next »

[Audiosprite]

I am raging so hard at 1982's posts itt. I've been typing out long, detailed posts and deleting them for almost an hour now.

[MoritzPGKatz]

I am raging so hard at 1982's posts itt. I've been typing out long, detailed posts and deleting them for almost an hour now.

Don't bother, he's obviously either trolling or just being a dick.

To take your mind off that, here's funk legend Bootsy Collins explaining in great detail how he composes bass lines:

[medieval]

Let

be the end of the technical discussion.

[MoritzPGKatz]

[1982]

I am raging so hard at 1982's posts itt. I've been typing out long, detailed posts and deleting them for almost an hour now.

Congrats to you then 

I really don't get whats the need for RAGE here?

[Audiosprite]

Because you're patronizing everybody who has ever taken music seriously.

[Chromeleon]

Here's a relevant excerpt from a book I've been reading.  (Chapter 7, In Support of Musical Abundance, by David Dunn)

The assumption that music expresses specific and nameable emotions is often a dogmatically held belief.  The issue is not that music doesn't trigger profound mental and/or physiological states––its affective capacity to alter mood, elevate spirits, and create stronger social bonds through indispensable cultural functions such as dance, entertainment, and other forms of public and private experience is easily demonstrable––but a problem arises in assuming that these states can be objectified, made universal, or even communicative in ways that resemble modalities of linguistic meaning.  To assume that we can communicate an intentional or specific emotion as a stable physiological constant through a musical experience is a classic case of misplaced concreteness.  Yet this is precisely what the popular concept of musical emotional expression, inherited from Romanticism, claims: that music is itself an emotional language.
Of course, there is very little evidence for constancy of emotive meaning that is viable across larger cultural boundaries.  The most that can be safely assumed is that some nebulous physiological states do seem to be shared cross-culturally as common "feelings" and others not at all.  Fine-tuned emotional meaning and description is highly dependent upon cognitive factors such as language and other cultural constructs.  Ironically, more than ever before, I read or hear musicians talk about the specificity of emotional communication that their music conveys as if this were completely self-evident.  Perhaps this is a predictable side-effect of the dominance of musical Romanticism within the film industry, or the muddled consequence of extreme post-modern thought, but the naïve faith of many contemporary musicians in this capacity would have probably shocked even the Impressionists.

(The whole series has been pretty great so far.  I haven't seen any other books on music quite like them.)

Put another way;  most of the perception of emotion in music is more a trait of the culture than the music itself.  We have learned to associate certain sounds with particular "emotional states", which informed composers can then use accordingly to provoke the desired response, reinforcing the learned perception.  (or intentionally subversing of the established meaning;  happy music with sad lyrics, etc.)
This kind of emotional reaction isn't unique to music at all.  Compare your emotional associations of cooler tones with your associations of warmer tones;  consider pastels, sepia, "black and white" (grayscale), different techniques and styles, etc.  There's just a lot more visual "noise" (stimuli without a specific connotation) diluting the emotional impact.

If you're going to assert the importance and necessity of deliberate emotional content in music, back it up.  It may be that you simply take a very Romantic view of art;  that's fine.  But don't just shake your head and assume people don't get it, or say it's "such a loss" should they hold different values to yours.  (which is another assumption altogether;  someone being interested in the technical properties of music has no bearing on their interest in music as a vehicle to convey emotions.)

[Audiosprite]

Ooh, thanks for reminding me to read Arcana. My friend owns the set and the only chapter I read was the one by Mike Patton (who told me to steal, so I did).

[medieval]

I really don't get whats the need for RAGE here?

You can make a monkey to play piano,

[1982]

Again, I was not talking about how listener feels music. It has zero importance. I wanted to point out how composer can use emotional (personal, true) approach in music making, because as a art medium it is very possible with when e.g. playing piano or some other instrument. Of course it is possible in any form of art, but the direct input is less there when medium is more technical like again, coding. With technical art forms you need to have great awareness of the technicalities itself so that you can do even the smallest thing. This includes film making (most cases), game making, coding, architecture. It always takes away or obscures the actual possible emotional driven creative process.

Then music, painting, writing, (assuming one can write), acting, etc, have very direct possibility for creator input, and thus can be seen as art mediums which can most easily convey creators emotion. It doesn't mean that audience has to get it same way, like I said, it makes no difference. The point is how the creator approaches his work, and how it could lead completely different, I'd say better, end result than purely technical approach.

I make ALL my music with that approach, together with all my writing, acting and painting which I also do in my life. I have some studies behind me for every area but acting. I've soon learnt that they are more obscuring my creative work than helping it. Good thing I have bad memory. I believe that If I'd make music from completely technical/theory stand point, it would be somewhat similar (probably more complex) because my taste is still the same, but something would be lacking from the end result and definitely a lot would be lacking from creation process. I like the fact that I can't say "what" would missing, I only know I have it and I can experience it and it is the main thing that keeps my interested with any creative work.

[MoritzPGKatz]

Okay, I really didn't want to get into this anymore, but you don't seem to see why everyone in this thread is angry at you.
Let me sum up the problems I have with your argument, and I think I'll speak for quite a few here:

• You make it sound like your creative way is the only way to go in every post you make. You are definitely making generalizations, a lot. Sure you can compare piano playing to java code, but does it make sense? No. The challenge you set here will of course push us to the technicalities of piano playing and not to the aspect of personal expression. Fact is, if I were to think just about those technicalities when performing or composing on the piano, of course it wouldn't sound like good music. It would probably not work at all because there isn't such a distinct boundary as you think there is.

• Your posts imply that you think everyone technically proficient is automatically less emotional when composing/performing music, denying that there are indeed a lot of people, and I've listed a few before, who see technical proficiency as a way to really push boundaries and, to speak in your terms, give their emotions even more freedom to express themselves.

• You have yet to show any of your music and art. Frankly, the last paragraph in your post sounded like you think a lot of your art, which is cool if you've put a lot of work into it. But if you think you can express your emotions better than someone who has a degree in instrumental music, just because of your impartiality: you are just clueless and self-centered.

And I've had this argument again and again with people who are usually just too lazy or had bad teachers. The amazing thing is that the studied guys always go "Okay no problem, have it your way.", while the autodidacts tend to get all defensive or passive-aggressive, somehow claiming superiority in artistic aspects. Case in point.

F*** that. Really.
I've spent and will still spend a lot of time, money and - most of all - dedication to music to be able to express myself the way I want it and share this feeling with other musicians. And I have respect for each and every musician and feel that everyone should find his own way that's the most fun to him or her. I've chosen to get a degree in music because I like learning new stuff and have better chances making a living that way, another person might want to dabble a bit in this and that and that's cool too.
But I just can't stand people whining about theory or technicalities restricting artistic expression. It's an urban myth and a bad excuse for being a lazy bum.

[ink.inc]

 

[1982]

But I just can't stand people whining about theory or technicalities restricting artistic expression. It's an urban myth and a bad excuse for being a lazy bum.

I have no problem accepting you as person or musician, even less so because I do not know you in person or your work. But why are you so hostile towards me as I am quite sure you do not know me or my work either? That is just wasted energy.

I am not much showcasing anything because they are for me, not for any audience that much. And because they are for me, they are superior pieces of art. Otherwise I would have not made them. Sure every next time something more superior comes out, no denying of that.

I know that many techniques learned help on expressing what one wants to. I personally haven't be able do everything I would want to because lack of skills, but that's because I've then tried to make something from wrong starting point altogether. Such workflow in art is odd where you set "goal" and then you start to think how to get there. I always just start without knowing where it goes. But then again, I am not making art as for living.  

Science and engineering is more about solving a challenge or question, art is more of expressing "something" with the tools available. And the "something" is something I don't know what it is, it comes and goes. It has very little to do with technicalities. To be able, is enough.

But nothing in previous discussions in this thread indicated anything about something else than technical aspects. Not single word on how these musicians approach composing _through_ technicalities as a tool for their expression. Seems like many are slaves of their skills and knowledge. This is always very apparent in almost all creative communities in internet.

And then people get hostile. Am I raping your world?

[s0]

But if you think you can express your emotions better than someone who has a degree in instrumental music, just because of your impartiality: you are just clueless and self-centered.

a lot of my favorite musicians are untrained

[Calum Bowen]

Science and engineering is more about solving a challenge or question, art is more of expressing "something" with the tools available. And the "something" is something I don't know what it is, it comes and goes. It has very little to do with technicalities. To be able, is enough.

Well this really depends what you think "art" or "inspiration" is... If you think (in pseudo-religious fashion) that composing is a case of allowing some kind of magic spirit to enter you - what you called "something" - then i'm afraid you've merely fallen into a trap and come to an extremely illogical but simple and satisfying rationale for "inspiration". The more you know about "technicalities" the quicker and more succinctly you are able to achieve the things you wish to achieve. Waiting for "something" to come is a nice romantic way of seeing it but it's also a bit of a waste of time as, like you said "something" comes and goes - because it's merely you improvising until you come up with something vaguely recognisable and thus catchy - a variation upon some already existing artefact that was lodged in your brain somewhere.

Umm... and with regards to "Am I raping your world?"... what on earth do I say to that. Hahaha.

As many have stated, hostility has come because your reasoning belittles the hard-work we as artists and technicians put in. To think that the artist "creates" an original work existing in and of itself FROM NOWHERE is what you may believe but I certainly don't. And I think believing that is a romantic vision and a symptom of christian creationist thought.  We like things to JUST COME TO US... God... I mean art works in mysterious ways...

I don't want to dismiss anyone's religious beliefs but merely point out that religious belief and the belief 1982 holds towards music-making are both pretty questionable but nice neat satisfying solutions for those who are looking for them.

Anyway... Aren't secondary dominants great?

[s0]

there IS "something" in music (and all other art) that goes beyond theory though, or the phenomenon of peoples musical output lessening in quality over time (i.e. as they become more technically proficient) wouldn't exist.

also protip: "competently put together" isnt necessarily the same as "good"

[Calum Bowen]

there IS "something" in music (and all other art) that goes beyond theory though, or the phenomenon of peoples musical output lessening in quality over time (i.e. as they become more technically proficient) wouldn't exist.

also protip: "competently put together" isnt necessarily the same as "good"

weelll.... this is my word against yours. There is "something" in the sense that music isn't about anything concrete.  Sound is a phenomenon, music is a construct (a beautiful construct) based around the properties of sound. Music can affect us emotionally, of course. Where that comes from... what's at the bottom? Well it's not anything and by that measure it's not SOMETHING.

I hope you'll allow me a long Susan McClary Quote:
"an old legend tells of an earnest youth who went to a holy man seeking the meaning of life. In response to the disciple's questions about the world and its foundations, the guru explained that the earth sits on the back of a huge tiger, which stands on the flanks of an enormous elephant, and so on. When the cosmological series reached a giant turtle, the sage paused. His enraptured pupil - believing he had arrived finally at ultimate truth - exclaimed, "So the universe rests on that turtle!" "On, no," replied his mentor. "From there, it's turtles all the way down."

It's the same with music. We cannot reach the bottom really... But what we are trying to do here is talk about those turtles.

Certain frequencies make us feel uncomfortable others sound nice. Were they always nice? This is not the question of composition though. If you rest your compositional practise on "SOMETHING UNEXPLAINABLE"... something BENEATH the turtles, and you say that is all there is, no turtles! Then that is no help to us at all. For we are talking about turtles.

I'm kinda babbling about turtles now...

[MoritzPGKatz]

I have no problem accepting you as person or musician, even less so because I do not know you in person or your work. But why are you so hostile towards me as I am quite sure you do not know me or my work either? That is just wasted energy.

I assure you, it was not my intention to seem hostile towards you and I am sorry if it came across that way.
I just feel you lack respect for other people's way of creating. Just from the fact that we didn't write anything about the emotional side of creativity on the first two pages of this thread you seem to assume that this plays no part whatsoever in our music. That's just not cool, and that's why people get offended. Just because you can't work towards a goal and get a good feeling out of it doesn't mean this applies to every other guy or gal - there is nothing "odd" about this way of creating something.

But if you think you can express your emotions better than someone who has a degree in instrumental music, just because of your impartiality: you are just clueless and self-centered.

a lot of my favorite musicians are untrained

Please don't get me wrong. I was trying to stress "just because of your impartiality". I know a lot of great self-taught musicians too, but they all have great respect for people who choose to take another path. And they are by no means "untrained", they're just their own teacher, so to speak, and still share the same excitement for learning.

Well this really depends what you think "art" or "inspiration" is... If you think (in pseudo-religious fashion) that composing is a case of allowing some kind of magic spirit to enter you - what you called "something" - then i'm afraid you've merely fallen into a trap and come to an extremely illogical but simple and satisfying rationale for "inspiration".

One interesting thing we tend to forget is that for the greatest part of musical history the idea of creativity has been a radically different one than the one we have today. Before the Age of Enlightenment, particularly in times of musica mundana, it was actually quite common to think that we are, simply put, an instrument for the world to play on. This may seem totally religious and off, but everyone who has been in a creative state where the music almost seems to compose itself may get this at least a bit.
To put it differently, the word "genius" was once not applied to individual persons, but to the general concept of inspiration, as in "I am blessed by having a creative genius" opposed to the endeavor of "being a creative genius" that is common nowadays. It seemed natural to satiate this genius by learning as much as possible about your form of art.

Another thing to think about is that not too long ago all those various art forms have split up from one big love for wisdom - philosophy. Over time, this one pursuit has broken up into lots of small schools: maths, physics, music... resulting in us thinking science and art are two different worlds, a thought that would indeed have been "odd" at the time.

I watched a fascinating TED by Elizabeth Gilbert some time ago: http://blog.ted.com/2009/02/09/elizabeth_gilbe/
What I'm saying is, it can be really worth the time to evaluate your personal idea of creativity. What I'm not saying is I believe in one truth or the other, and I'm not trying to romanticize this different point of view. It's just another take on creativity. And that can help a lot when you're in a rut.

[edit]
The video works here: http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html
[/edit]

[1982]

The more you know about "technicalities" the quicker and more succinctly you are able to achieve the things you wish to achieve. Waiting for "something" to come is a nice romantic way of seeing it but it's also a bit of a waste of time as, like you said "something" comes and goes - because it's merely you improvising until you come up with something vaguely recognisable and thus catchy - a variation upon some already existing artefact that was lodged in your brain somewhere.

I bolded the key part of that. I don't have urge to achieve. I don't have goal, and I don't have to get anywhere. The only meaningful part is to just play (like keyboard) nothing in particular, and sometimes if I catch something that I feel good or meaningful for me, I record / work it further. Mostly I just enjoy being there in the middle of the creative process. That is no way waste of time, this is mostly waste of time me replying in this thread. Probably on your behalf too.

Everything we do are variations from consciously or subconsciously learned stuff. We just can't escape that in our western culture, unless we develop severe brain damage or similar. Some people use drugs. This however has nothing to do with the process of music playing/composing itself, it just relates how the end result sounds or looks.

What is meaningful for me is combination of my personal taste and something else what I find attractive. How I come up certain taste has something to do with society or childhood, I never know for sure. It's not even important.

The "something" yes I don't know quite what it is, but surely it seems not to be divine energy channeling through. More likely state of mind where I can shut down all possible filters, preconceptions, "no-can-do's", or whatever that could be obscuring me being creative with something with most direct input possible. Music, writing, painting and acting are creative mediums where it truly is possible. The toolset you need to do anything is very minimal in all those mediums, thus allowing direct creativeness. I never have to wait for the "something" it is always there if I want to do something.

I like world and life full of mysteries, be it god, creativity, or space behind the universe. It has nothing to do with Christianity as established religion. Atheist are always mixing up beliefs, believing and religion. I have personal belief, but it has nothing to do with god or Christianity or even art.

I have had great fun with being creative now that I look back something I've done. I still cant explain some of those works what I've actually done and why, it is mystery in itself. It is great. All my artworks that have been successful in public eye have been those done through some sort of goal and purpose. Like technicians would do it. But do I appreciate those so much? No. They don't play important role for me compared to the true creatively experienced stuff I've done. And those few I've ever "released", have gotten loads of negative response being complete crap or incoherent shit. That's why I will never have future as artist earning his living, because you can whore only so much.

Some how this hurts the established view of technician-artist who go through all the huge deal of work only to come up with something mediocre. So no, technical excellence has nothing to do with quality. Browse devianart. Like you said.

[1982]

I assure you, it was not my intention to seem hostile towards you and I am sorry if it came across that way.
I just feel you lack respect for other people's way of creating. Just from the fact that we didn't write anything about the emotional side of creativity on the first two pages of this thread you seem to assume that this plays no part whatsoever in our music. That's just not cool, and that's why people get offended. Just because you can't work towards a goal and get a good feeling out of it doesn't mean this applies to every other guy or gal - there is nothing "odd" about this way of creating something.

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.