Oomoog the Ecstatic

Common noob statement You need to cross-reference more, ex. from Bach, to totally different genres like Mozart. A theme is one thing that can occur throughout an infinite amount of time. A melody can be many things that occur during one definite time. A theme is usually an underlying concept, whereas a melody is an overall concept that can be simplified to its essential sequence. An example, a theme in Beethoven's Fifth is he most always ends his triplet patterns late throughout the symphony, ie. 1-2-3, 1. A melody in Beethoven's Fifth is everything you hear here, for example: All instruments from 0:28-0:40 come together fairly clearly to form a predetermined set melody So melody usually refers to the literal simplification of a sequence, rather than themes (or associations) understood within it.

No. I only play it when I'm swimming.

Because, SL was just some fiddleditty. JP is eternal.

1. War Mars IV-VI 2. Raiders of the Lost Superbowl (all 3 years) 3. I.T. The Information Technology 4. Moan Alone 1 and 2 5. Geriatric Park 1 and 2 6. Harry Hudini and the Chamber of Commerce / Prisoner of Alabama 7. Superbad 8. The Accidental Not sure 1. War Mars Sqls Overrated 1. Jews 2. Seven Years in the Fed 3. Hitler's List 4. Close Encounters of the 3rd Wife 5. Hoop

Joker wasn't an okay Batman prequel. Batman was an okay Joker sequel.

Least immune from business, that would be the late 20th century into now. Economic freedom was at its highest, music industry as diverse and free-market as possible. With films however, you're always talking about a collaboration. Half of the time these collaborations are better than your average artists because there's a bigger vision, more inspiration, higher standards, that's where the orchestra and other ensembles were really repurposed. Other times, films and scores fall completely short. There was no better outlet than film, TV or games to produce high art, that is, if you're going to ask me if a Beatles album is better than one by Uematsu. It's just, will it be done nowadays or not. The Index of Economic Freedom says we're doing worse than we were 12 years ago, and popular scores are very same-y within their respective eras. We can only hope the question's not so much about Zimmer, even though he's changed a lot of the film sound. Can we get a much better Zimmer coming into this century, it's still possible, after all, we got a much better Korngold.

It's not that people don't like his music, its that they don't like how popular his style is in the industry, as if, "Want to be successful? Compose like Zimmer." Some composers throughout the centuries have written good music that's more digestible and popular than others. It doesn't mean it's great music.

What ever happened to Baby Bear? Also is this going to be like the movie Clue, just with more blood?

It's lovely, Ravel. But you know musical form more than any of the ghastly classical beasts. It only got better after you.

x

Layers, till the closing

The point is, be quiet and let the experts talk.

Maybe one should stop being so influenced by primitive prolificness and its ego-based fraud, and start embracing the true knowledge of collaboration and unification. So many great compositions of the 20th century. A real composer nowadays knows exactly what they're getting into, and they fervently serve the purpose of it despite the mob bosses cutting their checks and silencing their intelligence. Thumbs down to your predictable cat meme, although there is no thumbs down button.

So much music has degraded what real music is about, that ideal balance and vision both sought and not excused by the developing errors that are the Classical and Romantic eras. Although like any genre, the Classical era has brought us beautiful creations, but music has become reimagined and restored by the likes of John Williams and other collaborators who have reached perfection in their certain works or songs. I wouldn't trade the last 100 years of music for anything; the imagination is, for lack of other terms, near perfect. This is because its roots going back even further, aren't just Classical, but a whole mix of things to be found and reinterpreted.

.

Very nice 2nd choice I was going for smallest possible example.

Mozart can go suck on Koji Kondo's dick. Lul jk.

I've written themes similar (and much better than this) where both melody and harmony follow a perfectly flowing trajectory but don't themselves match up every instance. It ends up working like a great puzzle, as though there exists a resolving counterpoint, however I'm not sure how to react to the above sample.

It would seem group A, casually may adopt this term 'better' for reason of low estimation of their own opinion and perspective on judging. As they say, criteria of other people are preferred although not determineable as objective or understood well by oneself, detached from all the criteria and nuances oneself knows about and picks up on, to form their opinion on what's better. In contrast, group B, critics and opinionated, realize all things enjoyed and loved about a movie must be quality criteria, and trust their extensive experience to determine what movies are overall more enjoyable and meaningful. 'More people' doesn't mean 'stronger evidence,' because it would be weaker evidence. When there's one person you know has incredibly adept artistic knowledge and understanding (the self), and add in popular responses, for group B, that immensely lowers the average of knowledge standards. Now unfortunately we all have to trust our own judgments first, when we choose its best to let someone else decide for example (group A), or if its best to judge well first, and then find a few trustworthy judges to partially back (group B). However, following B makes more sense, stemming from the source of judgment. Group A is an easier and lazier approach where "my opinions aren't meaningful enough to argue with people." I've seen lots of those types, and would rather discuss and find agreements and new perspectives with the group B types, because we actually believe in what we think. The irony of the situation. Group A knows for sure what's better, even though they can't trust their own judgment. Group B isn't sure what's better, and is not actively adopting others' opinions like group A, but gradually gaining new perspective from them they can back themselves. Favorite therefore is as close to 'best' as we can be honest about, the rest of determinations are just shallow destraction we're not gaining from. To gain real perspective, we listen to people who take it seriously and have real opinions.

I see what you're saying. But scientifically one will say, 'scissors in human hands in fact cut paper faster than a rock will', and then subjectively we'd conclude a 2nd part: 'scissors are great at cutting paper.' For films on the other hand, we have to do the exact reverse. We don't say scientifically 'this film will achieve great screenplay because certain facts about it are true.' Those facts we can't pin down. Instead we historically begin by valuing more things over others as a society, century by century more diversely, until we develop definitions that might explain some facets, ie. abstract criteria you're talking about. This doesn't mean the ones we've defined are the only ones. There may be 95% of actual nuance we can't define in categories or terms yet, but exist throughout many individuals' specialties. We can average the popular criteria and say, on average, one will more likely enjoy these criteria. But this precisely can never be certain with any particular person. Evolution guarantees that most of us will have valid and different artistic perspectives.

Lets stick to the arts because art is extremely easy to determine. With food, we have to take into consideration more scales, like nutritional value, ethics of slaughter and advertisement, expense. With art, nothing can be artistically wrong if it meets two criteria. (1) It doesn't harm others, and (2) at least one person would pay for/consume it. Attributing quality isn't an objective matter, it concludes naturally from the fact that someone enjoys it. Something enjoyed must have inherent quality and greatness. It only becomes objective once we state what something is best at, ie. the exact criteria, terms and conditions it meets. So if I get kicks out of Spirited Away or something, it has inherent quality. However I can change my perspective later; it would still have that exact quality, but no longer apply to me.

I have to agree with everything you said, except for this point. It's impossible for something to be loved without having quality, because we just agreed quality isn't objective. It lies in perspective. Something can have inherent amazing quality to someone, and not others, for example, a script writer can put 10 years of hard and dedicated work, to only find a few who think it fair. And the author may not even agree themselves. There's nothing incorrect about those evaluations, because there's no objective for them to reach. In the arts, its all about what individuals will value.

Right. You have noted certain criteria that has meant something to you throughout the years, and determined that some films are better at meeting those criteria. That's terrifically valid. Thanks, I agree. I can't change semantics of people who I think are confused. The accurate semantic is from most people who say "Best film ever!" when they speak of their favorites. People can use correct words, "most widely-loved film", "critically acclaimed film," or yours, "personally respected" for its definable merits. I will simply just question what people mean when they say "best" stand-alone, because all three of the above mean different things and none of them mean 'best.' 'Best' stand-alone always refers directly to the subject using that word, because its a valuation judgment. When you love a film, you say its the best. When others love it, you say its the best according to others. AKA, recommended. (This is what ratings are.) When a film meets certain criteria, you say its technically great, or the best at matching those criteria. When 90 different people tell me 90 different films are the best, I will understand it as their best. We just had such thread, 'Best film,' and everyone had totally different answers. Some weren't well-appreciated by others. That's perfectly okay. The best film of all time doesn't entail a majority will appreciate it. It entails holding a valuable perspective some simply may not have.