next »

[DavidCaruso]

You're dodging the point and thinking that you actually explained anything. You haven't. You're making completely pointless distinction between sports and video games. Absolutely pointless.

And you have yet to explain why the distinction that all art is simulation/representation while sports aren't is "absolutely pointless." Actually, forget it, just pretend that instead of "videogames can evoke these emotions I listed to a greater degree than any other artform" I said "videogames can evoke these emotions I listed to a greater degree than painting, novels, movies, music, and sculpture, but not real life activities like sports and martial arts, because those activities are real while videogames are simulated." Happy?

There's nothing not subjective about any of this!

Saying I'm trying to judge art "without subjectivity" is hilarious

I listened to the song which I wanted to listen to for a longer period of time

because

Because yes, you're a robot. I don't think I have to explain further.

You do, actually. Nothing you've said so far on the subject has constituted an explanation, just basic misunderstandings like "wtf you're trying to judge art objectively???" If you're getting hung up on the "wanted" part here, I obviously meant the one I liked more (hence why I wanted to listen to it more, instead of just closing the tab), like I said in the very next sentence after the part you quoted. I guess wanting to hear more of music that interests me more makes me a robot then.

Gets boring quickly, yeah. But when it works, and it can work, it works like charm and it's excellent for fooling around, something Charlie's music cannot do at all.

Dude, I'm not considering the music in the context of "fooling around" at a dance club. That'd be like saying "this comedy movie kind of sucks, but it'd be good to watch when you're fooling around with friends, so it's great!"

[Gimym TILBERT]

Caruso, you should really take a break

This topic seems to have actually helped motivate me in my game progress too for some reason, so it's all cool!

we are too, thx for putting the good fight

[C.A. Sinner]

bebop (which the charlie parker tune you posted falls into) is actually quite structured. there are fixed themes and improvised solos, the piece is based around a chord progression and the chords being played by the pianist limit which notes the soloist can play. it's pretty straightforward really. hard bop imposes even more structure.

just as an aside, i think people tend to overintellectualize jazz. it's a shame that the music has been pretty much degraded to a "status symbol" and most people just PRETEND to like it because they think it makes them look "profound" or w/e. same happened with classical music.

[mirosurabu]

all art is simulation/representation

Sports simulate war. In the original context, this is relevant, because video games don't bring much new other forms don't.

because those activities are real while videogames are simulated

They are not "real" activities (ffs, I already gave you examples of real acitivities), they are GAMES, games that are not computerized.

I guess wanting to hear more of music that interests me more makes me a robot then.

Dude, I'm not considering the music in the context of "fooling around" at a dance club. That'd be like saying "this comedy movie kind of sucks, but it'd be good to watch when you're fooling around with friends, so it's great!"

You're misunderstanding me by huge margin. First, music is objective, and second, you're misinterpreting me regarding dancing and I'm too tired to bother explaining why. You should be able to read between lines sometimes. Regarding your take on Charlie Parker - the point was that Charlie Parker is selfish dude. Further, jazz music wouldn't be jazz music if there were no selfish/self-expression motives. The fact that you went on to decide that you prefer Charlie Parker even though you don't like him is a tangent, a hilarious one, one that simply shows that you judge things like a robot.

[mirosurabu]

makes them look "profound" or w/e.

I said profound before putting that Charlie Parker link (was thinking more about modal and fusion jazz). I can't make sense out of his music yet, as I already said on another thread, but it makes a decent point anyways (except from profoundness).

Might as well apply to "formless", but then, the point still remains in that bebop broke conventions back then and established its own form (which is exactly what great deal of artgames TRY to do). Also, in this sense, very few genres are truly formless, if any.

[C.A. Sinner]

well, modal jazz and free jazz tried reducing the fixed structures to a minimum and let improvisation take the center stage. the modal guys abandoned fixed chord progressions and based their "compositions" around modes instead (hence the name). ornette coleman went even further and ditched the piano, and with it chords, altogether. ornette also emphasized collective improv over individual soloists taking turns, as was common during the bop era.

european free jazz (aka "free improvisation") tries to be literally formless, i.e. consciously avoid conventional musical forms and structures. the problem is that avoiding form sort of becomes its own form. also the music sounds really dry and boring 99% of the time.

lol i just realized that all of this is only tangentially related to the topic. i just love rambling about music, sorry.

[DavidCaruso]

Sports simulate war. In the original context, this is relevant, because video games don't bring much new.

I'll get back to you on this in a bit, I'll have to think about that some more. Right now I want to say that sports are simply a transmuted and sublimated form of war, not a simulation of it, but don't quote me on that just yet (or, well, do if you want to.)

They are not "real" activities (ffs, I already gave you examples of real acitivities), they are GAMES, games that are not computerized.

Games are a subset of activities. You probably get what I meant, anyway.

You're misunderstanding me by huge margin. First, music is objective, and second, you're misinterpreting me regarding dancing and I'm too tired to bother explaining why. You should be able to read between lines sometimes. Regarding your take on Charlie Parker - the point was that Charlie Parker is selfish dude. Further, jazz music wouldn't be jazz music if there were no selfish/self-expression motives.

We were discussing whether engagement and enjoyment are good criteria for art or not and I was saying how the best jazz I've listened to (mostly fusion tbh) was more engaging than trance, so if anything this is a tangent. But if this is in response to what I was saying earlier about how "self-expression" isn't an explicit goal great artists set for themselves, I'll modify that a bit to clarify; it isn't a specific distinguishing quality of great art, and it isn't a necessary goal either. Every action a person does is an expression of himself, even if it's an expression of their flaws; great art is created with an artist's genuine talent, discipline, effort, and intelligence, not by purely aiming for self-expression or trying to express something. Some of the greatest art seen in human history was created without any explicit intent for self-expression or any specific aim to create "art," just by a talented artist working at his craft and doing what he did best (many times creating great works just for money, or to entertain important people with high tastes, etc.) Given these things, I can't really endorse the whole "self-expression is what art is about" undercurrent which many people have pushed in all the artgame threads I've read here.

And music isn't "objective" by any stretch of the imagination. There's nothing "objective" about judging music either, just like there isn't anything "objective" about judging any other art (the entire concept of "objectivity" inherently precludes judgements.) You can already see this here just by how you've been trying to tell me that the trance song you posted is more engaging (interesting, immersive, absorbing, etc.; substitute any synonym you want if it makes my position make more sense to you) than the jazz one, and I thought the exact opposite. It's just that music requires more specialized terminology, and it's a bit harder to "pin down" in language what you specifically liked or disliked about it than stuff like movies, novels, paintings, games, etc. I remember C.A. Sinclair saying something in the past about how a lot of music critics feel this way too, and as a result just end up talking vaguely about lyrics and imagery instead of, well, the actual music.

The fact that you went on to decide that you prefer Charlie Parker even though you don't like him is a tangent, a hilarious one, one that simply shows that you judge things like a robot.

Uh, I said I preferred him in comparison to the trance song you linked, and gave basic reasons why. Every single judgement I have made about his song was in comparison to the other trance song, usually using words like "more" or "longer" (relative comparisons.) Preference is obviously relative; you can prefer something you're ambivalent towards in comparison to something you dislike, if you have to choose between the two things, and you can still say why you like this thing more than that thing ("dislike less" if you want, it's the same thing anyway.) "Robot" comparison is still as funny as ever, though!

european free jazz (aka "free improvisation") tries to be literally formless, i.e. consciously avoid conventional musical forms and structures. the problem is that avoiding form sort of becomes its own form. also the music sounds really dry and boring 99% of the time.

So I guess this would be the corresponding "artgame movement" in jazz, then? =P

lol i just realized that all of this is only tangentially related to the topic. i just love rambling about music, sorry.

Don't worry about it, the main topic here keeps changing every page anyway.

[C.A. Sinner]

I remember C.A. Sinclair saying something in the past about how a lot of music critics feel this way too, and as a result just end up talking vaguely about lyrics and imagery instead of, well, the actual music.

Just to clarify, this is mainly a problem with critics who write about rock and pop music.

I agree that music is probably THE most subjective art form. Yeah, I know it's about "evoking emotions" and what not, but it's often unclear WHICH emotions a piece of music is even supposed to evoke. For instance, I think Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" album is pretty damn depressing but I know people who find it hopeful and uplifting.

[Paul Eres]

i think that's cause we're visual beings more than auditory beings; most of the fine arts are at least in part visual (theater, movies, sculpture, painting, videogames, etc.) -- and while novels aren't visual (except in the sense that markings on a paper are visual), they evoke pictures in your head through language. with music there's nothing presented to the visual field at all, unless you count the new art of music videos

[C.A. Sinner]

with music there's nothing presented to the visual field at all, unless you count the new art of music videos

well there's music with lyrics. but even that is more abstract than a painting, novel, movie etc.

[mirosurabu]

the best jazz I've listened to (mostly fusion tbh) was more engaging than trance

Fusion is good. I like it quite a lot. I like it more than trance. However, I do feel trance is more "fun" and when I say "fun" I mean it's better suited as a leisure activity. It's comfy, it's instant, it's powerful and it's consistent when it comes to needs it targets, whereas fusion is selfish and requires quite a lot of investment and if you're lucky and that is, if you can relate to artist and like what you see, you discover something really interesting, else, you get a bummer.

Jazz is a music for curious people, and it's better suited as a hobby a.k.a. "higher goals". Though, some jazz is comfy too i.e. not quite jazzy. It's mostly earlier jazz, smooth jazz and nu-jazz, but there is some comfy fusion too.

Most interesting thing about it is that when the initial "magic" disappears (which is inevitable, I hope you'll agree), you're left with comfy music that you.. expect to be fun, but given it's not crafted to be fun in the first place, you have to skip through the song to find sections that are fun. Weird that I found myself doing this at times.

The distinction is an important one I think, and I'm pretty sure almost every jazz musician will agree with me. You do know many jazz cats consider it music for musicians, right?

It's also worth noting that if something is uncomfortable it does not mean it's more than "fun". It's just that if something is comfy it's at best just "fun".

Games are a subset of activities. You probably get what I meant, anyway.

You were trying to put a wall around video games. Take your time and think through it. I already did that and found that there is no way you can separate sports from games, they are same.

So I guess this would be the corresponding "artgame movement" in jazz, then? =P

Nah. Only a very small subset of artgames is avant-garde. The rest is just trying to deal with different topics and do whatever they want to do while disregarding conventions. This is almost exactly what jazz musicians do.

And music isn't "objective" by any stretch of the imagination

You're missing the point. Music IS objective. It's physical, you know, it has properties that everyone can agree about. We can agree on chords, harmony, percussion, texture, structure, rhythm, etc etc. There is something called "music theory" which deals with this. This is the objective side of music. Now when you listen to it, it comes in contact with subjective side of things, which is made out of one's needs, values, expectations, biases, the way one is listening to music and so on. (in other news, I've been working on music simulation game which simulates fanbases, so I thought about this quite a lot )

Now the problem is that you have consistently denied the subjective layer (not necessarily entirely). I'll touch upon this later.

"Robot" comparison is still as funny as ever, though!

It shouldn't be funny at all dude. You listened to two songs for like less than a minute, didn't like them, and then you chose one simply because you spent a couple of seconds more on it. Lame.

[mirosurabu]

"Pink Moon" album is pretty damn depressing but I know people who find it hopeful and uplifting.

If both hopefulness and depression are intertwined in the piece, then I can see why.

But, in response to David, I didn't think one should only focus on subjective.

[C.A. Sinner]

It's probably both but that wasn't the point.

Anyway, most fusion is pretty bland. I absolutely adore early fusion from the 60s and 70s by people like Miles Davis, Tony Williams, Herbie Hancock, (some) Weather Report, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Klaus Doldinger etc. but they're swimming in a sea of smug, nerdy guys playing endless noodly solos.

Also re: smooth ""jazz:"" Someone should cut off Kenny G's flowing locks and strangle him with them.

[mirosurabu]

You just jealous cause he has all the chicks.
Also, you're a snob. 

[C.A. Sinner]

Also, you're a snob.  

Dude I have several shelves full of CDs and LPs as well as like 200 gigs of MP3s. It comes with the trade. 

I wouldn't hate Kenny G as much as I do if he wasn't such a pretentious dickbag.

Also,

Another song of theirs is called "Perfume Of A Critic's Burning Flesh."