u/Marcel_7000

Introduction

Hey guys, here I'll share some reflections of learning music theory, piano and guitar. Feel free to make suggestions if you think I made mistakes. Think of learning music theory like learning a new language. If you learn music theory(a new language) and a apply them on a textbook(piano).

While if you learn a new language and talk to people who speak the language some of them might not understand you. Since how language is written is different to how people speak in their every day lives. Likewise it seems to me when you learn music theory there's a few more extra knowledge that you need as to how the guitar works as an instrument in order to apply those music theory concepts.

Open Strings

Piano

I've noticed that each time I learn a new concept in music theory I can apply them in piano and it makes sense. For instance, how to play a C major chord. The chord is made up of C-E-G. I can start at the beginning of the piano keyboard. I start with C, go up four half steps and arrive at E. Afterward, I can count three half steps and arrive at G. Moreover, your knowledge of intervals(another music theory concept) is supplemented by knowing that you create a major triad by having four half steps and three half steps.

Guitar

Meanwhile in Guitar its not as easy or "intuitive." For instance, in guitar to make a C major chord you would need to have knowledge of "Open Strings." When I was trying to play the C major triad in guitar I looked up some guitar diagrams and notice that in those diagrams they write C-E-C for the major C chord triad. It took me a long time to realize(through asking reddit groups and reflecting) that actually what happens is that when you strum the guitar you are playing G as the open string. While you have the extra C as a "chord voicing." The chord voicing doesn't change the chord but adds a grander sound. I had to read up on chord voicings in music theory just to to able to play a simple C major chord. Showing that you need to have a lot of music theory knowledge and knowledge of how the guitar works as an instrument in order to make sense of it. Sure you can play without knowing but if you want to "make sense" of what's going on musically you need additional knowledge.

Seventh Chords

Piano

I was trying to figure out how to play C7 since it appears to be a popular chord in many songs. I will assume C7 is a C major seventh chord. I looked it up online and found how to play C7 on piano. I started from the root (C) counted four half steps and arrived at E. Then I would count three more half steps and arrive G. While B flat(Bb) might seem intimidating at first. I realized you only had to count three more half steps from G to be at B flat. I was able to play and see the whole chords( C-E-G-Bb) with that much difficulty. I learned that you need the triad(C major) and one more note(B flat) to make the seventh chord. Not that difficult to understand theoretically and then apply it to piano.

Guitar

When it came to guitar it also took me a while to figure it out. However, it seems like some guitarists just play it as C-E-C with G as the open string. Then on the G string you play in the third fret A#(A sharp) or Bb(b flat). It wasn't that difficulty but it did take me some time compared to piano. Then you strum and you have the C major 7 chord or the C7 chord. I notice in the naming musicians call it, "C dominant seventh." I wonder if there's a difference or they all mean the same? Is it still a C major triad with a extra note or a different chord which uses some of the same notes. Also note that it seems I only know how to play this chord and other chords are "open chords" and not as "barre chords."

Barre Chords

Piano

Some musicians online have been saying that there's no such thing as "barre chords" in piano. And actually "barre chords" only exist in guitar. I would like some clarification on this topic. A musician online said that that barre chords are a "umbrella term" that talks about how to play some notes in guitar but it doesn't have a meaning in music theory. So its not a music theory concept but perhaps a guitar theory concept.

In the key of C, I am able to play all notes in Piano but not in guitar since in guitar it seems you do need to know how to play F major as a barre chord. In Piano F major you would play F-A-C. With F being the root, then you go up four half steps and arrive A. Then you go up three more half steps and arrive at C. Using the knowledge of intervals and music theory you would know that its the root(F), then A is the major third(four semitones from the root note) and then the perfect 5th(seven semitones from the root note). Its not that hard to understand but I guess I don't know why its called "perfect."

Guitar

This is where its gets difficult since many musicians have been saying that you have to know barre chords in order to play F major. I'm comfortable playing the key of C in both keyboard and guitar. However, when it comes to F major guitar that's where I'm bit stuck. So far this is what I've gathered.

The purpose of barre chords is to be able to play chords easier down the guitar fretboard as opposed to up the fretboard where its harder to reach some of the notes. Also if you want to switch from one chord to another sometimes it would be easier to play them as barre chords so that you can play them down the fretboard where its easier.

Are barre chords about pressing two strings at the same time or about muting some strings? In the easiest diagram of barre chords that I found of the F major chords. I saw the guitarist play F-A-C. He started with muting the lower strings E and A, I assume he is muting those strings with his thumb. Then he is playing the on the high B and E strings the C and F with his index finger. Then on the G string he is playing A when pressing the second fret. Then he is playing an extra F, I supposed another chord voicing, when pressing the third fret of the D string. Also in this example you are muting the lower strings while pressing the high strings and then strumming? So is the barre referring to the muting of the lower strings or two the pressing of the F-C on the higher strings?

Conclusion

Writing this essay has helped me a lot to get some clarity on multiple concepts in music theory, piano and guitar.

Introduction

Hey guys, here I'll share some reflections of learning music theory, piano and guitar. Feel free to make suggestions if you think I made mistakes. Think of learning music theory like learning a new language. If you learn music theory(a new language) and a apply them on a textbook(piano).

While if you learn a new language and talk to people who speak the language some of them might not understand you. Since how language is written is different to how people speak in their every day lives. Likewise it seems to me when you learn music theory there's a few more extra knowledge that you need as to how the guitar works as an instrument in order to apply those music theory concepts.

Open Strings

Piano

I've noticed that each time I learn a new concept in music theory I can apply them in piano and it makes sense. For instance, how to play a C major chord. The chord is made up of C-E-G. I can start at the beginning of the piano keyboard. I start with C, go up four half steps and arrive at E. Afterward, I can count three half steps and arrive at G. Moreover, your knowledge of intervals(another music theory concept) is supplemented by knowing that you create a major triad by having four half steps and three half steps.

Guitar

Meanwhile in Guitar its not as easy or "intuitive." For instance, in guitar to make a C major chord you would need to have knowledge of "Open Strings." When I was trying to play the C major triad in guitar I looked up some guitar diagrams and notice that in those diagrams they write C-E-C for the major C chord triad. It took me a long time to realize(through asking reddit groups and reflecting) that actually what happens is that when you strum the guitar you are playing G as the open string. While you have the extra C as a "chord voicing." The chord voicing doesn't change the chord but adds a grander sound. I had to read up on chord voicings in music theory just to to able to play a simple C major chord. Showing that you need to have a lot of music theory knowledge and knowledge of how the guitar works as an instrument in order to make sense of it. Sure you can play without knowing but if you want to "make sense" of what's going on musically you need additional knowledge.

Seventh Chords

Piano

I was trying to figure out how to play C7 since it appears to be a popular chord in many songs. I will assume C7 is a C major seventh chord. I looked it up online and found how to play C7 on piano. I started from the root (C) counted four half steps and arrived at E. Then I would count three more half steps and arrive G. While B flat(Bb) might seem intimidating at first. I realized you only had to count three more half steps from G to be at B flat. I was able to play and see the whole chords( C-E-G-Bb) with that much difficulty. I learned that you need the triad(C major) and one more note(B flat) to make the seventh chord. Not that difficult to understand theoretically and then apply it to piano.

Guitar

When it came to guitar it also took me a while to figure it out. However, it seems like some guitarists just play it as C-E-C with G as the open string. Then on the G string you play in the third fret A#(A sharp) or Bb(b flat). It wasn't that difficulty but it did take me some time compared to piano. Then you strum and you have the C major 7 chord or the C7 chord. I notice in the naming musicians call it, "C dominant seventh." I wonder if there's a difference or they all mean the same? Is it still a C major triad with a extra note or a different chord which uses some of the same notes. Also note that it seems I only know how to play this chord and other chords are "open chords" and not as "barre chords."

Barre Chords

Piano

Some musicians online have been saying that there's no such thing as "barre chords" in piano. And actually "barre chords" only exist in guitar. I would like some clarification on this topic. A musician online said that that barre chords are a "umbrella term" that talks about how to play some notes in guitar but it doesn't have a meaning in music theory. So its not a music theory concept but perhaps a guitar theory concept.

In the key of C, I am able to play all notes in Piano but not in guitar since in guitar it seems you do need to know how to play F major as a barre chord. In Piano F major you would play F-A-C. With F being the root, then you go up four half steps and arrive A. Then you go up three more half steps and arrive at C. Using the knowledge of intervals and music theory you would know that its the root(F), then A is the major third(four semitones from the root note) and then the perfect 5th(seven semitones from the root note). Its not that hard to understand but I guess I don't know why its called "perfect."

Guitar

This is where its gets difficult since many musicians have been saying that you have to know barre chords in order to play F major. I'm comfortable playing the key of C in both keyboard and guitar. However, when it comes to F major guitar that's where I'm bit stuck. So far this is what I've gathered.

The purpose of barre chords is to be able to play chords easier down the guitar fretboard as opposed to up the fretboard where its harder to reach some of the notes. Also if you want to switch from one chord to another sometimes it would be easier to play them as barre chords so that you can play them down the fretboard where its easier.

Are barre chords about pressing two strings at the same time or about muting some strings? In the easiest diagram of barre chords that I found of the F major chords. I saw the guitarist play F-A-C. He started with muting the lower strings E and A, I assume he is muting those strings with his thumb. Then he is playing the on the high B and E strings the C and F with his index finger. Then on the G string he is playing A when pressing the second fret. Then he is playing an extra F, I supposed another chord voicing, when pressing the third fret of the D string. Also in this example you are muting the lower strings while pressing the high strings and then strumming? So is the barre referring to the muting of the lower strings or two the pressing of the F-C on the higher strings?

Conclusion

Writing this essay has helped me a lot to get some clarity on multiple concepts in music theory, piano and guitar.

Introduction

Hey guys, here I'll share some reflections of learning music theory, piano and guitar. Feel free to make suggestions if you think I made mistakes. Think of learning music theory like learning a new language. If you learn music theory(a new language) and a apply them on a textbook(piano).

While if you learn a new language and talk to people who speak the language some of them might not understand you. Since how language is written is different to how people speak in their every day lives. Likewise it seems to me when you learn music theory there's a few more extra knowledge that you need as to how the guitar works as an instrument in order to apply those music theory concepts.

Open Strings

Piano

I've noticed that each time I learn a new concept in music theory I can apply them in piano and it makes sense. For instance, how to play a C major chord. The chord is made up of C-E-G. I can start at the beginning of the piano keyboard. I start with C, go up four half steps and arrive at E. Afterward, I can count three half steps and arrive at G. Moreover, your knowledge of intervals(another music theory concept) is supplemented by knowing that you create a major triad by having four half steps and three half steps.

Guitar

Meanwhile in Guitar its not as easy or "intuitive." For instance, in guitar to make a C major chord you would need to have knowledge of "Open Strings." When I was trying to play the C major triad in guitar I looked up some guitar diagrams and notice that in those diagrams they write C-E-C for the major C chord triad. It took me a long time to realize(through asking reddit groups and reflecting) that actually what happens is that when you strum the guitar you are playing G as the open string. While you have the extra C as a "chord voicing." The chord voicing doesn't change the chord but adds a grander sound. I had to read up on chord voicings in music theory just to to able to play a simple C major chord. Showing that you need to have a lot of music theory knowledge and knowledge of how the guitar works as an instrument in order to make sense of it. Sure you can play without knowing but if you want to "make sense" of what's going on musically you need additional knowledge.

Seventh Chords

Piano

I was trying to figure out how to play C7 since it appears to be a popular chord in many songs. I will assume C7 is a C major seventh chord. I looked it up online and found how to play C7 on piano. I started from the root (C) counted four half steps and arrived at E. Then I would count three more half steps and arrive G. While B flat(Bb) might seem intimidating at first. I realized you only had to count three more half steps from G to be at B flat. I was able to play and see the whole chords( C-E-G-Bb) with that much difficulty. I learned that you need the triad(C major) and one more note(B flat) to make the seventh chord. Not that difficult to understand theoretically and then apply it to piano.

Guitar

When it came to guitar it also took me a while to figure it out. However, it seems like some guitarists just play it as C-E-C with G as the open string. Then on the G string you play in the third fret A#(A sharp) or Bb(b flat). It wasn't that difficulty but it did take me some time compared to piano. Then you strum and you have the C major 7 chord or the C7 chord. I notice in the naming musicians call it, "C dominant seventh." I wonder if there's a difference or they all mean the same? Is it still a C major triad with a extra note or a different chord which uses some of the same notes. Also note that it seems I only know how to play this chord and other chords are "open chords" and not as "barre chords."

Barre Chords

Piano

Some musicians online have been saying that there's no such thing as "barre chords" in piano. And actually "barre chords" only exist in guitar. I would like some clarification on this topic. A musician online said that that barre chords are a "umbrella term" that talks about how to play some notes in guitar but it doesn't have a meaning in music theory. So its not a music theory concept but perhaps a guitar theory concept.

In the key of C, I am able to play all notes in Piano but not in guitar since in guitar it seems you do need to know how to play F major as a barre chord. In Piano F major you would play F-A-C. With F being the root, then you go up four half steps and arrive A. Then you go up three more half steps and arrive at C. Using the knowledge of intervals and music theory you would know that its the root(F), then A is the major third(four semitones from the root note) and then the perfect 5th(seven semitones from the root note). Its not that hard to understand but I guess I don't know why its called "perfect."

Guitar

This is where its gets difficult since many musicians have been saying that you have to know barre chords in order to play F major. I'm comfortable playing the key of C in both keyboard and guitar. However, when it comes to F major guitar that's where I'm bit stuck. So far this is what I've gathered.

The purpose of barre chords is to be able to play chords easier down the guitar fretboard as opposed to up the fretboard where its harder to reach some of the notes. Also if you want to switch from one chord to another sometimes it would be easier to play them as barre chords so that you can play them down the fretboard where its easier.

Are barre chords about pressing two strings at the same time or about muting some strings? In the easiest diagram of barre chords that I found of the F major chords. I saw the guitarist play F-A-C. He started with muting the lower strings E and A, I assume he is muting those strings with his thumb. Then he is playing the on the high B and E strings the C and F with his index finger. Then on the G string he is playing A when pressing the second fret. Then he is playing an extra F, I supposed another chord voicing, when pressing the third fret of the D string. Also in this example you are muting the lower strings while pressing the high strings and then strumming? So is the barre referring to the muting of the lower strings or two the pressing of the F-C on the higher strings?

Conclusion

Writing this essay has helped me a lot to get some clarity on multiple concepts in music theory, piano and guitar.

Hey guys,

I wonder if there's a poetry style which focuses on the poet's personal experiences. For instance, going to the park with some friends.

So in a way narrative poetry with a focus on telling a story of the life of the poet. Or going to a friend's birthday party.

You guy get where I'm going? The stories need to be about the poet and his or her life. Or the life of his or her friends. I'm interested in concrete and literal language. For instance, if the poet talks about going to a birthday party it is about the party that party is not a metaphor for something else.

Hey guys,

I wonder if there's a poetry style which focuses on the poet's personal experiences. For instance, going to the park with some friends.

So in a way narrative poetry with a focus on telling a story of the life of the poet.

Hey guys,

I don't want to go to spoil for you. However, in Gerry Conway's run the Jackal is the main villain behind the scenes and all the chapters deal with the Jackal working to use other villains to take on Spider-Man. Gerry introduces a mystery early on his run and then chapter by chapter he start unveiling it.

Meanwhile, with Len Wein's run its the second Green Goblin is the one behind the scenes. Note that in the "human drama" is also connected to the larger story. Since the Harry and Liz relationships is explored. So both the human and the superhero stories are connected.

Note that other writers haven't use this writing technique. Instead, each story is a stand alone or there is a recurring villains however, he's not that important overall. Its not like there's a final confrontation with this villain. Rather the villain is a recurring character. We see see this with Ditko and Dr. Octopus.

Hey guys,

I don't want to go to spoil for you. However, in Gerry Conway's run the Jackal is the main villain behind the scenes and all the chapters deal with the Jackal working to use other villains to take on Spider-Man. Gerry introduces a mystery early on his run and then chapter by chapter he start unveiling it.

Meanwhile, with Len Wein's run its the second Green Goblin is the one behind the scenes. Note that in the "human drama" is also connected to the larger story. Since the Harry and Liz relationships is explored. So both the human and the superhero stories are connected.

Note that other writers haven't use this writing technique. Instead, each story is a stand alone or there is a recurring villains however, he's not that important overall. Its not like there's a final confrontation with this villain. Rather the villain is a recurring character. We see see this with Ditko and Dr. Octopus.

Hey guys,

I would like to hear your thoughts about this topic. It seems to me that casual audiences find television and films appealing. And many television and films are made to be accessible to such audiences.

Meanwhile, in the "print world" you get much more nuisance and thought to the stories as well as the characters. For instance, I have been reading the Narnia books and fine a lot of insights into the characters and their motivations. Moreover, there's a lot of fantasy that never gets adapted into television and films.

Also films and television are made by groups of people. While novels are made by an individual author and you get to hear their thoughts more closely. Its like having a conversation with the author. For instance, lately I have been reading, 'The Princess and the Goblin" and I enjoy George McDonald prose. His narrator is in third person limited, he uses shorter sentences, and precise language to build his world.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys,

I know that historically while some people(like the general public, literary critics, film critics and even some music academics) seem to not take comic book seriously and labeled it as reading that is not "challenging enough" or "exclusively for young adults." It wouldn't be uncommon for film critics to say, "comic books" aren't serious art..etc. This does seem to arise from lack of knowledge about comic books and comic book history.

However, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. That Comic book fans tended to be intelligent and well educated. For instance, if you read the Marvel column most of the people writing letters and questions are either: College students, Librarians, and professionals. Sure there are also young people writing as well. However, as a whole I would say that they are well educated.

My argument is that Comic book fans as a fandom seem to be closer to something like fantasy and science fiction fans. People who even if financially might not be wealthy tend to be more educated than average. Reading as an activity seems to attract people who are educated or "nerdy." While the general population seem to not find reading an appealing activity instead they seem to prefer television or films as their main.

On the other hand, without stereotyping it seems to me that television and film seem to attract more of the casual audience. Where people who like television and film tend to want simpler narratives and more entertainment. Speaking in general terms If you read a comic book and then watch the film adaptation you will see that the film is always a more simplified version of the story. Sure, there are limits to film as a medium the running time. However, even then when you adapt a fantasy book or a comic book into television where you can have more episodes it seem the purpose is to always attract a large audience.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys,

I was reading some of Plato's work. I noticed that he talks a lot about Poets and how Poet's influenced people. However, in the contemporary world poets and poetry are seen as niche interest maybe even smaller than the theater. This interests appeals mostly to academics or university students. Or people who are highly educated.

After studying some poetry I do recognize that its hard to understand. Concept like "iambic pentameter" with its stress and unstressed syllables are not easy to understand. In fact, some people might argue that understanding poetry is actually harder than prose and drama. Ironically, its because of this "sound" and "rhythm" concepts that its shares with music that its hard to understand.

Music and music theory is also hard to understand. For instance, intervals, chords and scales are hard to understand. I would recommend some background in Piano and Arithmetic to understand some of the concepts. For instance, you need to apply a lot of Arithmetic concepts to understand intervals. Even then you still need to practice a lot to make some progress.

What's interesting is that a lot of musicians are actually very popular in society. For instance, I was studying the history of Jamaican music and it seems many musicians of ska, rocksteady and reggae were famous. So it wasn't just a niche interest among a group of fans. But many people in Jamaica listen to the songs and it became part of their "cultural life." People would play the songs during celebrations or birthdays.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys,

I am studying creative writing. I've noticed that when reading high fantasy novels like, "The Book of Three" by Lloyd Alexander the story tend to be slower paced. There's a lot of focus on the describing the world and the setting in general.

Meanwhile, when I read "Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of Four," the story is much more fast paced. One chapter leads to the another. We need to keep reading to learn more about Holmes insights. There's less focus on describing world around(unless its relevant to the story) or how the characters are feeling internally. And more in learning how the story continues.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys,

This is a continuation of my previous thread. The previous thread evolved in that some people said sometimes Prose novelists are recruited to write comic books. Perhaps for larger companies(for instance, Marvel.) So they went from writing prose to writing a few comic books.

I'm talking more about a cartoonist or illustrator who did his graphic novel or comic book. And then said, "Let me see if I can write a prose novel or a illustrated novel." The only person I know right now who did something like this is Mark Crilley who is a mangaka and graphic novelist. Who thought maybe I could try to write a prose novel and see how it goes. He has written a couple of prose novels.

Its interesting hearing Mark Crilley's take because he talks about writing a Prose novel from the perspective of a Cartoonist or illustrator. He says for instance, in his graphic novels he has many silent pages and his readers welcome that. While in prose novels there has to be dialogue. Its a different perspective from a Comic book writer who might say something like, "I let the artist work the page as he or she sees thinks would work." The interviews I've read with Comic book writers have been that their prose novel work is their solo work and their comic book or graphic novel work is a collaboration.

However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a artists like Mark Crilley who has done both a graphic novel on his own and then a prose novel on his own. He seems to have a different take on how the mediums work and its very interesting.

Hey guys,

This is a follow up from my previous question. Assuming we have a song with the following chord progression: C-F-G in the key of C.

The song's timing is 4/4. So the guitar strums the C major chord four times, then the F major chord four times and then the G major chord four times.

Meanwhile, the bass plays the first major triad C-E-G as single notes. What about the rhythm? Do you play C four times, then E four times and then G four times? Or do you try to play it all in the first bars? So four quarter notes one for C, one for E, one for E and one more for C since its the "tonal center?"

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Hey guys,

I was reading Madeline L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time" as wells as Hope Larson's adaptation. It seems to me with graphic novels you can tell the story primarily through visuals and some dialogue. Although, L'Engle's novel tends to be dialogue heavy so its a slightly different that more regular YA novels where you get more narration from the main characters as opposed to dialogue.

I think the manga adaptation of Cirque du Freak is the most clear example of "narration" vs "visuals." I want to emphasize that I like both approaches. It seems to me that Darren Sha's characters tend to tell you a lot about themselves and their life details. Meanwhile, Takahiro Arai's manga goes straight to the action. For instance, the Darren tells you a lot about his previous life and his teachers while in Arai's manga they go straight to showing you the friend group playing soccer/football. Its almost like the prose novel story is told through thoughts while the graphic novel story is told through actions.

I was also reading the Goosebumps novels primarily the Haunted Mask by R.L Stein and its graphic novel adaptation by Maddi Gonzales. I would say that pace in the prose novel is slower. While here Stein uses third person narrator and its gives it a more "cinematic" vibe. It still feels relatively slow. Because the words are trying to tell you about the cafeteria, the other characters actions(Chuck and Steve) as well as Carly Beth background. Meanwhile, with the graphic novels the visuals do a lot of the work.Meanwhile, the dialogue/words are more about continuing the plot/story.

These are just some examples but what do you guys think?

Hey guys,

So this is a situation that has been happening lately. I studied music theory and I know how to read tabs and played bass. However, when I try to "reconcile" my knowledge of the two I find myself unable to.

Note the song is the in the Key of C, so in the key for C the single notes should be C(I), F(VI), G(V). Yet in the bass tabs I found the single notes played at least in the intro are C(I), E(III) and G(V).

Hence, why I am trying to figure out what is going on with this song.

Hey guys,

I have read both novels. I am trying to figure out the difference between story or plot driven stories and character driven stories. I thought both novels could be useful to distinguish between the two types of stories.

To begin with, I've noticed that Madeline's novel is start with Meg's trying to find her father. She goes on an adventure to and rescue him. All the chapters build up to her finding her father. Likewise, they also build up to the confrontation between her and IT(the main antagonist of the story). The story develops where every chapter builds up to the "final battle."

In contrast, with Edith's "Treasure's Seeker" there is a story but it doesn't seem that important. The story seems to be the background. An event that happens, in this case the Bastable family loses their fortunes. So Oswald and his family go on various adventures trying to become wealthy. The story resolves itself in the last two chapters. But there's no "build up" to the last two chapters. You could have skipped all the initial chapters and then read the last two chapters and it would have resolved the initial story.

Furthermore, would you say L'Engle's novel is an example of a serial while Nesbit's novel is an example of episodic story? C.S. Lewis was influenced by Nesbit and it seems some of his novels like the third Narnia novel are also episodic.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys,

I have read both novels. I am trying to figure out the difference between story or plot driven stories and character driven stories. I thought both novels could be useful to distinguish between the two types of stories.

To begin with, I've noticed that Madeline's novel is start with Meg's trying to find her father. She goes on an adventure to and rescue him. All the chapters build up to her finding her father. Likewise, they also build up to the confrontation between her and IT(the main antagonist of the story). The story develops where every chapter builds up to the "final battle."

In contrast, with Edith's "Treasure's Seeker" there is a story but it doesn't seem that important. The story seems to be the background. An event that happens, in this case the Bastable family loses their fortunes. So Oswald and his family go on various adventures trying to become wealthy. The story resolves itself in the last two chapters. But there's no "build up" to the last two chapters. You could have skipped all the initial chapters and then read the last two chapters and it would have resolved the initial story.

Furthermore, would you say L'Engle's novel is an example of a serial while Nesbit's novel is an example of episodic story? C.S. Lewis was influenced by Nesbit and it seems some of his novels like the third Narnia novel are also episodic.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys,

For instance, I've read interviews with cartoonists and poets. Where they answer questions in a much more straightforward manner. Like someone you would meet in your regular life. They don't seem to hide their education, knowledge, or the work they had to do to get to where they are. However, the same is not true of music. It appears mainstream musicians have a "marketing team" that teaches them how to give interviews. I've only learned about this concept recently from reading articles from journalists.

For example, some journalists will say that some bands have "image consultants" who help them craft their stories. For instance, I have read interviews where the musicians will present "zero to hero" narratives. They were completely broke, but then someone discovered their mixtape, and they were given a chance. All the sudden, their songs or song becomes popular by "chance" and then people like them due to their talent. It makes sense that mainstream musicians might create narratives like this since at the end of the day their goal is to sell records or sell concert tickets.

I suppose their more mainstream audience wants to related to them. However, I am disappointing at certain "indie musicians." For instance, I've read an interview with an indie musician, and I was disappointed at how exaggerated and unbelievable her story was. She said something along that lines that she wasn't a singer but a friend told her that she should sing. Then she agreed with her friend and then she started uploading videos to social media. Without assuming that she could become known. But all the sudden, people started to take attention to her songs and then it became popular and she got to a record deal. To make her story more unbelievable, she said that to this day she barely knows any music theory, proficiency in piano, and guitar. But she writes based on how she "feels."

To me this story sounds very implausible because "organic growth" in social media is actually very hard. In fact, the most honest answer is that many content creator actually pay social media sites to promote their content. And even then, for "popularity" to happen is unlikely. What happens is that when you pay, you might get some fans or customers, but that's about it. There's no guarantee that any of your content might become "viral." So this is more like a business where you put in some money to promote your work and get some returns. What do you think?

Hey guys,

I'm wondering about this topic. I've heard about Comic book writers who eventually started to write prose novels. However, I have also heard of the much rarer example of a cartoonist who made a prose novel.

The latter is very interested since you can evaluate how an artist or writer can express themselves in two different mediums one with words and images and the other only with words. Although much less popular it'll be interested if anyone has actually done a illustrated novel. I know Mike Mignola worked in one, although he did it in a collaboration.

Hey everyone,

It seems in the US and Italy there are some places like the Kubert School and Scuola Romana which offer fully online programs of three years. You can get a whole diploma or certificate in three years fully online.

I have been searching in France, Quebec and Belgium but so far I have only found the Gobelins, however, it seems their main focus is animation. You have 3 months to 1 year programs. Its more to prepare for the main program in Paris. The programs are fully online and somewhat affortable(since they are offer a comprehensive education to me it seems reasonable.)

Feel free to recommend options in French, because I also speak French.