next »

[1982]

people who don't bother with learning their craft and are thus not able to create anything of much value.

What are you to say what has value and what has not? Personal taste aside.

Some artist work so that instead of focusing learning new skills, they use their time and energy on producing something with current skills. And you say they cannot create anything of much value? Either way, it has nothing to do with actual end result. Very skilled artist can produce crap, as well as very untrained amateur can produce a masterpiece. In many cases we don't really know what lays behind. And you still talk about who can and who cannot produce some value. You are actually judging art through the intentions and work process of the artist and not purely through the art work.

I give fair chance to any artist what ever his approach is, it is the end result that matters. But actually getting back to my original point, hard empiric fact I've witnessed in my life is that most of the very technically oriented "artists" produce boring crap.

And that trend is been exaggerated in creative communities where technical oriented artists communicate and share. It is easy to share and evaluate trivial things, like theory and techniques. How does an engineer impress another engineer?

From this whole TIGsource community, this particular thread has been the most hostile I've ever witnessed here. That's very surprising actually, but I guess musicians are not very easy going persons then. You are like the atheists of art world. God damn pagans I tell you.

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.

[C.A. Sinner]

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.

Most of the great jazz players (Miles, Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gilespie, Mingus, Elvin Jones etc. etc.) used their mastery of technique to express something else (for instance, John Coltrane expresses his approach to spirituality in most of his 60s-era work), whereas "Instrumental virtuosity" in rock seems to be mostly about showing off, with a couple exceptions. I'd say technique is bad when it doesn't express anything other than itself.

[MoritzPGKatz]

There are [...] people who don't bother with learning their craft and are thus not able to create anything of much value.

Corrected: I'd appreciate if you quoted me right.

What are you to say what has value and what has not? Personal taste aside.

That's a good question, one I would like to redirect at you in light of this statement:

[A] hard empiric fact I've witnessed in my life is that most of the very technically oriented "artists" produce boring crap.

As for my definiton of "value" in this context, let me answer to this:

[...]You still talk about who can and who cannot produce some value. You are actually judging art through the intentions and work process of the artist and not purely through the art work.

No - agreed, it is hard to stay objective when it comes to the term "value", but let me try to explain.
Something has value if it is valuable to someone, in the best case someone besides the author himself. Be it because it impresses them technically, touches them emotionally, works with a certain imagery to convey a certain mood, etc.

Some artist work so that instead of focusing learning new skills, they use their time and energy on producing something with current skills. And you say they cannot create anything of much value?

I don't say that, either. I say there are people who are not able to create something they want to create because they hit their limits of skill. Or rather, their work could have a much greater value or a value to more people if they knew more about their craft. It is possible to be both creative and learn your craft. What gives you the idea it isn't besides examples of maybe some gearhead nerds on a forum or some shredding athletes on YouTube?
Of course, there are people who work within these limits and are able to create something of great value, but looking for the reason in their lack of skill or even in their unwillingness to learn new things is absurd.

Either way, it has nothing to do with actual end result. Very skilled artist can produce crap, as well as very untrained amateur can produce a masterpiece.

Are you saying skill has nothing to do with the actual end result?
This is what's wrong with your argument: you disagree with the fact that the creative outcome is combining imagination and skill.
Let's say we're talking about the same thing here. Then turn to the right page of any dictionary or encyclopedia and read the definition of the word "Art".

And that trend [of most of the very technically oriented "artists" producing boring crap] is been exaggerated in creative communities where technical oriented artists communicate and share. It is easy to share and evaluate trivial things, like theory and techniques. How does an engineer impress another engineer?

Of course we talk about technicalities, not just because you think it is the easiest topic to talk about. You are free to ignore these discussions if you feel they don't help you. But how you feel these discussions contribute to a demise of creative quality is beyond me.

From this whole TIGsource community, this particular thread has been the most hostile I've ever witnessed here. That's very surprising actually, but I guess musicians are not very easy going persons then. You are like the atheists of art world. God damn pagans I tell you.

I've told you before, it's because you directly attack people, be it willingly or not. How do you attack them, you might ask? You say that talking about anything but the emotional aspects impairs the quality of the music. The logical conclusion is that everyone who tries to discuss technicalities produces music with impaired quality in your eyes. Moreover, you imply that emotionality and technicalities are mutually exclusive. This is wrong by definition of the work "art".
Sorry to say it, but this together with some pretentious remarks is what makes you look like a jerk. And again, sorry if I seem hostile. I just strongly disagree with both your argument and your way of presenting it.

[1982]

Are you saying skill has nothing to do with the actual end result?
This is what's wrong with your argument: you disagree with the fact that the creative outcome is combining imagination and skill.
Let's say we're talking about the same thing here. Then turn to the right page of any dictionary or encyclopedia and read the definition of the word "Art".

I meant it is not important is there skill or creativity, or both, or in what amounts. Only end result is important, not how it become, from who and from which intentions. Definition of art has nothing to do with this whole discussion.

But how you feel these discussions contribute to a demise of creative quality is beyond me.

They exaggerate the urge of learning more, while at the same time taking energy and time from doing more. Not to say that discussions about creativity or "emotion" takes time too, but probably could inspire people to try out different things (creative wise) more.

You say that talking about anything but the emotional aspects impairs the quality of the music. The logical conclusion is that everyone who tries to discuss technicalities produces music with impaired quality in your eyes. Moreover, you imply that emotionality and technicalities are mutually exclusive. This is wrong by definition of the work "art".
Sorry to say it, but this together with some pretentious remarks is what makes you look like a jerk. And again, sorry if I seem hostile. I just strongly disagree with both your argument and your way of presenting it.

And this bolded part started to matter when?

Let's see, so if I'd say that all musicians that eat tomatoes produce crap music. Would you for example take that as an insult? Actually it is not important what I personally think, but important would be to address the question itself and at that point I don't see any reason to get insulted by it. Just a side note, I was not actually referring at you with the hostility remark. It has been nice to talk about this.

[MoritzPGKatz]

I meant it is not important is there skill or creativity, or both, or in what amounts. Only end result is important, not how it become, from who and from which intentions. Definition of art has nothing to do with this whole discussion.

I am confused. If the end result is the only thing that matters to you, there would be no need for discussion. We'd just post songs and tell each other if we like them or not. What can we talk about if we don't talk about how we got to the end result, especially considering this thread is called "General Music Composition Discussion"?

Not to say that discussions about creativity or "emotion" takes time too, but probably could inspire people to try out different things (creative wise) more.

See, this is the thing. While me and other people have posted things relevant to your inquiry - admitting you do have a point that emotionality is important too - you haven't contributed much to the topics you demand to discuss.
You say it's easy to talk about technicalities, and yes, it is much easier to talk about these than about emotional content. What are your plans to discuss creativity more? Any questions that would spark a discussion you like, without ending up with mere questions of taste again?

You say that talking about anything but the emotional aspects impairs the quality of the music. The logical conclusion is that everyone who tries to discuss technicalities produces music with impaired quality in your eyes. Moreover, you imply that emotionality and technicalities are mutually exclusive. This is wrong by definition of the work "art".
Sorry to say it, but this together with some pretentious remarks is what makes you look like a jerk. And again, sorry if I seem hostile. I just strongly disagree with both your argument and your way of presenting it.

And this bolded part started to matter when?

Let's see, so if I'd say that all musicians that eat tomatoes produce crap music. Would you for example take that as an insult?

No, because that would lack any reference. Why your implication, "Musicians that bother about technicalities make worse music than people like me who don't bother about them" is insulting... well, do I really need to explain that? I put much energy and work into learning as well as creating and expect exactly the same amount of respect for my craft as any other creative person.
I would not be insulted if you said you don't like my music. I am insulted, however, if you say I didn't create it the right way, especially considering I have studied and performed this craft many years, even making a living doing so.

Actually it is not important what I personally think, but important would be to address the question itself and at that point I don't see any reason to get insulted by it.

I feel I have addressed this question enough.
Creativity is a hungry beast that needs to be fed with both imagination and learning, or it will wither. Ask anyone. Read any interview. There is nothing like "knowing too much" when it comes to creating if you know how to handle it.

Just a side note, I was not actually referring at you with the hostility remark. It has been nice to talk about this.

Good of you to say so. I enjoyed this, too - hopefully we have both learned something.

[PostPre]

I feel I have addressed this question enough.
Creativity is a hungry beast that needs to be fed with both imagination and learning, or it will wither. Ask anyone. Read any interview. There is nothing like "knowing too much" when it comes to creating if you know how to handle it.

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

[1982]

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

But there lies a problem. There is not enough time for one persons life to learn everything that can possibly be learnt. In worst case scenario, you end up only learning more and gathering more information and in the end you still don't have anything meaningful art that you've made. Music in particular is quite interesting because within the media you can do a lot with very little. That's why it is great medium for expressing creativity without getting lost in technicalities.

Again I like to compare this medium to painting/drawing and writing (assuming one can write to start with). Entry level is very low and you can put your creativity in play instantly. Sure there are a lot theories and technicalities that can be learnt within all of those mediums, but oddly enough, they are not actually required.

I am confused. If the end result is the only thing that matters to you, there would be no need for discussion. We'd just post songs and tell each other if we like them or not. What can we talk about if we don't talk about how we got to the end result, especially considering this thread is called "General Music Composition Discussion"?

Well this thread was not about showcasing music and other people giving opinions about it, this was more into methods of making music. That's why I joined the discussion about methods, and in this discussion possible musical end results are not important. So in a way, I do not compare the piece and the methods of making the piece. Its fully possible that any person in this thread have been potentially made music that I feel is perfect. Even if that person might have methods of working which are completely opposite of what I've emphasized. But originally I was addressing to probabilities of that happening, which again come from my prejudices of this topic, which they then come from personal experiences. But it is highly possible that my personal experiences are skewed to begin with.

Still I won't stop discussing about things whenever I feel to.

See, this is the thing. While me and other people have posted things relevant to your inquiry - admitting you do have a point that emotionality is important too - you haven't contributed much to the topics you demand to discuss.
You say it's easy to talk about technicalities, and yes, it is much easier to talk about these than about emotional content. What are your plans to discuss creativity more? Any questions that would spark a discussion you like, without ending up with mere questions of taste again?

Yeah well that's difficult. Maybe later somehow.

No, because that would lack any reference. Why your implication, "Musicians that bother about technicalities make worse music than people like me who don't bother about them" is insulting... well, do I really need to explain that? I put much energy and work into learning as well as creating and expect exactly the same amount of respect for my craft as any other creative person.
I would not be insulted if you said you don't like my music. I am insulted, however, if you say I didn't create it the right way, especially considering I have studied and performed this craft many years, even making a living doing so.

Well people should always be prepared of other opinions challenging their way of doing and thinking. But I am sorry, I could never give you respect (as an artist!) due of how much work, effort, skills, time and money or what ever you've put on your art. I can only respect you through your works of art. And this same applies into every art I've ever witnessed in my life.

Of course I am not trying to imply that you or people working similar are doing everything wrong. If I think it is wrong, it doesn't mean that majority thinks it's wrong. That should be quite obvious. And even I am not that harsh about it, I am not thinking it is wrong, but I am thinking that some other approach could lead into discovering new and thus quite possibly into better music (at least withing my taste). Then again I should discuss about "discovering" if only I could put my finger on to it.

[pgil]

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

But there lies a problem. There is not enough time for one persons life to learn everything that can possibly be learnt. In worst case scenario, you end up only learning more and gathering more information and in the end you still don't have anything meaningful art that you've made.

But since when does learning take time away from creating?  Every time I've learned a new technique, I've done so by using it to create new work. What is the harm in learning something new if you're using that knowledge?   

Nobody's talking about learning every piece of musical theory that's ever been written.  Where did that come from?

I'm happy that I'm able to make music without a lot of technical knowledge, and without being particularly competent on any instrument.  But I run into situations every day where I feel limited by what I know. And that drives me to learn more.  And I bet you that better musicians than myself (and there are plenty in this thread) would say the same thing. 

edit: sorry I didn't write a huge fucking wall of text. I'm not very good at this.

[PostPre]

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

But there lies a problem. There is not enough time for one persons life to learn everything that can possibly be learnt. In worst case scenario, you end up only learning more and gathering more information and in the end you still don't have anything meaningful art that you've made. Music in particular is quite interesting because within the media you can do a lot with very little. That's why it is great medium for expressing creativity without getting lost in technicalities.

Again I like to compare this medium to painting/drawing and writing (assuming one can write to start with). Entry level is very low and you can put your creativity in play instantly. Sure there are a lot theories and technicalities that can be learnt within all of those mediums, but oddly enough, they are not actually required.

Are we talking about the same thing? You can easily learn music theory in a few years, not nearly your entire life. And when you learn music theory, you gain an infinitely more intimate relationship with music and what you can create with it, as well as a mutually understandable way to discuss it.

What I'm saying is, if you learned music theory, you'd be able to talk to us about music, rather than contribute nothing with these shitty philosophy 101 arguments. Furthermore, as someone who's grown up in a family of musicians, I don't think you've ever seen a living example of what your talking about and are just spouting conjecture.

[JudahRoydes]

Again I like to compare this medium to painting/drawing and writing (assuming one can write to start with). Entry level is very low and you can put your creativity in play instantly. Sure there are a lot theories and technicalities that can be learnt within all of those mediums, but oddly enough, they are not actually required.

  I believe a clue to a great deal of the controversy and confusion in this discussion can be found in the quote above. Music differs from these other art forms in nearly every way, From conception to the neurological and psychological conditions within which it is created. In fact the very brain creating the music is quite different as Dr. Oliver Sacks writes in his book Musicophilia, "Anatomists would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer, or a mathematician - but they could recognize the brain of a professional musician without a moment's hesitation." Q.E.D.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9240.full

   Using these other art forms as a a baseline to gain insight into the creative and structural procedures intrinsic to music is flawed from the start as it rest upon erroneous suppositions. As a result the questions being asked are the wrong questions. They are wrong questions in the same sense as asking where is the universe. And now....on to discussing general music composition, which by the definition of composition necessitates a discussion of the technical aspects of music.   

 
   

[1982]

 I believe a clue to a great deal of the controversy and confusion in this discussion can be found in the quote above. Music differs from these other art forms in nearly every way, From conception to the neurological and psychological conditions within which it is created. In fact the very brain creating the music is quite different as Dr. Oliver Sacks writes in his book Musicophilia, "Anatomists would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer, or a mathematician - but they could recognize the brain of a professional musician without a moment's hesitation." Q.E.D.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9240.full

That still doesn't make it any less true that entry level to music is low similar to painting and writing. Professionalism has nothing to do with low level entry.

  Using these other art forms as a a baseline to gain insight into the creative and structural procedures intrinsic to music is flawed from the start as it rest upon erroneous suppositions.

 

I don't see how.

Are we talking about the same thing? You can easily learn music theory in a few years, not nearly your entire life. And when you learn music theory, you gain an infinitely more intimate relationship with music and what you can create with it, as well as a mutually understandable way to discuss it.

Well there is more than just theory. There is learning the instruments you want to use. Learning recording technology if you want to record something. And learning mixing/mastering and other producing related technologies if you want to release something. Sure, music theory of those all can be easily the smallest part. While those other technicalities do not have much to do with actual composing, I doubt that none of you are in position to be able to just compose and let someone else do the rest. I guess the idea of composing is to eventually release something what people can listen?

What I'm saying is, if you learned music theory, you'd be able to talk to us about music, rather than contribute nothing with these shitty philosophy 101 arguments. Furthermore, as someone who's grown up in a family of musicians, I don't think you've ever seen a living example of what your talking about and are just spouting conjecture.

I am not talking to you about music, theory. Actually I am not even talking about music, we haven't analyzed single song in this discussion after I came along. Making music is not music. Music is. I was only talking about some methods of making music. If you want to talk about music, give me a song for analyze.

[narasu]

 

[MoritzPGKatz]

Yes. I give up too. I would only repeat myself.

You have obviously set your mind, we are all a bunch of robots beeping our technical nullities without being able to create anything of emotional content. Because there is either learning or doing. And everyone knows mixing isn't part of the creative process, especially in video game music.

[/sarcasm]

I'm out.

Let's talk about something else. Like how to use compressors to get a beat really pumping, or what the heck a Neapolitan sixth chord really is.

[tipp]

1982

you are such a grump 

[easyname]

lets talk about the finer points of making techno