First time i bought a curved panel it was because "that was the one in the store i could afford", and i had a PC with no monitor. I had just moved. So...
Like you i was wary but... i just kinda got used to it. Once it's perfectly normal to see the curved screen on a desk it just becomes a matter of using it like any other monitor.
You would have to take that risk.
Me? I later bought a new monitor and i wanted a curved one. It won me over. Not for immersion but just because it works for me. It was a 32" screen so having curvature would actually matter more than, say 24".
but only the more central area of vision is sharp, so the outer edges of the retina even if focussed are a bit vague. your eyes will focus on whatever is in the centre of your vision.
Spot on. That's a big chunk of total cost and definetly worth scrutinizing.
For myself, i don't even think i needed a GPU. But i've had an internal graphics only machine in the past, and there were times i would have liked a dedicated graphics card. I figured i'd buy one eventually, but never got around to it until compatible ones became obsolete or rare
So this time round i bought one.
if you wait too long, its better to upgrade the entire system, dont throw good money after bad!
eg with my 2010 system, no point buying fancy hardware for it, better to build a brand new system and buy hardware for that.
but if you upgraded the hardware in the first few years that is probably alright.
I mean, Bach kinda worked with electric guitars and amps he had. Which he didn't so he went to church and played the organ.
His inspiration lead him to compose the best music for the thing, and the result is rather nice.
What you refer to as the overload point is something that is set differently for everyone. That is why some people enjoy the engineering behind classical works. Some just pretend to enjoy it to appear more clever and sophisticated but that's their business. To others it's just too much crap going on all at once. Or too flashy, with all the fast notes and such.
one major problem is that before the internet, there was such a jungle of different classical works, often with bland titles, that it wasnt viable to explore, you'd pay out money on each album, spend 30 minutes listening to one piece, and many works are no good. if you even found a piece you liked, you'd probably forget the title, or misremember it. this is the problem of navigational traction. that its not enough to make something good, but you need to make it easy to return to.
with the internet, at least on Youtube you can explore, but exploring 30 minute pieces will limit what you discover. with pop, the typical piece is 3 minutes, and one can explore 10x more stuff for the same investment of time! with much more groups. with films, if a film is going nowhere after 10 minutes, I just quit the film.
also classical music is disjointed, that you have a composer over here, and musicians over there. with the best pop music, the musicians are the composers, and the MO of jamming is much more social, leading to a vastly better emotional content of pop music, where often its some young people having fun. whereas with classical music its some grumpy man in his 60s composing the music as a chore for a tyrannical king. and then trained musicians playing the piece in a mercenary kind of way. where they have to learn whatever the people in charge put in front of them. where its a chore and they are glorified session musicians who MOSTLY never compose even 1 note of anything new, where they are kind of adept zombies.
I always feel cheated if a group uses session musicians rather than the founding members!
experimenting with my own compositions, I find each time I play the tune it is a bit different, and its evolving with each playing, the music is alive. it sometimes becomes worse. I record it from time to time, to prevent it deteriorating!
the classical music is all nailed down to the last drop, namely each note and the timing. it is thus frozen. a piece doesnt evolve.
I mentioned above how Mozart was very well aware of the need to strike the balance between simple and aproachable, but music that anyone with half an ear could compose, and works that required a lot more effort to complete, but would risk being too difficult for many to follow and enjoy.
I believe he also had the temerity to quote his era version of the "butts in seats" principle.
The overengineering is useless and grandiose posturing. Happens when the composer runs out of talent.
often they are making it complicated as a kind of bidding war, out of fear that the other composer will compose for an even bigger orchestra or an even longer piece.
If there is one criticism that can be leveled at Mozart, it's that his themes were usually very simple and basic. And that some of his works were bubblegum. They were, and he ate as a result.
But the themes of his finest works, while simple were used as building blocks of something bigger. Particularly his concertos where a theme and another one or two sub-themes would play out in different configurations between the soloist and the orchestra.
with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, it is filled with bits which are sublime, but I have listened to it many times over the years, always enjoyed it, but to this day I cannot whistle the tune at all. I think if a piece of music is really good, you cant get the tune out of your head.
And on the subject of simple themes, Beethoven won that bet definitively and decisively. The opening of the 5th is a few of the simplest and dumbest notes anyone can play. But what they lead to, and where they go, that takes effort to create.
You can gauge your own point of overload and possibly expand it. Try listening to Mozart's piano concerto 21 -
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgY0QcUjtYE
Pay attention to the interplay between the soloist and the orchestra. Sometimes they will step on each others toes. Also see if you can identify the simple pieces Mozart used to build the whole thing together.
well, even in the first 2 minutes, the music is quite sublime. but I still walk away without a tune in my head.
the string instruments in particular are particularly adept both the composition and the playing, which is also the case with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.
so like with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, where it is sublime to listen to, but it leaves no impression in my mind.
maybe if I really study it I can distil out some component catchy tunes, but then the entertainment is a chore!
with Abba, I'll be singing "money money money, must be funny, in a rich man's world, a ha aa haa, all the things I can do, if I had a little money". it leaves a big impression which lasts decades.
in terms of spatial feeling and dialogue the Mozart is sublime, couldnt be done better, its way beyond where I am trying to reach with my composing!
so maybe its sublime in the direct experience, but not in the after experience, that it is maybe too clever to remember. I just think maybe Mozart is sublime muzak.
with Abba, I can recall lyrics after lyrics of so many songs, eg "walking through an empty room, children would play, this is how the story ends, this is goodbye", and eg "knowing me, knowing you, a haa, there is nothing we can do", and "the city is a jungle, you better beware, I am the tiger" and "so I must leave, I have to go, to Las Vegas or Monaco" and "Friday night and the lights are low, looking for a place to go, where they play the right music, ...." etc . all those classical musicians totally flunked in terms of lyrics, their vocals tend to be operatic, where noone understands the lyrics.
Do you have any examples of what you call bland and filler classical music?
I'd have to listen to various pieces, its why I never got into classical music, because every attempt to get in, I just had to listen to a lot of pompous machinations of sound which didnt have a tune. the really good tunes I know are either from Stars on 45's Hooked on classics, or from adverts for things like cars.
with your Mozart piece above, 43s to 46s is filler, banging away aimlessly,
1:54s to 1:59s is pretty bland banging away,
2:20 to 2:23 is very rapid piano tinkling, but in terms of tune is bland, in my book that isnt a tune.
2:24 to 2:30 is ultra subtle piano tinkling, but its not actually music! its not a tune. that is technically adept filla. it has elastic tempo, but I do elastic tempo with all my playing, which I superimpose on the piece according to my mood. its not written into a score! no doubt the speed of play is virtuoso. it is showing off but not going anywhere.
the music is sweet nothings. its like a body builder flexing his muscles but not actually doing any acrobatics.
but I have heard much worse classical music.
when I compose my pieces, I dont want any notes wasted. every note needs to be part of a tune.
I have repetition of some segments as part of an overall progression, where the next time round I make some change.
my first composition was just 23 notes. based on a tune and a countertune, not one note wasted. any blandness in the evolution was editted out or recomposed.
I think a true artist only publishes really good stuff, eg some hollywood actors only star in films with good stories, whereas others have no standards. I think the problem may be that some of the composers were desperate for cash, and would churn out a lot of junk just to pay for the next meal.
so eg Abba, virtually every piece they ever did is great. they never did filla tracks on their albums.
some groups eg will put a filler track on the B side of a 45rpm single.
Because i do agree a lot of it is no good at all.
I like ABBA and Bruce Springsteen. But i would not put them in the same league as classical masters, much less above.
the classical masters work is more meticulous and elaborate, but what tune emerges out of all the machinations?
Abba has produced so many unforgettable tunes, I struggle to remember any tune by any classical composer, I can recall the Bach fugue's main tune. even Tocatta which got in the charts, I am struggling to remember. but David Essex's obscure hit, silver dream machine, I can remember just like that:
"I've a dream, silver dream machine," and the tune is instantly in my mind:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfPRv5CGaa4
it has an instant magic which the classical music lacks, the classical music is all dry and clinical and lacks lyrics.
with pop music, I can probably recall 100 tunes.
so its much better "traction".
I think it may be like comparing gymnastics to ballet the gymnast has much more skill, but the dancer is more entertaining to watch. the gymnast is impressive to watch. Mozart is a gymnast, Abba are dancers.
there is no doubt that his work in some ways is perfection,
one piece of music I do remember is "also sprach zarathustra", which I think was in the film 2001 a space odyssey. now that tune I can remember in much fullness. having a look on Youtube, its in fact by Strauss, and my recalling is much nicer than how it sounds in the film.
I think Strauss is one composer, where I have heard various I like. I once heard a waltz by strauss on the radio which was really nice music. with his music, I remember the tunes.
And i could and do sometimes listen to classical music for hours. 45-50 minutes is not too much if you're taken in. If you're bored, then 10 minutes is too long.
Just to be clear i do not blame you for having a different tolerance to drawn out complexity. If you don't feel any joy and you find nothing worth listening to, that's that.
I like that specific Mozart piece you gave, and I like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, but with both I dont walk away with a tune. maybe his work is too clever!
I could not disagree more. If only more schools spent time teaching children instead of putting them on a career path. 90% of education is throwing education away and rewarding efforts that lead to getting a higher paid job.
the devil is in the details. the problem with music teaching is mostly the techniques are fundamentally wrong.
so its better you dont learn an instrument as a child as you'll need to unlearn that if you want real mastery.
fun doesnt need lessons!
now maybe music and art appreciation is a good idea, where they can get kids to listen to better works. but I totally oppose the subject of english literature, because stories are entertainment and fun, they arent a chore to study and do exams in! that is deranged! actually a lot of famous literature is junk, compared to TV dramas and films of today. Today, fiction is all disposable. literature critique is maybe ok. eg Shakespeare is a bit verbose and overflowery. But he has some great quotes. Dickens stories have great caricatures, but eg David Copperfield has too many story segments. each segment is great, with some great caricatures eg Uriah Heap. The story is to give the entire life of a man right from before he was born. but this is a chore and incoherent. the segments of Copperfield's life dont add up into an overall story. Mark Twains stories are too contrived for me. real kids arent that savvy.
as someone who has learnt many many things over the years, I eventually decided to teach myself electric guitar. I bought a cheap guitar supplied with a CD course. and a cheap Amp, I think called Roland Streetcube.
started on the course, and soon realised the concepts were majorly wrong, and going to guitar forums all were pushing the same wrong ideas. And I quit the course, and began teaching myself using my own MO, based on concepts I have developed from learning diverse things.
the very first problem is the guitar itself is wrong! right handed people are given right handed guitars, and right away you have failed. because the best guitar for a right handed person is a LEFT handed guitar! and the best guitarist ever, Jimmy Hendrix did just this, right handed person using a left handed guitar.
its because a right handed guitar has the right hand strumming, and the left hand selecting the frets and chords. but that is a much more difficult skill, and ought to be for the right hand. so if you get lessons, you are set up to fail the moment you buy your guitar.
the next problem is they tell you to use a metronome. this is a really bad idea. if you use a metronome your mind now is geared to very specific timing. but when I play, the time is elastic. I can gradually speed up the tempo, or gradually slow down, to my mood. when I whistle that recording, I have no idea at all about the tempo, I just whistle to a tempo that feels good. where my playing is relative playing. that is a fundamental problem with classical music, that it is absolute playing, absolute notes to an absolute tempo. pop music is usually relative playing, where the players play relative to each other and the mood. if the lead speeds up, they all speed up in sympathy. its also much more improvised,where the notes arent precisely delineated.
pop stars play to the crowd, classical musicians are oblivious to the crowd, with the conductor's back to the audience. when I played the guitar, I'd learn a piece and then play without a score. most popstars also do this.
people who have never learnt musical instruments, can appreciate much more music than trained people, because trained people are trained to know standard timing and standard notes which is a loss of perceptual liberty.
eg many musicians brag that they can tell middle C and that they are pitch perfect. and that is a big problem!
because what I found is that if you play the guitar slightly out of tune, it has a magic effect, where it gives a nostalgic tone to the sound. also if you whistle, you can play any tune at all starting from any note at all, even an out of tune one. so the absolute notes are totally arbitrary. and playing slightly out of tune is a very impressive effect.
there are many pop songs which utilise out of tune sounds to great effect.
I dont know for sure if this one is out of tune, but it could be:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obC0MFHWJ0A
anyway, I started developing my own MO, and soon I had a repertoire of several pieces of music.
there is also conflict of interest with music teachers, that they need you to take ages to learn, so they make more money from the lessons. and they do just this!
Now having realised that what I needed was a left handed guitar, I eventually halted playing, because I was going to have to relearn everything for the other hand, and even the notation, fret notation will become upside down with that! I will eventually buy an upmarket left handed guitar, and a valve amp.
conventional music notation really is optimised for the piano, its less useful for the guitar, because the guitar has several strings, and the same note can occur on different strings. so conventional notation is ambiguous. fret notation is a notation optimised for guitars and deals with the ambiguity.
in the last decade, I have only revisited the guitar one day several years ago, where I had totally forgotten how to play. I am avoiding playing as I want to relearn from scratch for a left handed guitar.
one song I started learning was Abba's Money Money Money, and I totally disagree that Abba is not sophisticated, it is in fact highly complex and subtle, and I eventually quit after learning just a small subset as I realised I needed to learn something much simpler first. there is a crazy amount of stuff happening even in 10 seconds of Abba songs.
I started learning eg "something's gotten hold of my heart" and also "I'm all out of love", and each of these I found to be incredibly complex. even to learn 20 seconds is major work!
dont be fooled by the simplicity of the experience of pop songs! that simplicity is often accomplished by a lot of work.
work is much lighter if you are having fun, pop music composition is usually fun, and this is why it seems effortless, but in fact it is more inspired than most classical music.
Playing the piano is useless. So is having a patio or a pool.
Being able to hunt or raise livestock is actualy useful but most wouldn't even consider it.
Being able to dance is just as attractive if not more than a fat wallet.
the problem is that most musical instrument learning is forced by the parents, where the training is fundamentally wrong, and at best the kid will work in an orchestra, but how many orchestras are there, and how many cellists or flutists etc are there? and this plays out, most kids never get anywhere with the lessons.
its a real chore getting music lessons.
I never had music lessons at school, at the start of uni I got a few piano lessons and then quit as too much effort trekking to the lessons and then booking a piano,
around 2013 I began teaching myself, soon quit the CD course, and very quickly was playing various pieces, eg I learnt the main part of the Match of the day theme tune.
the pop stars are the ones who play in their own time in a garage, where it was always a hobby.
apart from a few cases such as Kleiderman and Galway, you wont get famous with classical music instruments. a few singers become famous such as pavarotti.
my point is that entertainment is fun to experience, but to entertain is a bleak path.
it would be much better to refine people's art appreciation tastes than to try to make them artists.
with a refined sensibility, some will then venture to become an artist.
the modern education system was invented by the prussians to create factory workers. the reconfigurable assembly line needed workers who could follow written instructions. the education system was to teach people how to read and write, and do basic maths, and nothing more. they actively deterred people from wisdom, by making learning a chore, with canings, and reprimands. because an enlightened worker was a threat to the prussian hegemony. before that, the main population were illiterate. in Britain even in 1939, the aristocratic eugenics movement vociferously opposed the educating of the masses. the education system has also made music learning a chore, when in fact it should be fun and a choice.
one big problem with music, is it will make your hearing deteriorate, as beethoven found out! eg with someone banging the cymbals next to you.
It's really getting philosophical now, but we're all spending most of our lives learning just how to treat each other and how to relate and fit into a free society. No wonder so many yearn for slavery or for the world to be nuked so it can start over. There is so much we don't know we don't know.
Not everyone needs to be able to play the piano to the level where they can earn a living doing it, but it's nice to actualy be able to play the thing. Wish my school offered me the chance.
its good they didnt! instead just buy a piano, and ask on the internet for ideas and teach yourself by picking out ideas that appeal to you. NEVER try to learn using ideas that people suggest that you dont like.
one bit of correct advice all the guitar people told me was "there is no right or wrong way to play the guitar", all that matters is some nice music comes out of it, how you did that is of no interest.
Finally, and to finish on a bright note. Classical works did have names when they were new. Some of them stuck, some were dropped.
Mozart composed one he called Lick my asshole.
He did, don't blame me.
if the Amadeus film was right, that sounds like the guy!
PS This was a damn interesting discussion two pages ago, and it's getting worse.
drums are an interesting instrument, they literally have a different drum for each note, hence the drumkits with several drums! I think pop music drums are more sophisticated than orchestral ones?
that's a good joke.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram