best music can make you question these emotions and lead you on a journey to find those answers.
As a funny coincidence, I was about to mention Für Elise as a piece that gets way too much attention relative to its merits. It's not bad, but there are reasons (okay, some of them not musical) why it's not a work or part of a work with an opus number.
It's unfortunate that so many people dismiss opera without even a minimal level of understanding of it (and I'm guilty of similar things myself), as some of the best music ever written was in operas. To be honest, I have no idea how operatic singing developed at all, as I also find many of the vocal types used in opera rather contrived. The vibrato they use is pretty ridiculous IMHO, even if it does help the voice project. And especially before the 1800's, opera librettos really sucked, and opera plots in general suck/sucked (no theater person would ever be interested in most of them) and are just excuses to motivate plotwise the next aria. But aside from these personal grievances about some of the aesthetics, I still appreciate good opera for its treatment of ideas, interesting extramusical associations with character and plot, melodies, orchestrations, etc., even if it's not my favorite. Now this is pretty off track.
I'll check out OGC then, thanks. Just to be clear, just because adaptations are more ambitious and deviate more from the source material, does not mean they are inherently better.
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: "Good", deep, challenging music in the art music or classical music tradition (some say "pretentious", perhaps rightfully so) deftly presents and develops ideas through the language of notes and rests, leading them to inevitable, yet profound conclusions. It is nuanced and colored, with room for different valid interpretations, but it is not restricted by pleasantness of sound, complexity, length, or anything else.
Inevitable, yet profound conclusions? I read that twice and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say there. So other types of music don't have carefully written notes or rests? They aren't nuanced or colored? They can't be interpreted in various ways?
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: Good music uses repetition only for balance of form to create the framework from which the variations and developments spring forth. Good music is no more complex than it needs to be to handle its development. A simpler idea may be treated well with a simpler, shorter piece, but inevitably, the greatest masterpieces require deeper exploration to adequately handle the forces it pushes into motion.
Okay, you kind of lost me there. Anyways, that's only one interpretation of what "good" music is.
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: Effective music evokes emotions. The best music can make you question these emotions and lead you on a journey to find those answers.
Now, here's a better definition, although still quite subjective. So in that case, the best music is hardly limited to classical music. I'm sure many people have been inspired by music from the Beatles, for instance, or any well-known artist, and found interest in music from there and became musicians themselves.
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: As a funny coincidence, I was about to mention Für Elise as a piece that gets way too much attention relative to its merits. It's not bad, but there are reasons (okay, some of them not musical) why it's not a work or part of a work with an opus number.
Yet it is probably better known than any of Beethoven's other symphonies (excluding 5th, 9th). It is also more memorable and evokes more emotion to me than his other symphonies. That alone gives it plenty of merit.
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: It's unfortunate that so many people dismiss opera without even a minimal level of understanding of it (and I'm guilty of similar things myself), as some of the best music ever written was in operas.
Again, "best music" according to who? According to the rich and the elitists in the past centuries, who needed a "refined taste" in music to distinguish themselves from the commoners? Well, I certainly don't think so.
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: To be honest, I have no idea how operatic singing developed at all, as I also find many of the vocal types used in opera rather contrived. The vibrato they use is pretty ridiculous IMHO, even if it does help the voice project. And especially before the 1800's, opera librettos really sucked, and opera plots in general suck/sucked (no theater person would ever be interested in most of them) and are just excuses to motivate plotwise the next aria. But aside from these personal grievances about some of the aesthetics, I still appreciate good opera for its treatment of ideas, interesting extramusical associations with character and plot, melodies, orchestrations, etc., even if it's not my favorite. Now this is pretty off track.
It's your every right to enjoy and appreciate opera in whichever way you wish to. At the same time, it's my right to say that it sucks. Similarly, it's your right to bash Uematsu's work in whatever manner you choose, and my right to appreciate/defend it.
I'm fine with that so long as you don't claim that your tastes are "superior" to mine, because then that becomes a personal insult.
On May 01 2008 03:58 Myrmidon wrote: I'll check out OGC then, thanks. Just to be clear, just because adaptations are more ambitious and deviate more from the source material, does not mean they are inherently better.
I think this is my last response in this series, so respond to and interpret this as you will. And again, I'm being sincere with these questions, and I appreciate people taking them seriously too, because I've struggled with some of the answers myself.
Do you believe in art criticism? That people who are experts on a subject have some grounds for authority when they say something is good or bad? Is the opinion of experts worth more than the opinion of laypeople? Do you trust the opinion of somebody whose job it is to watch movies and review them or that of one of your friends who knows what you like (think about why, and how valid these two sources are)? Do you believe that Milton was a good writer? Michelangelo could sculpt and paint well? Why? Do you believe music can be good without you liking it? Can music be good if most people don't like it?
When I say something is "good" or musically significant in the advancement of music as art, it's only my opinion, but it's an opinion that comes from the musically trained camp, the view that coincides with most music critics, educators, performers. It's also the opinion of people who just want to appear to be high-class ("rich and elitists of past centuries"). And maybe the opinion of some untrained ears too.
The question, then, is why there is a consensus among most experts. Is it just because they've brainwashed each other? Do they recognize qualities among music that other people don't? If they do, is it just bullshit anyway?
But a valid point you bring up is the value of accessibility in art. Of what worth is "good" music if nobody wants to listen to it?
On May 01 2008 05:49 Myrmidon wrote: Do you believe in art criticism? That people who are experts on a subject have some grounds for authority when they say something is good or bad?
Only to a certain extent. You'll never find a "review" of a painting. Art is mostly subjective, but it does have a few certain objective components, because think about it:
Why do we enjoy listening to music in the first place? It's because it was programmed into us by nature, our genes. It's the same reason we enjoy sex, or certain foods. Why are certain harmonies more pleasurable to listen to than others, again it's in your genes.
Everyone will agree that random notes played on a piano is not good music, but people will of course have unique tastes in music when it comes to the specifics, because we are all different.
Is the opinion of experts worth more than the opinion of laypeople? Do you trust the opinion of somebody whose job it is to watch movies and review them or that of one of your friends who knows what you like (think about why, and how valid these two sources are)?
Yes, but not much more so, only because they have more experience in the field, . I will still take their opinions with a grain of salt, because they are still people, with their own subjective preferences much like other individuals. The collective opinion is far more important, because humans are conformists by nature.
Do you believe that Milton was a good writer?
Don't know him.
Michelangelo could sculpt and paint well? Why?
No opinion. My only view is that other people think he sculpts well, so I have a preconceived notion that he sculpts and paints well.
Do you believe music can be good without you liking it?
Yes.
Can music be good if most people don't like it?
If most people are indifferent to it (or simply prefer other types of music), but some people like it a lot, then I'd say it can be. If most people hate it, and only a few people like it, then no (or at least the bad outweighs the good).
When I say something is "good" or musically significant in the advancement of music as art, it's only my opinion, but it's an opinion that comes from the musically trained camp, the view that coincides with most music critics, educators, performers. It's also the opinion of people who just want to appear to be high-class ("rich and elitists of past centuries"). And maybe the opinion of some untrained ears too.
If you mean good to be synonymous with historically significant in terms of music, then I would most definitely agree.
The question, then, is why there is a consensus among most experts. Is it just because they've brainwashed each other? Do they recognize qualities among music that other people don't? If they do, is it just bullshit anyway?
Good classical music is definitely good music, but it is also missing many elements found in other genres of music: It will never have the rhythm or beat of rap music. The melodies are not usually as pleasant as in a lot of modern music (A great melody evokes more emotion in me than any amount of harmonizing or whatever). It lacks variety and can eventually get tiresome after repeated listening. It doesn't go along well with most vocals. And so on.
Basically, different types of music have strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, people can have valid differing personal preferences. Which experts are you talking about? Classical musicians?
If you asked a hip-hop producer what's the best type of music, I doubt he'd answer classical. Ask a musical artist what his/her main inspirations are, and he'll usually name other musical artists. Rarely will they name Beethoven or Mozart.
Learning about classic music is essential to learning to compose music. It's the language which music is built on, just like you have to learn arithmetic, geometry or calculus before you can get anywhere in mathematics. That doesn't mean everyone has to like listening to it over other music.
But a valid point you bring up is the value of accessibility in art. Of what worth is "good" music if nobody wants to listen to it?
I could basically condense my point down to: find me a person who can write more heart-rending ballads, uplifting uptempos and energetic battle music with style and originality like Uematsu. Similarly find me someone who can write a song that literally jumps up the quality of a game like Uematsu.
It's like comparing The Beach Boys to Mozart. Could Mozart really write as good music as The Beach Boys? Could he actually come up with as good hooks and lines and melodies? I highly doubt it, personally. But then again, you have to have the same opinion as me (the beach boys> mozart) for any of that to count. Same goes for the beatles etc.
ps from a technical standpoint, myrmidon, uematsu is the best in my mind because he dances around cliche so expertly- he uses typical chord sequences and structures, but puts his own spin on them and really brings out the best aspects of whatever typical line he chooses to use.
************************ DO NOT REMOVE ************************ Anyone can modify this list. Instructions and rules, are on the first post of this thread. PM Cogito, fusionsdf, goldenkrnboi, <add name here if you want to assist others> if you still need help.
If you want to modify the list. (1)Copy and paste the message in the spoiler below in a new post + Show Spoiler +
"!!!! UPDATING LIST, WAIT UNTIL I AM FINISHED BEFORE MODIFYING LIST !!!!"
(2)Copy the entire list (Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C) and edit the new post, and paste the list
If you click on a BlueLaguna.net link, please be sure to click on an ad to support them. They do a heck of a job, for no fee at all. ************************ DO NOT REMOVE *************************