Definition of the "box"
-
RobTheDrummer
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 5227
- Joined: Tuesday Dec 10, 2002
- Location: Tiptonia, Pa
Definition of the "box"
What is your definition of the "box" as many people have talked about on here. Also, please keep responses to less than, lets say...a dictionary!!
A BOX IS DOING ONLY WHAT YOU KNOW
1 YOU SETTLE AND GIVE INTO YOUR LIMITATIONS
2 THERE IS NO GROWTH
3 Doing what everyone can do, CLICHES, NOT MAKING SENSE, ETC
A box is when you have limitations. Lack of education contributes to this because you cannot EXPLORE what is out there.
You can bet when you lack education and the ability to notate your songs, YOU BECOME FORMULATED in your writing. Hence THE BOX
Most uneducated writers will show formulations they always use, because that IS ALL THEY KNOW
Example:
1 Melody lines that are always 1 or 2 bar back heavy phrasing.
2 Chords that are always triadic or root/fifth
3 song is always in key of C,D,G, Major or A or E minor
4 Melody line is usually repetitive due to the fact the motif was based on one melodic developmental technique
5 Lyrics lack supportive imagery, and usually lack cleverness and depth
SHERYL CROW AND KID ROCK SONG PICTURE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WRITING IN A BOX. The song was written in one sitting so the OVERALL THEME WAS GOT, however, ACCURACY, LYRICAL TIME FRAME PROBLEMS, etc were not fixed.
Sheryl left the song as is, HENCE SHE SETTLED FOR JUST GETTING THE POINT ACROSS AND THAT WAS IT.
Here is an example of a BOX LYRIC
V1
Come on baby fill my desire
Light my burning fire
I want to rock you all night long
Oooh baby that ain't wrong
Chorus
Lets party all night
'til the morning light
Lets party all night
Don't call it a night
V2
stop using your legs to tease me
the way you shake yeah your a dream
before the nights through your gonna be mine
we'll make it last and stand the test of time
Chorus
lets party all night
'til the morning light
Lets party all night
don't call it a night
V3
I love all the things that you do
my heart quivers because of you
Please don't leave me i need you so
Together our love will grow
Chorus
lets party all night
'til the morning light
lets party all night
don't call it a night
YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. The above lyric is TOTALLY CLICHE, BORING, and the STORY DOESN'T FURTHER all that much.
This is WRITING IN A BOX
Box=settling for what you know
1 YOU SETTLE AND GIVE INTO YOUR LIMITATIONS
2 THERE IS NO GROWTH
3 Doing what everyone can do, CLICHES, NOT MAKING SENSE, ETC
A box is when you have limitations. Lack of education contributes to this because you cannot EXPLORE what is out there.
You can bet when you lack education and the ability to notate your songs, YOU BECOME FORMULATED in your writing. Hence THE BOX
Most uneducated writers will show formulations they always use, because that IS ALL THEY KNOW
Example:
1 Melody lines that are always 1 or 2 bar back heavy phrasing.
2 Chords that are always triadic or root/fifth
3 song is always in key of C,D,G, Major or A or E minor
4 Melody line is usually repetitive due to the fact the motif was based on one melodic developmental technique
5 Lyrics lack supportive imagery, and usually lack cleverness and depth
SHERYL CROW AND KID ROCK SONG PICTURE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WRITING IN A BOX. The song was written in one sitting so the OVERALL THEME WAS GOT, however, ACCURACY, LYRICAL TIME FRAME PROBLEMS, etc were not fixed.
Sheryl left the song as is, HENCE SHE SETTLED FOR JUST GETTING THE POINT ACROSS AND THAT WAS IT.
Here is an example of a BOX LYRIC
V1
Come on baby fill my desire
Light my burning fire
I want to rock you all night long
Oooh baby that ain't wrong
Chorus
Lets party all night
'til the morning light
Lets party all night
Don't call it a night
V2
stop using your legs to tease me
the way you shake yeah your a dream
before the nights through your gonna be mine
we'll make it last and stand the test of time
Chorus
lets party all night
'til the morning light
Lets party all night
don't call it a night
V3
I love all the things that you do
my heart quivers because of you
Please don't leave me i need you so
Together our love will grow
Chorus
lets party all night
'til the morning light
lets party all night
don't call it a night
YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. The above lyric is TOTALLY CLICHE, BORING, and the STORY DOESN'T FURTHER all that much.
This is WRITING IN A BOX
Box=settling for what you know
the box = Creating solutions that are based on established knowledge, facts or theories.
Thinking out of the box is NOT easy.
Example:
2 + 2 = 4 (In the box)
2 + 2 = 5 (Out of the box)
I think that metalrules definition of a box is almost the complete opposite of mine. He states that the more conventional knowlege you embrace, the more it frees you from the box. Not true in my definition.
For those of you that may think that 2 + 2 = 5 is silly, all that I ask is why do you think it's silly?
Here's an excerpt from one of my math books...
In the early to middle 1800's, 2 + 2 began to take on great significance in the world of math. Riemann developed an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 5, paralleling the Euclidean 2 + 2 = 4 arithmetic. Also during this period Gauss produced an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 3. Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci), and Descartes also had alternative solutions to 2 + 2.
Remember Gauss? Without his work, 12" Celestions would be 12" paperweights. The only reason we say that 2 + 2 = 4 is because we have adopted Euclid's theorums. Accepting his theorums as fact puts us in a box.
As cultures first started to develop mathmatics, some actually discovered that 2 + 2 = 5. The Bolb tribe of South America, descendants of the Incas, used knots tied in ropes to do calculations. In their system, if you took two ropes, each with two knots in them, and tied them together (addition), you ended up with 5 knots. That system of mathmatics served them for thousands of years, and some of the Incan technological achievements still baffle today's scientists.
Some would say that they were WRONG, that 2 + 2 = 4, not 5. That is thinking inside of the box.
Funny, as I'm writing this, one of my co-workers walked into the office with a shirt declaring: 2 + 2 = 5 (for very large values of 2).
Sorry for the dictionary Rob.
Thinking out of the box is NOT easy.
Example:
2 + 2 = 4 (In the box)
2 + 2 = 5 (Out of the box)
I think that metalrules definition of a box is almost the complete opposite of mine. He states that the more conventional knowlege you embrace, the more it frees you from the box. Not true in my definition.
For those of you that may think that 2 + 2 = 5 is silly, all that I ask is why do you think it's silly?
Here's an excerpt from one of my math books...
In the early to middle 1800's, 2 + 2 began to take on great significance in the world of math. Riemann developed an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 5, paralleling the Euclidean 2 + 2 = 4 arithmetic. Also during this period Gauss produced an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 3. Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci), and Descartes also had alternative solutions to 2 + 2.
Remember Gauss? Without his work, 12" Celestions would be 12" paperweights. The only reason we say that 2 + 2 = 4 is because we have adopted Euclid's theorums. Accepting his theorums as fact puts us in a box.
As cultures first started to develop mathmatics, some actually discovered that 2 + 2 = 5. The Bolb tribe of South America, descendants of the Incas, used knots tied in ropes to do calculations. In their system, if you took two ropes, each with two knots in them, and tied them together (addition), you ended up with 5 knots. That system of mathmatics served them for thousands of years, and some of the Incan technological achievements still baffle today's scientists.
Some would say that they were WRONG, that 2 + 2 = 4, not 5. That is thinking inside of the box.
Funny, as I'm writing this, one of my co-workers walked into the office with a shirt declaring: 2 + 2 = 5 (for very large values of 2).
Sorry for the dictionary Rob.
... and then the wheel fell off.
-
Skate Toad
- Gold Member
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Friday Apr 04, 2003
- Location: Altoona
2 cents
My opinion is that, in the box is more a focus on rules and regulations and certain ways of doing things. (which can be wonderful some times!) Out of the box is when you think in more abstract ways unconventional. Throwing caution to the wind and just let it flow. I feel that if you have enough knowledge it's alot easier to go out of the box. But it can be a curse that too much knowledge can hinder a free mind. It's like a drill sgt. that beats the rules and regs. into your head that you no longer think for yourself but only by the rules. So a nice mix of knowledge an ignorance seems to work just fine for me. Like my favorite drummer (neil peart) said......I don't count everything out all the time. If the other guys play in a weird time then i play straight for as long as i can and add the extra beats where it feels right. Yes i'm sure neil is educated enough to sit there and count out and play an exact proper time signature but, he likes to go outside the box and see what kinda feel he can get by not following rules and regulations all the time.
I'm a musician not a mathmatician.
So for me it really all depends on what effect i want to go for.
My 2 cents (there is no right or wrong to this question only what we want the box to be to fit each person) (or you can always go with "there is no box neo!")
Todd
I'm a musician not a mathmatician.
So for me it really all depends on what effect i want to go for.
My 2 cents (there is no right or wrong to this question only what we want the box to be to fit each person) (or you can always go with "there is no box neo!")
Todd
I didn't do it! It was the other guy! I Swear to God!!
I've seen sheet music of Stevie Ray, They had to come up with new names and notations to define what he was doin. Which was to play what he felt, not caring if it fit within the "rules". Hendrix did the same thing. Breaking the "rules of composition" is thinking outside the box, gettin away with it, priceless!!!
PLAY GUITAR!!!
PLAY GUITAR!!!
Sorry for the mathmatical example, Skate Toad. I'm not a mathmatician either.
I figured it was a good way to show that something that most people view as absolute isn't necessarily so. It's all about opening your perspective and ignoring what you've come to know as "fact".
I figured it was a good way to show that something that most people view as absolute isn't necessarily so. It's all about opening your perspective and ignoring what you've come to know as "fact".
... and then the wheel fell off.
Ron, DO NOT confuse CONTROL as the box. The difference with you Ron like many others here is YOUR EXCUSES FOR BAD WRITING IS ADVENTURING AND DOING SOMETHING NEW. WEll to that I say, NO IT IS NOT. You become like any novice writer when you are UNAWARE OF FLAWS.
Having control allows you to make CREATIVE TECHNIQUE AND CREATIVE CONTROL
2+2=5 IS JUST RETARDED. SImply because it is not ACCURATE. THAT IS NOOOOOT being out of the box.
Again, I will refer to the annie lennox song. Because what she did there was the 2+2=5 theory. What it did was RUIN THE SONG EMOTIONALLY.
THe example CLICHE LYRIC I wrote is LIMITATIONS SHOWING. If you wrote that or someone wrote that, you would use the excuses of YOUR IN A BOX.
But the fact of the matter is, CLICHE is in the box. Cliche is an over used concept. Hence, in the box. You would answer me back by saying that I am in the box because I knock your work.
I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WORRY MORE ABOUT GETTING (CONTROL) of a song instead of worrying about making excuses for LIMITATIONS
Look at Heart's song THESE DREAMS. That is filled with fragmented thoughts, and confusing imagery, HOWEVER THEY PULL IT OFF ACCURATELY. Why? Because Bernie Taupin who wrote the lyric for them, HAD A SENSE OF CONTROL.
Dreams dont make sense most of the time, SO ONE CAN GO AHEAD AND BIBBLE BABBLE and it will be JUSTIFIED.
Because people may knock your work, THEN THEY ARE OUT OF THE BOX. That is what you are telling me. That to me is an excuse. Because most of the time the people who think they are out of the box are not out of the box
Having control allows you to make CREATIVE TECHNIQUE AND CREATIVE CONTROL
2+2=5 IS JUST RETARDED. SImply because it is not ACCURATE. THAT IS NOOOOOT being out of the box.
Again, I will refer to the annie lennox song. Because what she did there was the 2+2=5 theory. What it did was RUIN THE SONG EMOTIONALLY.
THe example CLICHE LYRIC I wrote is LIMITATIONS SHOWING. If you wrote that or someone wrote that, you would use the excuses of YOUR IN A BOX.
But the fact of the matter is, CLICHE is in the box. Cliche is an over used concept. Hence, in the box. You would answer me back by saying that I am in the box because I knock your work.
I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WORRY MORE ABOUT GETTING (CONTROL) of a song instead of worrying about making excuses for LIMITATIONS
Look at Heart's song THESE DREAMS. That is filled with fragmented thoughts, and confusing imagery, HOWEVER THEY PULL IT OFF ACCURATELY. Why? Because Bernie Taupin who wrote the lyric for them, HAD A SENSE OF CONTROL.
Dreams dont make sense most of the time, SO ONE CAN GO AHEAD AND BIBBLE BABBLE and it will be JUSTIFIED.
Because people may knock your work, THEN THEY ARE OUT OF THE BOX. That is what you are telling me. That to me is an excuse. Because most of the time the people who think they are out of the box are not out of the box
-
bassist_25
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6815
- Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
- Location: Indiana
Okay, stating counter-factuals to support a point usually doesn't work; espcially if those counter-factuals are weak to begin with. We're not expostulating the Chaos Theory here; this isn't about a pile of sand. Who knows what Ron would say if confrontated about a song he wrote. I've never heard anything written by Ron; maybe he's Bob freakin' Dylan. Personally, I would be interested in hearing about the mathematicians' theorums on 2+2=5.
In light of this thread, I remember I posted something at a poetry site sometime last year that might relate to the current subject. I went back and found that post. I think that Metalrules might even somewhat agree with what I have written here.
All good points, but then one must start to ask the question of what is truly "right" and acceptable in literature. Is it a predetermined set of rules established by a high school grammar book, is it compared by the current standards of what mainstream popular art is, or is it purely phenomenological and what matters is how the person perceives it?
In music, by all accounts and definitions, Jazz harmony is considered "incorrect" by definition of Classical harmony. Still, Jazz harmony allows deeper and more unexpected twists in the melodies and forms. The music is much less diatonic, which allows the performer to venture out into more abstract (even sometimes downright dissonant) territory.
I had an advanced theory instructor who had a very unique approach to harmony and melody. It was all about using rules to understand how sounds are created, not using rules just for the sake of using rules because they are "right". It really got me thinking outside of the box in terms of music. I was taught that any scale could be played over any chord as long as I had a certain context in mind.
I do the same when I write. I've used a little bit of my poetic license to break certain rules. I remember one instance I used an adverb as an adjective on purpose, just because it helped convey something I had written. I think that breaking the rules occasionaly is a good thing, but doing it constantly can be passe. If I used the adverb and an adjective once in a while for artistic merit, it shows that I'm creatively breaking the rules for art's sake. If a guitarist plays a tritone over a major triad once in a while, it could very well that's what he's trying to convey. If I constatantly misuse adjectives and adverbs, it's going to appear that I don't know squat about grammar; likewise a guitarist who constantly plays tritones, probaly doesn't understand music enough to play in key.
It's funny though how this relates to music. I remember when I first started getting into music, certain songs sounded "dissonant" to me. I was use to simple melody, simple harmony, and simple meter. I'll give you an example: Shine On You Crazy Diamond by Pink Floyd. The first time I heard that A chord, with it's strange voicing, I actually grimaced. As I explored music further and got into Jazz, Ambient music, World Music, and Sonic Youth, I became more adjusted to those "outside" harmonies. SOYCD sounds pretty consonant to me these days. I fall asleep to Bop albums on a regular basis. So what would happen if you took your average Classic Rock fan and played a Naked City album for them? I honestly can't say; they may either be intrigued with the dissonance or be completely turned off. Just some rhetorical questions for everybody to think about.
In light of this thread, I remember I posted something at a poetry site sometime last year that might relate to the current subject. I went back and found that post. I think that Metalrules might even somewhat agree with what I have written here.
All good points, but then one must start to ask the question of what is truly "right" and acceptable in literature. Is it a predetermined set of rules established by a high school grammar book, is it compared by the current standards of what mainstream popular art is, or is it purely phenomenological and what matters is how the person perceives it?
In music, by all accounts and definitions, Jazz harmony is considered "incorrect" by definition of Classical harmony. Still, Jazz harmony allows deeper and more unexpected twists in the melodies and forms. The music is much less diatonic, which allows the performer to venture out into more abstract (even sometimes downright dissonant) territory.
I had an advanced theory instructor who had a very unique approach to harmony and melody. It was all about using rules to understand how sounds are created, not using rules just for the sake of using rules because they are "right". It really got me thinking outside of the box in terms of music. I was taught that any scale could be played over any chord as long as I had a certain context in mind.
I do the same when I write. I've used a little bit of my poetic license to break certain rules. I remember one instance I used an adverb as an adjective on purpose, just because it helped convey something I had written. I think that breaking the rules occasionaly is a good thing, but doing it constantly can be passe. If I used the adverb and an adjective once in a while for artistic merit, it shows that I'm creatively breaking the rules for art's sake. If a guitarist plays a tritone over a major triad once in a while, it could very well that's what he's trying to convey. If I constatantly misuse adjectives and adverbs, it's going to appear that I don't know squat about grammar; likewise a guitarist who constantly plays tritones, probaly doesn't understand music enough to play in key.
It's funny though how this relates to music. I remember when I first started getting into music, certain songs sounded "dissonant" to me. I was use to simple melody, simple harmony, and simple meter. I'll give you an example: Shine On You Crazy Diamond by Pink Floyd. The first time I heard that A chord, with it's strange voicing, I actually grimaced. As I explored music further and got into Jazz, Ambient music, World Music, and Sonic Youth, I became more adjusted to those "outside" harmonies. SOYCD sounds pretty consonant to me these days. I fall asleep to Bop albums on a regular basis. So what would happen if you took your average Classic Rock fan and played a Naked City album for them? I honestly can't say; they may either be intrigued with the dissonance or be completely turned off. Just some rhetorical questions for everybody to think about.
-
The Face in the Face
- Active Member
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thursday Feb 12, 2004
- Location: The place
the box is customary, common, popular.
experiment briefly beyond 4/4 time (but don't think 3/4 is groundbreaking).
experiment beyond your influences. it's tough, but if you are in a band that sounds like Dream Theater... awesome! you are talented, but don't sound like a rip-off. if you love Blink 182, don't sound like their bastard son.
expand your mind. just don't expand it too far, you'll be playing the sitar in a dress before you know it.
experiment briefly beyond 4/4 time (but don't think 3/4 is groundbreaking).
experiment beyond your influences. it's tough, but if you are in a band that sounds like Dream Theater... awesome! you are talented, but don't sound like a rip-off. if you love Blink 182, don't sound like their bastard son.
expand your mind. just don't expand it too far, you'll be playing the sitar in a dress before you know it.
The Face in the Face is inside the Head.
-
Skate Toad
- Gold Member
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Friday Apr 04, 2003
- Location: Altoona
sorry
Hey Ron sorry i wasn't slamming your example. It was a good one actually. I was referring to having to do tons of math just to figure out time signatures etc. Sorry.
Todd
Todd
I didn't do it! It was the other guy! I Swear to God!!
-
RobTheDrummer
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 5227
- Joined: Tuesday Dec 10, 2002
- Location: Tiptonia, Pa