h a l f b a k e r yI think this would be a great thing to not do.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
|
I like the implication that explosive sounds might be played in a way to maximize their meaning. The least meaningless / most meaningful of these might be spliced together and used for an inspirational piece of ...er, music. |
|
|
How about a synthesizer that relies entirely on the explosions to advance to the next beat/phrase of music? Of course it would be pretty easy to get out of sync... |
|
|
With a chest mounted bass "thumper" of course. |
|
|
I really really bummed out when the channel broadcasting the local 4th of July fireworks played bloody music, completely drowning out the booms, snaps, fizzles, etc. And that was when they actually showed the fireworks, rather than crowd reaction shots. So, yeah, big buttered croissant. |
|
|
I never want to see crowd reaction shots. |
|
|
I do like to feel the thump of big fireworks. But I get a bit of a thrill from counting the time from flash to crack, so I'm not voting for this. (Sound travels a mile in about five seconds, BTW.) |
|
|
/ I never want to see crowd reaction shots. / |
|
|
Not even for those ones where sparks rain down into the crowd? |
|
|
//I do like to feel the thump of big fireworks. But I get a bit of a thrill from counting the time from flash to crack, so I'm not voting for this. (Sound travels a mile in about five seconds, BTW.)// |
|
|
A little bit of delay is good. When fireworks displays are more than about a mile away, though, the sound becomes totally decoupled from the visual. By the time the sound from one firework arives, more will have already gone off. Personally, I tend to think many fireworks shows are overly cluttered, but a show would have to be extremely sparse for the sounds to mean anything to a viewer 2-3 miles away. |
|
| |