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.

[JackMenhorn]

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:









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?

[s0]

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:



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

. 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.









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.

[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.

[s0]

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.