1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Discussion areas for the individual classes are unlocked for all users. Let's see if this makes it any more useful. If not, we'll drop this or organize under a single banner to save space and lean things out.
    Dismiss Notice

Verta JRE?

Discussion in 'The RedBanned Bar & Grill' started by Sam Miller, Jan 18, 2018.

  1. Because The Wonder Years was an international monster.
  2. Considering the timing, wouldn't I have been the target audience? I mean I like the show but I didn't think it was very big, or at least not big enough for a single roll to seem more important than your husband's entire career.

    Wasn't one of Donald Trump's ex-wives an Olympic medalist? I wonder if she still connects Olympian, or if she's been reduced to an ex-wife
  3. It was constantly on the TV when I was a kid, often taking over timeslots for cartoons I wanted to watch.
  4. Sad, but fair. Although I think you underestimate the amount of people who like the scores from single player games -- again, touring Zelda symphony, European orchestras playing modern game score music, etc. I think a lot of game music has become even more noticed in recent years. Any gamer I know that plays single player games will be able to reference notable single player scores -- if not themes, then most certainly colours, tonality, etc.
    It makes more sense to me actually -- competitive games tend to require less world-immersion and more direct communication which, coupled with SFX, can make new music difficult to intake. Still sad, of course, and I don't get why this would be a habit, but I did the same thing when I played League of Legends for a rather brief period of time years ago. Doing this with Diablo II would be a travesty, however.
    Definitely true, although even my non-music friends seemed to bring up Blizzard's music quite regularly.
  5. Ditto on why I find many of these talk shows a tremendous waste of time. That said, JRE has had some rather interesting/sharp individuals on his podcast, though I greatly prefer other interviews or segments with the aforementioned (i.e. Jordan Peterson).
  6. you kind of proved my point using Zelda as an example... aside from Skyrim, haven't heard anyone hum a modern game's theme in a long time. Mostly just classic fandoms - where maybe they are actually trying to hear the new music.

    that said, Wow has nothing on wildstar music... His space western flavor for exiles is awesome, but you can't not be a stuck up high class cassian instantly, while listening to the Dominion's theme.

    it's really odd sound quality, because a.) feels like a phone recording, and b.) it's from a weird spot, throwing balance and timbre off quite a bit.

    but I love it because it's truly thematic writing in a game, which was refreshing. And it was also actually recorded - which was refreshing.

    That was the piece that first really caught my attention... he made a very compelling instrumentation/texture choice iconically between races/factions - and exile's being more or less the space cowboy on the frontier is a cool flavor - but the music absolutely adds to the immersion. Weird hybrid fiddle, western, what... and they usually have somewhat of an Asian feel to it somehow blended in due to the use of higher strings/winds favoring pentatonic melodies.

    Man that game had so much potential that it's insane looking back at how much it had going for it, only to suffer a bad launch - with "too little too late" fixes that the game never recovered from.
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
  7. oddly, just realize the percussion was recorded separately from the orchestration in that video

    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
  8. True, but I much prefer situations like the rubin report recently - when he had Peterson and shapiro on, and basically just let the two of them talk.

    Not that joe poking around ideas is a bad thing, but it's more or less how I feel like a typical person thinks - so he's like a vessel of the average joe to ask Jordan Peterson questions an average joe would want to ask... I don't think Joe is like that, but more or less knows his fanbase, and wants to keep the conversation down to a digestible level. He did hold Peterson's feet over the fire a little about the use of the word "Monster" being both good and bad - which was about as critical as I think Joe can be towards Peterson... ofcourse that's implying that a monster can't be neutral, which I suppose is a way you could look at it. Either it's a tyrant, or just represents significant Power - without clarifying the nature of how that power will be used.

    But Peterson does make some strange vocab decisions sometimes... So it's important to make him aware - and to pin him down for clarification. Despite talking about various mythologies often these days - I still don't think he means religion when he says religion... because he'll break it down to just fiction in general, and then saying religion makes most intellectuals scatter like cockroaches, like they are allergic to it. Sam Harris is probably the embodiment of that, and another reason why Peterson should ditch the word and find a better one.

    That said, Joe is interesting sometimes, - but sometimes it's also physically painful to watch... like when he had russel brand on, I just stop and go "man, this man talking makes me cringe, and this other man isn't going to say anything that I find interesting" And in general - Joe doesn't really make interesting points often... he's just good at getting interesting people on, and has a relaxed session - does some good probing, and makes it relatable to guys just sitting around talking about stuff.
  9. The Wonder Years was internationally huge (I've only seen the two episodes she showed me once) aimed at baby boomers, not you. And yes her character was a fantasy girl despite her age. But after the show she got a degree in advanced mathematics at UCLA, co-authored a famous formula on percolation and Gibbs-States multiplicity for ferromagnetic Ashkin-Teller models in two dimensions, and is a four-time New York Times bestselling author of math books for kids. Not only does she have more IMDb credits than I do, Google lists me merely as "Danica McKellar's ex-husband." Couldn't be more proud of her, and she's the best mom ever to Draco.
  10. I'm suprised she's got more imdb credits.

    I'm sure she's a solid person, just really looks dumb to be reduced to the ex-wife or ex-husband by Google.

    hence my example with trump's ex wife.
  11. That's fair. Again though, I think I tend to glean more about what Peterson means through watching his lectures, though with a psych background I tend to find his classroom stuff consistently interesting which others may not.

    I think Peterson walks this line very intentionally, and I find it quite interesting. He's said in some places that just because his psychological interpretation presents truths about religious matters (specifically his Biblical series), doesn't mean it's all that is true about it, and he refuses to allow himself to be placed in one or the other side of the "God vs Atheist" debate. I find this quite fascinating because he's then equipped (for people that can let it go anyway) to demonstrate the value and life wisdom found in belief systems and texts that many people disregard altogether without genuinely examining, while also not alienating people within that belief system. That's a really unique place of influence.
    Re: Harris. I think people like Harris are precisely why he shouldn't abandon "trigger words" like religion -- pop intellectuals like Harris notoriously refuse to engage in serious conversation about metaphysical matters. Harris et al aren't taken terribly seriously in philosophy classrooms when subject matter goes deeper, and they're partly responsible for scientism being the annoying trend that it is. I'd much rather see serious intellectuals (atheist or otherwise) being given spotlight, and I'd hate to see Harris or friends become the standard for what a serious intellectual looks like.
    Getting awfully off topic here though!

    Yeah and this is why I generally can't sit through his show, especially considering his historically rants, deeply cynical nature (maybe that's changed over years).
  12. well I use harris as the characature of the problem...

    my issues that it simply hurts his chances of getting his message out.

    but on the flip side I think he intentionally uses the word religion to rope religious people into taking life lessons and engaging in critical discussion about topics a little deeper than their pastor would take them.

    it's a gamble, I just don't know if it's a good horse to bet on.

    but I feel on the same coin an atheist is probably more likely to look past religion and appreciate other ideas from him than a devout believer being told "hey, I don't believe that shit, but there's some real utility in it... not just in your religion, both others as well"

    he's got a very utilitarian view of the world, which is foreign to many.

    but yeah, Sam Harris reminds me of my 13 year old edgy self - so it wears me down quickly.
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
  13. Ah! In that case we're definitely on the same page.

    He's definitely hard to pin down, but I do see it having some value in what you mention. I think he frames it well by talking about the stereotype of the militant atheist vs the "fundamentalist" Christian (for lack of a better term), the issue being one side denouncing the Bible because it can't be taken completely literally and the other side insisting that it be taken completely literally (ironically not the position of some of the world's most influential theistic thinkers), Peterson's point being that both are missing the mark.

    I'm with you there, it's certainly a gamble -- I find his position quite interesting, but people do tend to get quickly frustrated by utilitarian views (myself included). This issue aside, he certainly does share some very practical wisdom, is a really cogent thinker, and is one of the few legitimately well-researched, intelligent psychologists who happens to be both prominent and extremely competent in the difficult world of statistical analysis, and as such his psych lectures tend to be really interesting (especially personality). Shapiro is quick on his feet but Peterson does a great job of remaining non-polemic and quite accountable to logic in his political debates. His presentation to the Canadian senate on the ridiculous freedom of speech violating bill they passed anyway (bill C-16) was extremely well-articulated, albeit painful to listen to the responses.
    Haha I think he does that to a lot of people, I get the same feeling.
  14. I think they more annoying stereotype is the one of Peterson's fans, especially now that it's practically weaponized, where people who don't agree with them can't actually articulate an argument so they criminally misrepresent him and then say that the Peterson cult is going to try to correct me in the comments.

    When in reality it's just people correcting them because they're being disingenuous, and maliciously defaming someone in a cowardice manner. Actual Jordan Peterson fans are probably the only people who know enough about him to make real criticisms, since he's pretty damn deliberate when he says something.

    I just remember seeing an article last year that was literally called something along the lines of Jordan Peterson the dumb man's genius or something. Of course the article framed him as being every pejorative the author wanted him to be, sprinkled in with the idea that he's just so eloquent about his bigotry that young men will eat it up

    I'm huge about utility... And that's one of the things that I really loved about Peterson's perspective on fiction and mythology... Because I've always loved mythology growing up, and culture the last few years has really allowed some of it to resurface. I've always felt like there were certain things different cultures got right, much of which was probably due to their religious structure, so maybe we could learn from those cultures without killing each other over whose story is the right one. So Peterson making a strong point that there is tons of utility and looking over ancient text and mythology, it is instantly an idea that piqued my interest.

    Speaking of his psychology lectures, his lecture on creativity was pretty awesome for those who haven't seen it.

    And nowadays my music has become simpler, and I think Mike has a more musical way of articulating this point in his master classes talking about Melodies and orchestration in general.

    Mike kind of has a keep it simple stupid strategy for building a relatable Melody, and easing them into more complicated contortions of it but starting simple and making it more interesting as the pattern becomes more familiar to them.

    But the Peterson quote about creativity is what I think of every time I write a melody right now "needs to be both novel and useful"

    You had some very interesting stuff, very creative works that really only musicians enjoy, because it's not relatable to the average person so it's extremely novel but not useful. That's extremely useful if not novel is imaginative uninspiring and cliche. But simply pointing out the fact that being more creative can actually be a detriment to your music career because it becomes unrelatable to people while pop music is extremely simple and Ultra relatable.
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
  15. You said, "But," but my exact words on effective melodies are: Something familiar [useful]; Something new [novel].
  16. it's the same, I just like the slogan as my mantra - which is why it pops up at the daw. It's basically reducing your observations to 4 words that work as like a "thumbnail" for the same ideas you teach(more in depth) in your classes on melody and composition in general.

    I'm half awake, typing on my phone - "but" was an odd choice to make, sorry if that confused the message. The entire lecture resonates with a lot of what you say from a different perspective - so when I finally got to sit down and watch the master classes I just kept thinking of that phrase.

    From your perspective it's something more along the lines of making a Melody the tumble and only changing one or two things at a time but in a broader perspective it explains why somebody can be extremely creative with a business idea that never takes off because it just simply doesn't make sense to anybody else
  17. No kidding! He's challenged people to find bigoted opinions in the hundreds of hours of lectures he's uploaded. Of course they produce nothing.
    This kind of thinking ("the cult will try to correct me in the comments") is again nothing but an attempt at pre-dismissing anyone who disagrees. I have yet to see people like this seriously engage with his ideas.

    *Sigh* This is why I've become a hell of a lot more strict with myself about my internet usage. It gets immensely irritating to attempt to read both sides of a discussion and all the opposite side brings to the table is the equivalent of South Park adults yelling "rabble rabble!", and any attempts I've seen by Jordan or people with similar trains of thought to engage in critical thinking with the kind of people who engage in pseudo-journalism as you mentioned fall flat, leaving naught but a great deal of elementary fallacy and boatloads of angst being thrown around. It's baffling to me why it's so tolerated, but I again think it comes down to deep systemic flaws in public education on what ideas are supposed to be accountable to (namely logic). It's especially baffling, and tragic, that it's so prevalent in academia, which is precisely why I loved philosophy as much as I did -- you get hammered quite quickly for retorts like "but I feel like".

    Oh indeed! Myself included. I think that's why he takes that angle. Practically, I agree, but my fixation on deeper questions prevents me from throwing all my eggs in one basket when it comes to authors/thinkers/speakers.

    Definitely! On personality as well -- there are some summary snippets that make it quite digestible. I learned a surprising amount about myself (rather, it was affirmed rather than new information) through his discussions on the Big 5, especially considering their statistical validity. I had gone through a decent amount of material on psychometrics in university, but he boils it down in a fantastic way.
    I've always had the knee-jerk reaction to not want to do what people tell me in regards to creativity (typical, I'm sure), and as such I had a difficult time swallowing what Mike talked about initially ("to hell with structure and convention!" until I realized what I was writing was mostly just sound effects). It's certainly sunk in now though, and what I appreciate about Mike is how he emphasizes transcription above all else -- it made me realize that my favourite music, while far from simple or always straight-forward structurally, always contains and disguises what he talks about, namely simple/memorable melodies (or riffs/chord progressions) that aren't overly dense or long-winded, repetition, smooth transitions, etc; if a transition is jarring, it's done intentionally, and still with elements of the preceding parts to interconnect it. It's been quite a fascinating realization, and has made me appreciate the songwriting of people that have experimented and created new genres, but still retain those core elements of songwriting.
    What I also appreciate is Mike's emphasis on writing good music, rather than landing gigs. I deeply respect that he actively chooses not to buy into the AAA Hollywood trends, and instead works on projects that allow him the ability to write how he wants. It's that emphasis on working vs working in the industry. I know that if I learned to write cheap, basic pop songs, I might make more money, but I don't care -- I trust my own taste, and want to write music that makes people feel and experience what I've experienced through music. I'm relatively confident (some days much more so than others) this is doable with work, dedication to a vision, and the extremely useful instruction of people like Mike.
  18. Ori and the Blind Forest. Had that theme going through my head for weeks after I finished it.

    It's hardly a paragon of musical genius, but it fits the vibe of the game well and it's weaved into the game's overall soundtrack throughout. After you're done playing, it's firmly entrenched in your brain.
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.

  19. Simple is nothing to be ashamed about... I sleep to yggdrasil from Warduna all the time... his music isn't complex, and certainly gorgoroth wasn't either no I would definitely prefer the former.

    That said though, I was mainly talking about multiplayer games, is that from an online game? Or is it single player or Co-op
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
  20. Who cares if it's genius? Simple melodies often aren't, but they sure can be fitting and memorable. I also thought it was a beautifully fitting, memorable score.

    As for remembering themes, I can remember music from single-player games generally more often than I can remember film scores, relatively speaking. I think what he was referring to was strictly multiplayer games.

    Kyle: I think complexity and immediate memorability are rather difficult to marry -- I know of very few artists that can combine the two seamlessly. Most composers interweave the two, or rely on harmonic complexity to keep the simple interesting.

Share This Page