next »

[MoritzPGKatz]

Actually I just was so overwhelmed about all the technical babble that it gave me no inspiration of talking about some "emotional" stuff. Sure I provoked there like hell. But I have to be honest, I am still little bit surprised about the reactions. This is still one of those completely unimportant internet discussions which no one should get upset about. But as true believer, I have to seed my message to other people and those who wont turn are pagans.

Glad to be a pagan then. I could be wrong, but you don't seem so happy.

[KomradeJack]

Ok so basically I think this sub board has little to no community,

I hope this thread hasnt turned into a reason why there isnt a community.

[Calum Bowen]

Come all ye TIGSource pagans!

This thread is overshadowing the TIGSource Musical Challenge page . Lets shut our mouths (well... i'm gonna shut my mouth) and make some music with whichever rationale we wish.

[1982]

Glad to be a pagan then. I could be wrong, but you don't seem so happy.

I just try to write without much emotion, it is easier that way. Considering my writing is difficult to begin with.

[baconman]

What do you think of songs from a few years ago that focused more on exploring "sounds of sickness?" Prominent (and somewhat popular) examples including:

I'm So Sick / Flyleaf

Wine Red (Tommie Sunshine's Brooklyn Fire Re-Touch) / The Hush Sound

Toxic / Britney Spears

Just about anything by Cradle of Filth I still heart them, btw.

Do they have emotional resonance? Physical resonance? Gaming counterparts? (I do remember a couple existing, but can't really think of what/where; or why MegaMan/MMX comes to mind...)

[Audiosprite]

I only listened through "Toxic," but I don't know what you mean by "sounds of sickness." If you're talking about making music with sounds that are supposed to be disconcerting or uncomfortable, I didn't hear that.

[baconman]

I meant how the pitch and tone of certain parts captures a certain essence of "sickness," not being unpleasant to the ears. The violin solo-bridge in Wine Red, or the chorus of I'm So Sick comes to mind. Maybe it's just the rapid fluxuation of pitch.

Does hearing it equate to conveying actual sickness or toxicity to you?

[C.A. Sinner]

I only listened through "Toxic," but I don't know what you mean by "sounds of sickness." If you're talking about making music with sounds that are supposed to be disconcerting or uncomfortable, I didn't hear that.

the strings

[MoritzPGKatz]

I meant how the pitch and tone of certain parts captures a certain essence of "sickness," not being unpleasant to the ears. The violin solo-bridge in Wine Red, or the chorus of I'm So Sick comes to mind. Maybe it's just the rapid fluxuation of pitch.

Does hearing it equate to conveying actual sickness or toxicity to you?

I noticed there's a lot of heavy motional panning going on in the references you posted: I guess not being able to locate a sound has a certain effect on the human brain, conveying discomfort. This probably stems from the fact that our (directional) hearing is linked to our sense of balance, namely the vestibular system in the human ear.
Interestingly enough, a similar phenomenon occurs when we are underwater - due to the difference in density of the sound-transporting medium, we're unable to spot where a noise came from, which naturally arouses the ancient fear of predators and not being able to surface in time. Spooky stuff!
That's why motional panning, I daresay, has a similar effect on every human being, regardless of personal musical socialization.

Back to the creativity discussion, here's a lecture by John Cleese:
http://vimeo.com/18913413
Very entertaining and informative. It also addresses the problem of working towards a certain goal while still being creative.

[JudahRoydes]

Thanks for posting that lecture Moritz. I was really surprised that he referenced Alan Watts of whom I am a huge fan. I also found the theme of play to be very interesting considering that play is the primary mode within which the human mind learns as well.

[MoritzPGKatz]

Thanks for posting that lecture Moritz. I was really surprised that he referenced Alan Watts of whom I am a huge fan.

Me too! Not very surprising if you're a huge Monty Python fan though, there was always very much philosophical thought behind their sketches, and Watts is probably the first philosopher that comes to mind when thinking about Great Britain.

I also found the theme of play to be very interesting considering that play is the primary mode within which the human mind learns as well.

Yes and no. It depends on how you define learning, or rather what you are trying to learn.
E.g. there is no way around stages of concentrated exercises if you're working towards even half of the technical proficiency demonstrated in the video Yoshimitsu posted. Only repetition helps form the necessary pathways in our brain and spinal cord - imagine her thinking about every single note! Impossible!
It's like a program running. I think this is what 1982 likes to criticize : we lose some of the creative grip in that moment. But this is exactly what Cleese talks about! If we can change from this "closed", concentrated state to an "open", creative state at any given moment, we can make use of our technique and our inventiveness.
This is what good jazz musicians try to perfect for their improvisations: learn the technical stuff so it's not in the way of their creativeness. But really, this goes for every kind of creative work.

Of course, a playful attitude can help with technical exercises too - but rather as a motivation than as actual effective practice!

[1982]

This is what good jazz musicians try to perfect for their improvisations: learn the technical stuff so it's not in the way of their creativeness. But really, this goes for every kind of creative work.

How can lack of skill be in a way of creativeness? Creativity in its absolute form is about fully using whatever skill or tool set available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pypklJ3rcM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTxBc_-XxmI

Interesting enough, music we call "jazz" is called jazz because it has certain characteristics and specific "cliches" which totally come from the particular skills and conventions of learning certain type of things. If goal of the jazz musicians is to gain so much skill, so that they can completely ignore it while playing, then why does it always still sounds... jazz? Jazz is great example of genre where certain technicalities shapes the sound and conventions. While I love jazz music and its various sub-genres, I wouldn't exactly call it the "most creative music". Sure there are genres like free jazz or avantgarde jazz (in some extent) which try to break this mold partially successfully.

I think this is what 1982 likes to criticize : we lose some of the creative grip in that moment. But this is exactly what Cleese talks about! If we can change from this "closed", concentrated state to an "open", creative state at any given moment, we can make use of our technique and our inventiveness.

I believe that people who are technically oriented, are more easily lost in "closed" mode. This is very apparent within jazz musicians, contemporary musicians, engineers, coders... And I understand why: If one wants to improve skills, it means that one needs to learn things, and being able to learn one has to be curious. And if you are curious, you are and nothing can be done to it. It is actually a great thing for a any person. But you can also easily get lost into learning more, more and more... While never actually putting anything into practice, and especially through odd (open mode) creative processes.

And this is also why many very skilled musicians used a lot drugs and alcohol. It helps one to get into open mode, actually it is best way for almost any person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDfH_J4MAUQ

[Audiosprite]

oh christ it's happening again

[1982]

oh christ it's happening again

Thanks for this contribution.

[MoritzPGKatz]

How can lack of skill be in a way of creativeness?

I never said that! What I said is that skill can help realize what you're trying to create. Which is quite obvious, no?

Interesting enough, music we call "jazz" is called jazz because it has certain characteristics and specific "cliches" which totally come from the particular skills and conventions of learning certain type of things. [...]

I was talking about jazz improvisation in particular, which, granted, often moves within the borders of motives and clichés. Those help people connect to your music. If you don't want that, suit yourself. In any case a nice jazz solo is a good example of highly creative work that makes good use of technique.

I believe that people who are technically oriented, are more easily lost in "closed" mode. This is very apparent within jazz musicians, contemporary musicians, engineers, coders...

Why do you insist talking about this?
The reason for those people allegedly being lost in "closed" mode is not their technical aptitude. Sure, I've seen and heard a lot of people who are technically proficient while not doing very creative work (and thank heavens these guys and gals exist!), but there are just as many, if not more, people who don't bother with learning their craft and are thus not able to create anything of much value.
Your view on creativity is one-sided, and clearly proven wrong by oh-so-many examples of past and present creative minds. Your posts discourage learning about your tools if you want to produce something unique, while I say there's more than just way to skin a cat.
Also, you didn't get Cleese. "Open" and "closed" are not judgmental descriptions. There's nothing wrong with working in "closed" mode if you're trying to get something done: just because some won't like the outcome doesn't give it less value. If you're stuck with learning instead of doing, you're clearly doing something wrong from the very start, and actually working in neither mode.

And this is also why many very skilled musicians used a lot drugs and alcohol. It helps one to get into open mode, actually it is best way for almost any person.

I was so sure this would come up sooner or later. (sigh)
I won't even comment on this much. Just this one thing: please don't continue talking about this if you don't really know what you are talking about. You can't just connect drug use to creativity in two short sentences without taking all the psychological and sociological factors into account. Let's please skip this, we'd get off-topic very quickly.