>the guitars on this album are really "angular"
>how about that synth? it's "icy"
>whoa, these vocals are totally "ethereal"
>>63949552
the simpons really cooks up some great reaction images
>hard-hitting snare drums
>fluttering hi-hats
>>63949552
>>63949592
So you guys don't like it when people use adjectives to describe music? Why?
>>63949664
That doesn't answer my question
>>63949624
I don't like it when people describe music by making a cliched attempt at creative writing
They usually do this because they don't know any theory. They can only describe their emotional reaction to the music and what the music reminds them of, not the music itself
>>63949682
They are incredibly poor and cliche adjectives to describe music to the point where it's almost meaningless using them.
Are you actually this dumb?
>>63949692
>They can only describe their emotional reaction to the music and what the music reminds them of, not the music itself
But most of the appeal to music to people who aren't musicians come from the emotions and feelings towards the music so it's understandable that most people don't describe their liking towards music with stuff like
>I really love those triadic arpeggios on the guitar countered by the bass melody
>That chord variation to a suspended chord really blew my mind
>>63949692
a thought occurs to me
obviously i've seen the regular "HEY GUYS YOU HAVE NO RIGHT CRITIQUING AN ALBUM IF YOU DON'T KNOW MUSIC THEORY" threads we have on here but one thing i've realized is that i've literally never in my life seen anyone actually review an album in terms of music theory, or even attempt to do such a thing
is that the whole joke of this meme?
>>63949692
Most of the publications you'd read descriptions like that have a target audience who don't understand or want in depth analysis..
>>63949552
>Being autistic and not understanding metaphor
>>63949757
>Being autistic and not understanding his post
>>63949692
They usually do this because they don't know any theory. They can only describe their emotional reaction to the music and what the music reminds them of, not the music itself
yeah, right. post a link to some reviews of yours that analyze the albums in terms of music theory or shut the fuck up you autismal retard
>>63949714
>They are incredibly poor and cliche adjectives to describe music to the point where it's almost meaningless using them.
they're not though are they
it's very obvious what kind of sound each of those is describing if you've ever actually listened to music before
>>63949826
>it's very obvious what kind of sound each of those is describing
That's because they're well known cliches m8.
>>63949843
maybe they're cliches for a reason
maybe this is the worst thread on /mu/
>>63949826
are you a fantano drone or do you write rym reviews?
Part of my job is tagging metadata on music with keywords.
We use this type of language because it transcends knowledge barriers; I need to use words that non-musical people will understand. There's no point in me describing a synth sound as "three octave, slow attack, long release, low passed and comb filtered with a reversed long pre-delay reverb" when I can just say "ghostly".
>>63949885
t. unoriginal person who's proud of their dependence on cliches
>>63949952
what job would that be
>>63949984
what is this t. meme? I haven't been here for a few months. what does it mean?
>>63949885
Anon, it's like describing a metal song as loud. It's such an obvious feature that for most purposes, pointing it out is just trite in a discussion and people use these overused adjectives ad nauseum as if they're saying something insightful about a piece. That's where the problem lies.
I have no qualms with admitting that they do describe a piece of music but they are cliches and, thus not very interesting or worthwhile statements to make.
>>63949952
that i can understand because it's useful, but when someone tries to explain why their electric guitar is better than yours because of the coloured soul of ebony is just pedantry
>>63949552
Ethereal is actually a genre characterized by dissonant choir-esque soprano female vocals
You is a stupid
>>63949986
I work for a production music publisher.
>>63950028
Well, yes. Music and sound are so subjective that trying to explain why A is better than B is like trying argue Yellow is better than Grapefruit.
>>63950012
It's short for thanks. You're ironically thanking somebody for making such a stupid statement, and then you describe what kind of person they are
>>63949984
what if the synths actually do sound ethereal though?
do i pretend like they don't just to avoid sounding cliche?
or... or is it actually okay to use cliches when they're appropriate?
>>63950072
ah ok
t. guy who thinks helping people reintegrate into /mu/ is worthwhile :^)
>>63950072
>>63949984
>It's short for thanks
Its literally translation. In this case it says something about the poster
read a book
>>63949692
>>63949592
>because they don't know any theory.
most of the adjectives you listed describe timbre which music theory does not have a codified vocabulary to articulate especially in today's age of intricate production techniques that make timbre a more important part of music than it ever was previously.
>>63950159
yeah ty or thx are the common abbreviations for thank you
>>63950342
The t. originates from finnish shitposters from /int/. It's a common way to end a letter here and the t is short for "terveisin" which would translate to "regards".
Get your shit together before you start spouting shit m8
T. a finn
You all know if a synth sounds "bubbly" or "icy". There's no fucking excuse.
>ctrl+f "trap-influenced beats"
you guys are slipping up
>>63949746
Its just band kids feeling superior. If they think "hey that chord progression was cool" once while listening to an album, they consider themselves the true beholder of its quality
Anyone point me to a song that uses furry synths?
>>63951038
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz3Mi_OZYno
>>63949746
You can google in depth analysis of popular music
>>63949692
How would you describe the sound of a supersaw synth to someone who has never heard it and doesn't understand a thing about electronic music production?
>>63949984
theyre not cliches its just another language to describe things. When people say ethereal vocals everyone knows what that means. It's not about showing everyone you're clever by using non-cliche words to describe music, it's using words we all understand so what you're writing is clear.
