posted
Kudos Boogashaga, I am a current music student at Uc Davis, studying music history/ and theory comp as well as playing classical guitar and singing. Recently due to copious exposure to exciting new music and exciting new friends, I started composing a lot more music, and to great effect if my comp teacher is any judge. Thanks for the encouragement, most people don't understand musicians, don't take us seriously, insult us calling themselves musicians when they are not, or dismiss us as excentric, or useless. Of course, we are a great community, and we need to stick together.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have great respect for anyone who studies music theory. I was told to take the Theory I class for music majors as opposed to the "Principles of Music" or whatever class that was usually taken by students in my program with limited musical experience. As soon as the dean heard about the instrumets I'd played, he told me that although I'd do very, very well in the principles class, I probably wouldn't learn anything at all.
Theory I was very, very tough, but I definitely did learn a lot. I only got a C, but I worked very hard for it.
quote:Kudos Boogashaga, I am a current music student at Uc Davis, studying music history/ and theory comp as well as playing classical guitar and singing. Recently due to copious exposure to exciting new music and exciting new friends, I started composing a lot more music, and to great effect if my comp teacher is any judge. Thanks for the encouragement, most people don't understand musicians, don't take us seriously, insult us calling themselves musicians when they are not, or dismiss us as excentric, or useless. Of course, we are a great community, and we need to stick together.
Bolding mine.
That's the kind of attitude that results in "most people" not understanding you, or even wanting to.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, just what IS a musician, anyway? Someone who studies music, learns to play several instruments really well, reads music perfectly, etc.
OR
Someone who plays by ear, masters several instruments on her own, can't read music very well at all, but has written her own material and doesn't just spend the rest of her professional career playing the pieces written by "masters"?
Despite the smarmy tone of the last example, I personally think both those people, and everyone on the continuum between them, deserves to be called a musician...
posted
Wow, I wish I had come into this thread earlier.
One of the great events of the last ten years, which has gone almost unheralded, is the access of music to the masses. Software like Acid lets people completely incapable of playing an instrument learn how to craft a composition, and for under $2000 you can get a portable studio, complete with effects, that dwarfs the capabilities of the studios used by the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Johnny Cash, or Ray Charles in their heyday. I think it's a fantastic thing... and a chief reason why I don't listen much to popular bands nowadays-- there's too much neat stuff being made by ordinary joes.
The hobbyist can make incredible music right in their own home. For those of you who haven't messed around with Acid or similar loop-based programs, check out this piece my girlfriend put together entirely out of loops... she doesn't play a single instrument on the whole piece.
I have my bass back out of hock and am looking forward to teaming up with her to do some songwriting and reworking of both of our older pieces as well... (we need a drooling smiley)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:insult us calling themselves musicians when they are not
Anyone who listens to music is a musician. My evidence is that if you listen to music then you can tell a bad piece of music from a good one. And I'm not talking about style (heavy metal vs classical), I'm talking about music within the style a person likes. There is "good" heavy metal that does what it is intended to do and is well performed and written. Even if it isn't good music, if it isn't poorly performed or written then heavy metal listeners will know the difference.
My best evidence for this is Michael Jackson. No matter what you think of him or his music, it is effective.
People who study effective music become fluent composers and are able to whip stuff out, some of it able to boggle the mind (I'm thinking of J.S.Bach), and yeah, they deserve credit for that.
But as was mentioned earlier on this thread:
quote:There once was a time when most fully rounded people were able to play an instrument, and parties centered on everyone's singing songs together. Too bad we've lost that...
posted
I play bluegrass guitar and banjo. I'm nothing special, and I've never even been paid gas money. But I enjoy it and plan to continue it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Yeah, just what IS a musician, anyway? Someone who studies music, learns to play several instruments really well, reads music perfectly, etc.
OR
Someone who plays by ear, masters several instruments on her own, can't read music very well at all, but has written her own material and doesn't just spend the rest of her professional career playing the pieces written by "masters"?
Despite the smarmy tone of the last example, I personally think both those people, and everyone on the continuum between them, deserves to be called a musician...
posted
That's the kind of attitude that results in "most people" not understanding you, or even wanting to.
Hah! Kudos again for pointing out my condescension, its hard to stay conected when your off in your own universe. Still though, the feeling I express remains a part of my view, I am by virtue of being very commited, also very impatient with others in such matters as this. I am not religious, but I do remember the parable of the vineyard owner, paying all workers equally, tohugh some worked full days, some only an hour or so, because the pay was fair even for a whole day. I shouldn't be jealous of my hold in the musical community, although I can't help being that way!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
for under $2000 you can get a portable studio, complete with effects, that dwarfs the capabilities of the studios used by the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Johnny Cash, or Ray Charles in their heyday.
If only this technology resulted in the same calabre of music as was produced then... this is entirely my own opinion
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, going back to what you said earlier about "most people don't understand musicians, don't take us seriously.. etc."
I may be overly cynical in this regard but here is my experience.
In "most" people's world what is deemed acceptable as "good" music is only what can be heard on TV and purchased at Wal-Mart. To me what sounds good is good. The definition of what sounds good in not up for debate because it is completely subjective to a persons own mental wiring. But "most" people insist on letting you know that "good" is up for debate.
Now, as I've set out on a career with which I have a chance of being successful (not music), I no longer have access to my composition professor or anyone of any musical knowledge I trust that I can consult. I tried to consult many so-called composers, many claiming to be PhDs, through the Internet. However, I quickly found that many of them were too caught up in particular genres they felt were the only acceptable form of modern music or they felt that the only acceptable music has already been written back before 1750, or they would spend all of their time arguing the mathematic intricacies or relevance of musical progressions. In short they were arrogant and condescending and not much use to any body but themselves.
I found that the more I got myself around people who were not interested in new music the more likely I was to not share my musical talents. And because of that I'm finding it harder to complete the hundreds of compositions I started. I don't have an audience that cares.
Now the question is what do I do about it? Snap out of it? Easier said than done, but necessary nonetheless.
I'm snapping out of it by finding other outlets of creativity such as Filmmaking, Writing etc. For some reason I don't have the same emotional and personal attachments to these new outlets that I do to music. Music is just too personal for me to not have it taken seriously. But what has happened recently is I've taken on a desire to mock the popular music. Re-rendering them in presentations that would offend the very people who found the original version as acceptable. Check out my treatment of Ace of Base's "Beautiful Life" I posted earlier in this thread for an example. I will be adding vocals to that version as time permits. If you don't like it then I was successful and I'm happy. If you do like it than I was successful and I'm happy. Either way I win.
And when I've snapped out of it enough I will then finish those hundreds of compositions I started.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad to see that the thread has sort of received a "new life." Sometimes a new infusion of blood can save a life. Sometimes all it takes is for you to get a little "jumpstart" and you can continue your creativity. Gordon B. Hinckley once said the following:
1. Cynics do not contribute. 2. Skeptics do not create. 3. Doubters do not achieve.
Try not to surround yourselves with people who tell you that you can't do it. This is very easy to write and very difficult to accomplish, as most of us have friends and family that are (many times) not as supportive as we might like them to be. Creative people need to be around other creative people--note that I am not saying that the other people need to have Ph. D.s to be the right kind of people. Doctral-level academics are gifted specialists in their fields of endeavor and true gifts to the world, but they may not be the type of person that can help you to achieve what you desire. Many professors and insturctors take pride amongst themselves at how they can "put down" students--I know this through personal, first hand experience. On the other hand, how many of you have ever heard of a show called "American Idol" wherein everyone who gets up on the dias thinks that they are God's gift to the listening public? It is a fine line, for sure.
As a musician myself, I feel that it is imperative that you keep on "keeping on." If you can, do it. If you can't, help someone else to do it. There was a response to an earlier post of mine within this thread wherein the poster said in what appeared to be a sarcastic manner that the poster was glad that at least I could benefit society and then tried to cover up the bent of the remark by writing that the remark was not cynical. The truth of the matter is that all artists, be they sculptors, composers, artists, performers, photographers, and yes Uncle Orson, even authors can, should, and indeed even DO benefit society. Beauty comes in many forms, as indeed does ugliness. It sort of depends on which side you wish to be on, doesn't it? I choose, in this instance, to be on the side of creativity, beauty, and benefitting society.
Special note to Steev--First you need to make a list, Steev, of the stuff that you want to finish. This only needs to be a few notes about the composition, painting, etc.--enough to be able to jog your memory of the main idea, the chords or melody, the spacing of the articles to paint, etc. Do this for as many of the things that you eventually want to do. Later, expand the list, if at all possible, going into somewhat more detail. This second list will become your "brain." The agent orange has sort of screwed up my brain (along with the Los Angeles smog, carne assada burritos, and, of course High Councilman Sacrament Meeting speakers), so my "brain" list has saved many a thought of mine so that I can work on it at a later date. Also, sometimes you need to do an entirely different type of "project" to sort of "clean out" the "pipes" of what is actually left of your real brain. As an example--I am currently rewriting my Ward Emergency Plan (it is at about 75 pages now!). Doing "other" stuff really helps me--it might help you too, who knows? The important thing here is to not lose the lists. I have tried compiling all of the first lists into a special notebook for my second "brain" list. Now as long as I don't misplace THAT, I'll be OK.
Please remember that great phrase of the early seveties and "Keep On Truckin'."
Posts: 101 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
That was me that made that snarky comment and then said I wasn't being all that cynical.
I'm not much for giving helpful advice on subjects other than to say what I've gone though and I've gone through a lot of crap. But, when I'm back on track I will probably be less of a jerk and more helpful.
In any case I'm working it out. I've got a lot to overcome and most of what I have to overcome is myself. And it so happens that what I'm doing is in line with what you are saying to do and I can tell you that it is working.
edit: Oh yeah I also remember a cartoon that was made for that "keep on trucking" mantra in the 70's
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have had the delightful experience of being allowed to play along with some truly talented musicians. I think the #1 requirement for being a great musician is being able to share it with others. There're are probably untold numbers of people who are technically great (i.e., know their instrument and could compose pieces that are well received by the cogniscenti). In the grand scheme of things, I think they are less important to the world than people who can inspire others to become musicians, or to become better musicians, or even to simply love music.
It's gotta have soul, and you don't learn that in school.
But if you have soul, getting expert-level training is a great and wonderful thing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except, on occasion, I've seen people with soul lose it because they get taken with the exprert level training and get focussed on how technically difficult something is. The really impressive thing is when you can do something complex and difficult, yet still imbue it with the fire or just pure fun of something like "Louie, Louie" or "Shout", or, better yet, the simple honesty and heart of "Hurt" (especially Johnny Cash's version) or "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" (personal favorite, the Clapton/Sanborn collaboration from Lethal Weapon 2).
A criminally unknown and underrated song for this combination, IMO, is Rush's "Cold Fire" off of "Counterparts". It sounds, in places, almost simple enough to be a country/western song, but there are important segments which are very difficult to play as a band because the drums and guitar are in two separate worlds (and as bassist, you have to make them both fit together, yikes!).
But coattailing on your thought, the musicians I find the best are the ones that make people around them (especially me) better. Playing with them... the people that fit and shape their music with yours and build it into something truly amazing... that's just plain heaven.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But coattailing on your thought, the musicians I find the best are the ones that make people around them (especially me) better. Playing with them... the people that fit and shape their music with yours and build it into something truly amazing... that's just plain heaven.
I was lucky enough to be surrounded by a circle of these-- my dad's music buds-- all through my early childhood. They gave the same attention and respect to someone just learning to play guitar, someone who jammed on their level, and even a seven-year-old girl who wanted to sing and her four-year-old brother who wanted to jam on the harmonica or play the bongoes. They made us feel valued and included and like we could really make the music better by participating-- an invaluable gift to a child. I credit them with my still doing music today. (In fact, many of them are still the ones I do it with, in more public forums now that I've had more training and experience and my voice is mature.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I knew a guy who could take a triangle or a shaker and make a very ordinary solo-guitar folk piece into something transcendent. *That's* a musician. I'd be willing to bet some of that 4 yr old bongo work actually sounded pretty good in the context the other guys put around it... or maybe not, but you can make music from almost any noise, if you are skilled enough.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be willing to bet some of that 4 yr old bongo work actually sounded pretty good in the context the other guys put around it...
It did. Because they were that good and had the generous spirits to be willing to do that. They even gave him solos.
And do you know how much it boosted my singing confidence to be carefully listened to, played under, harmonized with, and afterwards praised for my tone and pitch and soul and clapped for? I really can't thank those people enough. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ--Since when is your voice mature? You remind me of an ox cart going down a steep, cobblestoned road in Heidelburg with the brake on.
This is not the case, however, when you are eating Polish food, of course. Then, you truly sound like the angel that you are.
Jump on my "bandwagon," will you?
Just so that the rest of you know, this Ketchup Kid and I have been joshing each other since I discovered how to use the internet (a few months ago--I have a slightly deprived life, as well as a slightly demented brain). She truly is a great vocalist. I predict that her power, dynamics, and range will surely increase . . . as her children get older.
Posts: 101 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
(It also helped my hearing. I can tune out good-natured screaming two feet away while detecting a softly-uttered swear word from the distance of the length of a full football field. Poor kids never knew what hit them.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the thing that enables you to eat Polish food without going to a restaurant. Sometimes men get lucky and their wives or mothers use it for them. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noted your plural utilization of "wives." You must be a "mormon." Maybe I should get a Polish wife (and a Mexican, and an Italian, etc.). Nah, I bet that's too expensive for such a broke musician trying to learn the internet. I'll stick to my music and keep the current spouse.
Posts: 101 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just have to post this. I was playing drums in the church band last weekend and I flubbed a simple two-measure break. I was so flippin' embarrassed, I did it again the next time it came up in the song.
So, I just went over to the church to practice and I sounded GOOD. I mean GOO-OOD. No guarantee I won't flub when next we play that song with the two-measure break. But still. It was fun to just pound the old skins for awhile.
Tomorrow, the choir sings at 2 services, Dana preaches at 3 services, and runs the youth drama program through its paces. Then we sing a truncated version of Handel's Messiah (only 2 hours or so long). Then the evening service I get to drum again. But we're doing Christmasy music so probably no drum breaks in these. But if one comes up...I'm ready!
posted
I was busy during the day with a rehearsal of St. nicholas and the Cichester Psalms (both works include boy altos! WOW!!!)
Anyway, to go back to our more philisophic moment in the thread it I could: Thanks for the insight everbody!
It gets so amazingly hard to talk about music when you have some people being very "classicly minded" others very intuitive and differently minded toward traditional workds, or new work that is either not traditional or is anti-traditional.
Obviously I think we are reaching the group consensus that "musician" really is not a definable thing, and that is a source of alot of rancor over who is a true musician, who is not, and who can say between them, what is an isn't anything.
I have often noticed, working both with ultramodern and experimental composers, very classical performers and conductors and teachers, and a wide middle range of people interested in all manners of music, that very often the source of the greatest dis-ease among us all is the perception of others.
For example, one very dedicated proponent of Debussy says that Bach has no emotional appeal and is too formally structuralist. The Bachofile immediately challenges the Dubussian to a duel and they go down shooting. They are both dedicated and intelligent, but music is a field with a unique blend of intuition and structure which is HUGELY variable. Very few, I dare say even NO OTHER FIELD is so variable and adjustable as music is, so we have to be amazingly resiliant as music lovers.
For example: we do not expect people who like to look at greco roman arhitecture to also havea a keen knowledge of prefab housing in Idaho (or wherever if you are defensive about idaho). Yet when one person likes boroque or classical period music exclusively, he is often dismissed as old fasioned or unwilling to respect new work. At the same time we don't demand that our modern architects have a comprehensive knowledge of the construction of thatched roofs in 14th century london, yet we often hold musicians responsible for being unaware of past movements in their art.
I had a teacher a few years ago who quoted someone I don't recall who, who said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture, so I thought that was amazingly insightful, if a bit prosaic (pun intended).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But yeah, I know what you mean about Bach and Debussy.
As far as capturing the musical identity of a song and being able to judge it, I've given it a lot of thought and decided you should know what I think.
Style is the easiest quality to identify. All country has a twangy guitar--if you like country music, you probably like twangy guitars.......
Then there is the message. Nearly all music says something. Even if a message is completely vague and not based in a story (programatic music), it still needs to be there. A prime example of music that has no message is completely random 12-tone music. And I dare say even current atonal composers aren't very fond of that music. Heavy metal generally has a pretty dark/negative message. I don't think anyone has really tried to do much analysis of this. It is a subconscious thing and people are drawn to what resonates with them.
Beyond style and message, there is interaction. Good artists interact with their audience. It applies to both composer and performer. I think this quality determines how effective a piece of music is and thus how popular it becomes. Beetles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, and Mozart are prime examples of artists who interact(ed) with their audiences. Atonal music only interacts with audiences who are "elite," thus it isn't popular outside of those audiences.
These are the 3 building blocks of music IMO.
However, it is hard to analyze the 3 qualities separately. Heavy metal is almost always dark, negative, and sad. Pop music is almost always passionate, emotional, and trance inducing, Country is almost always cheerful, bright, and fun. And since people decide what music they like because of the message they prefer, they aren't objective judges of styles that have messages they don't like.
Most people judge a style by its message. But they are different qualities. For example, elevator music versions of Def Leopard songs change the songs' original message... Lyrics don't often determine what the message is. Lyrics usually reflect the music's message, but singing Sunday hymn lyrics to a heavy metal song wont change the heavy metal song's message if it is performed the same way (screechy lead singer, loud drums, distorted guitar, etc).
Secondly, within each style, there is a vast amount of effective music. There are many failed musicians in every style because they can't interact well with their audiences. And there are the superstars of every style... But because people care most about message, they don't really see how effective a musician is in context of their style compared to effective musicians in a different style. For example, you can love Def Leopard and hate Depeche Mode. But within their styles, both were effective bands. And neither of them would have become popular if they weren't effective.
So because these 3 qualities are so inter-rated, music can sometimes seem very mysterious. For example two songs that have the same message and style can be totally different because one was written or performed by someone who interacted more with the audience. Classical musicians suffer from interaction problems IMO. They are performing music intended for another generation and they don't relate and can't convey the composers' interaction to their modern audience. A few classical performers can (Yo-Yo Ma). However, an effective musician could completely switch style and lose the audience because the audience wanted the message (which changed when the style changed) and didn't much care for the interaction (other than the lack of it). Duke Ellington suffered this fate when he switched from Big Band Jazz to religious music.
posted
And one more thing. Skill is a time thing. Sure, Mozart was born with perfect pitch and memory so he could whip stuff out like it was finger painting. And some autistic people can play the piano without any practice. For everyone else, it is just a time thing. You get good at what you spend your time on.
My high school sax teacher told me if I wasn't planning on practicing 6 hours every day that I shouldn't bother planning to play sax professionally.
I started my current line of work, computers, with very little actual skill and practical knowledge (most of my computer experience was years old from when I used a computer as a kid). Over the years I've gotten very good, have actually published stuff, and am <shock> considered smart (in my little computer circle, which isn't that big). But I know it is only because I have been spending the last few years working on that line of work.
What I studied to do, music, I am very poor at now because I haven't been spending the time on it. I know lots of theory, and I think about this (value and meaning of music) a lot, but I'm so rusty at actual composition. I am way behind my contemporaries who actually do write music.
So as far as musicians go, if you haven't played much, sure you will make mistakes. But that doesn't mean you can't perform. Anyone can interact with the audience. That is a skill too that takes learning, but if I had the choice between a flawless performance and a performance that moved the audience, I would pick the latter.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One last last thing (for tonight). I think people who are elitist are that way because they don't understand what makes good music and so they invent rules that they follow and others don't. I think the Ivory Tower (uni's) are afflicted with this. Atonal music (what the uni's teach) is built on top of artificial rules in the name of "originality."
I felt very good about my junior composition and other people told me it was the best work at the concert. (mvt 2mvt 3). However, I was writing to the audience (most of them parents of students), so of course they would like something tonal (my work was tonal, most everything else at the concert was atonal).
But another key thing was that in the 3rd mvt, I was pretty much mocking 12-tone music. Some people picked up on it, including the professors. They were very *cool* towards me after that, which is why I think I was threatened in my senior year that I better write atonal music or else. A visiting professor from England almost went livid in anger and he couldn't insult it enough.
2 years later, with a few atonal pieces under my belt, I wrote a nice little dity, that was nice and atonal. I was teaching a freshman sight singing class, and well, I recruited 4 freshman students to play it. They were all very good performers, but well, one of the players got 2 measures off. Nobody knew except me and them (I was conducting them). The professors raved to me about the work (because I obeyed all the (artifical) rules). But nobody else liked it, including me. Very different from my junior year.
That was a one of the reasons why I decided to bail on music and start doing computers full time.
I should say though. Even within atonal music, there is effective and ineffective music. My piece was ineffective IMO and the professors complimented it. It would have been better if they were more honest and said it sucked and my junior piece was better. But I'm not saying all atonal music is ineffective. I've listened to a lot of it and most of it accomplishes the goals they set out to acheive.
Wow, I've written a book......
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I also have to give credit to my education. It was writing atonal music that I learned that message and style were separate. I didn't like the style, and so it didn't come naturally. I pretty much had to reverse-engineer the whole composition process (with teachers' help) and I came to see that a song had to have a message of some sort. Perhaps that is why they complimented my last work, it somehow managed to include a message.
If I had stuck with tonal music, I probably never would have saw the difference between style and message.
Unfortunately for me, having written as much atonal music as I did, I kinda lost my desire to write music. It has been 5 years, and I think the desire is starting to come back though.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
quoting Human: They are performing music intended for another generation and they don't relate and can't convey the composers' interaction to their modern audience.
Yah its sad aint it? This is SOMETIMES true, and it is a very common perception, unfortunately not helped by some musicians or composers, although you might be surprised IMO
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human, so insightful, so right of you to point all this out. Although this strays WILDLY from what we were originally on about, no matter, because the all these points are valid issues in music.
I think that you might be surprised by the music community, at least here at UC Davis and probably in alot of other places, for being very willing to recognize quality in many genres. Although there is and will always be a bent toward the more academic areas of musical exploration.
You are DEAD ON about atonal composition. I have IMO brilliant professors and teachers and fellow students who labor with atonal music that no-one likes, and sometimes it is really hard for me to understand. I do get their unwillingness to pigeon-hole themselves as classicist and I respect that they want to move on into new areas of music, but this movement is tough.
I had an interesting class a few weeks ago, with a number of visiting professor/lecturers and musicians, very rare for an undergrad history survey of 20th century music. My proffessor put a peice of paper on the overhead, and it was a sheet with a bunch of well defined single line segments, a graphic score. HE asked us to respond to it.
We debated about the ways the score could be read, we talked about how it could be anything really. So he sat down at the piano and played a chopin Nocturn. He said to us, "that was my performance of this peice, since it can mean anything"
So we realized that it didn't meant just anything, it had to mean something after all... but what??? This annoyed me very much because it seemed almost a manipulation by the composer, a kind of thumbing the nose at everyone for thinking anything traditional. But I realized that this guy, (A very well known Composer circa 1975), was just reacting to his feelings about music. I didn't like the peice because all its qualities were extra-musical, it didn't have much to do with the performer, only the coolness, or indiness of the composer!
On one hand, as you most certainly know Human, we rail against the elitism we perceive in anything we do, but on the other, we spend COPIOUS amounts of time working on stuff, and feel entitled to a bit of superiority. Also, as many non-insane music lovers do not realize, some people (admitedly myself) often feel annoyed, exasperated and impatient with what we percieve as worthless in more popular music. This is elitism basically, but it comes from being very commited and concerned about music, not from needing a sense of superiority, and probably not from actually being superior, but from feeling very passionate, and very interested in what you do.
It is SO easy for people that don't like atonal music to call it elitist because it probably is. On the other side of the coin, atonal composers put tremendous amounts of effort (usually) into their work, and deserve credit from those who appreciate the result.
IN your circumstance, your teachers responded with genuine appreciation of your employment of their ideas, and maybe they know something you don't, or maybe not? AS to them responding only to their artificial rules, I agree that in a way that is all this is, but they probably did genuinly appreciate your work esthetically. At the same time, they might really not have enjoyed your tonal stuff because it didn't challenge their perceptions of tonality.
When Beethoven wrote his piano sonatas, it is hard for us to imagine that he did things that were unheard of, and unthinkable to contemporaries, today he is lauded as a genius and a treasure. One day, in the distant future, atonal music may be relevant in the same way, you never know.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
DeBussy (what I have heard of it) bores me.... sorry.
I don't like to define "musician" or "song writer", except in terms of someone who is "not there yet" (agreeing with human's "time" thesis).
I like, but don't really degree with the "dancing about architecture" quote. But I will say that two classically trained people arguing over whether Debussy or Bach is "better" is no different than two teenagers arguing over Yngwie Malmsteen verus Zakk Wylde.
Something I once told one of the six fans of my last original group, which he still has in his e-mail signature today: "Art without an audience is like gasoline without an engine." That is to say, it's all potential.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gentlemen (and ladies)--I believe that the idea of an engine without fuel is appropriate. Music needs to be created; we call this composition. In some forms of music it is created during the actual performance (progressive jazz, Iranian "classical" music, etc.), while in other forms it is laboruosly written down (fugues, 12 tone, etc.). Next would come the performance ( I have a few boxes aound with scores in them, but no music is resonating from within the confines of the cardboard--only what I hear in my head when I look at them every few years).
Thirdly, would have to be the listeners. Pat Boone singing all of those heavy metal songs in a more relaxed "elevator music" format a while back still got Led Zepplin, Iron Butterfly, and other stuff "out there" again, even if it was without what was tremed above as the "message"). I have attended recitals where the group performing was about as big as the audience, but at least there was an audience. Without anyone "hearing" the music, is it really complete? I guess this is sort of like the old "tree in the forest" thing, huh?
When I play dinner music for a cocktail party, business meeting, or at another event, I generally play versions of all kinds of music but done up in a "romantic piano" style. Every now and then an attendee will come up to the piano, place a dollar in the sniffter (oh please, oh please!!), and ask me about the piece I am playing. When I say that is a selection that I a based on something by such & such group, composer, religion, etc., it freaks them out. They usually say something like, "I never realised that THEY produced anything like that. Then I causally mention how the Boston Pops Orchestra under Arthur Fiedler introduced the melodies of the Beatles to the "elitist" snobby world of the people who would only listen to classical-type composers. I then play a few melodies in several different "styles" and show how things can be altered. Sometimes the snifter get fed again, sometimes not.
By the way, I would enjoy watching various individuals fighting over whether Bach is better than Debussey; however, I would suggest that we make it not a gun battle to observe tham "go down shooting," but make it sort of like a World Wrestling Federation match--say two out of three falls. It would certainly make music as a hobby more fun for me. What do you think?
Posts: 101 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Who is to say one style is really better than another. Having studied atonal music, I lost my interest in classical music completely. Part of the atonal education is that it is the only music that matters. Well, I eventually came around to believing it.
So to break that, for the last 5 years I have been listening to nothing but pop, first 80's music (the music I grew up on and loved like Oingo Boingo, Sting, and Midnight Oil). Then slowly to modern pop (like Shakira, Sarah McLachlan, Dido, etc). And that is where I got my views.
So now I don't believe any music style is inherently better than any other. Some messages are better than others, but most listeners don't care. They want the style/message they want.
To me, the main judge is if it is effective. If the composer or performer achieves their goal. If they communicate their message. And mostly if they interact with the audience. Because I think that is why we listen to music. It touches some place in side of us.
As far as atonal music being more relevant in the future. I heard that a lot when I studied. I doubt it will happen because only trained people understand it. Art education is decreasing rather than increasing.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Also, Beethoven is always used as the example to support atonal music too. But Beethoven himself was breaking artifical rules IMO. And it says something that the Ode to Joy to was intended to be sung in the pubs by everyone. It appealed to everyone. It tried to be pop music, only on a higher intelectual level. I'd say it worked.
To me, atonal music started with Wagner, not Beethoven. Beethoven broke the rules. But Wagner, IMO and you can disagree because this is very subjective, Wagner began writing music with a destructive message. His operas have a malevolance to them.
I was listening to the end of Tristan and Isolde yesterday, and yeah, it is pretty, but it has a very negative message. From Wagner sprung the roots of atonal music, which in my opinion is very negative and malevolant that is revealed in the fact that it is very exclusive. Only trained people can enjoy it. Considering that many of the greatest music minds of the day are spending their time writing music that the general public can not enjoy is very mean IMO.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: My 2 favorite composers would have to be Bach and Debussy. I can't see how anyone can say anything bad about either of them.
Vaughan Williams fits in there somewhere as being my most favorite composer too.
I'm right with you on that. I'm a total sucker for the lush orchestrations. Ralph Vaughan Williams being right at the top of my list.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human_2.0, I'm so glad you posted. Much of my experience is very similar to yours and in large part why I turned into a cynic and a jerk about it all...and went into computers were I have found new ways to be a jerk there too.
I actually started to like some atonal music but only if it was part of a larger tonal structure that had a point to it. When I write music I'm setting out to tell a story, express a thought or feeling, present a message. It's not supposed to be a grandiose work set aside for the scrutiny of the learned to intellectualize the mechanical intricacies of composition, or as the professors would claim "to understand". It's music and emotion and soul and spirit. Rules are guidelines of style. Style is the tool to portray the intended message. To be emotionally involved with music is to understand the message. To not understand the message makes music irrelevant.
I'm reminded of the English literature teachers in school, whom OSC continues to take issue with, who are caught up in the words and completely miss the point of story.
Boogashaga, your example of the cocktail party romantic music is a great one. And it's a lot of what really interests me about the effectiveness of choosing the right style to portray the message of what the composer or arranger intends to send across. I grew up on the "elevator" music of the 60's, 70's and earlier 80's and was very interested in making comparisons of the "elevator" versions to the originals. (Much to the terror of my peers.) To compare the Beatles' "Norwegian Wood" to a version rendered with a lush orchestral arrangement in a 5/4-meter blew me away. Despite what my pears felt, I felt they were both valid and powerful versions to be taken seriously.
As for which is better? I will never take part in such an argument but to recommend that if you want to create something new and different then buck the system of defined rules. To know and understand the rules is one thing. To be a slave to them is another.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a great idea. It would show just how ridiculous it is. And in my world ridiculous things are funny unless they are pathetic and then they're just sad.
I want to rspond on a couple different levels, first off to quote Booogashaga: _____________________________________________ By the way, I would enjoy watching various individuals fighting over whether Bach is better than Debussey; however, I would suggest that we make it not a gun battle to observe tham "go down shooting," but make it sort of like a World Wrestling Federation match--say two out of three falls. It would certainly make music as a hobby more fun for me. What do you think? ________________________________________________
this is very apt indeed boog
Onto Human, who is really hitting the effectiveness angle over the head, and I like it. I agree that music must be effective, so I want to suggest this possible future, someone in the near future, or in the very recent past has been or will be working on his masterworks in Atonal composition. It is entirely possible, even likely, that a genius of the caliber of the beethovens, bachs and mozarts is living in a western or eastern country today, tirelessly producing the great literature of our age in music. There might be another schubert out there somewhere, sitting for endless periods at a writing desk with a keyboard, or at a computer producing thousands of inspired works, only time will reveal this person to us.
Your mention of Wagner gets me all riled up, I have always had a problem with Wagner, on many levels. Beethoven's genius and his quantum leap in style set the stage for Wagner to use, abuse personally and zealously exploit romantic music until it was a dry and dusty well. HE did this indescriminately and with fervor, to little good effect IMO. He was the sell-out rockstar of his era, and he was not at all unwilling to exploit anything and anyone to be recognized, he was the music Stalin IMO, rather than actually being liked, he simply retired all the competition early.
Wagner has less and less value in the repertoire today because his music, though incredibly powerful and forceful, is empty and meaningless in comparison with his contemporaries, who were still shy about scoring symphonies for a Black powder Canon in the percussion section.
But nevertheless his genius in his genre is obvious, no matter how exploitive, he pushed music ahead in his lifetime, and that movement has become painful for alot of very brilliant people like you human.
As to steev's mention of classicized arrangements of popular work, well this has been going on for hundreds of years, (remember that Beethoven's ode to joy found its genisis not with Beethoven, but as a folk song) and it will continue indefinetly. This IMO, is neither here nor there, because melodies are the same all over. IT can be rather easy for a classical group to "trick" an audience into liking "norwegian wood," by classicising it, because "Norwegian Wood" is one of the great songs produced in the 20th century, anyone would respond positively to such a wonderful piece of music, and perhaps an orchestral arrangement simply puts that work in a form which is appreciated for its connection with some people's favorite artists.
Alot of people who do classicised arrangments do it I think as a way of "tricking people," into liking their style of music, but as Shoenberg insisted in the early 20th century, when you transcribe any work, even if the composer transcribes it himself, it becomes a NEW peice of music, and has new properties. Thus to say that people who like the beatles in orchestral arrangements are snooty or elitist is unfair, because those people enjoy what the work has become, and might not have appreciated the same work in a different style. __________________________________________________ Quoting Steev:As for which is better? I will never take part in such an argument but to recommend that if you want to create something new and different then buck the system of defined rules. To know and understand the rules is one thing. To be a slave to them is another. __________________________________________________
You are IMO perpetuating a classic non-argument against well defined genres. Here is what I mean, this is a non argument because there ARE NO RULES! All, I mean ALL!!!! Great music defies some expectation in the ear of the listener and transcends form. Despite what your perception my be, Bach Mozart and Beethoven never worked in a set of rules, but academics constructed rules based on their works, so that they could be imitated. But these rules are artificial in the way that an historical film is artificial, it is only a representation of events, it is a reverse engineering of the musical process.
NO_ONE works by a strict set of rules, and no-one ever has. Another great example is Shakespeare, he wrote 14 line sonnets with a two line cap and two sets of six verses in the body, so his sonnets went ussually 6-6-2. THis is a rule in writing shakespearian sonnets, but Shakespeare was the first to do it this way, and he had no rulebook. HE wrote what worked best, and his consistent use of this system allowed him to seek an incredible range of interesting results.
Your bucking the rules is not a novel or IMO a perticularly useful aforism, because all great artists always do this. There are no "rules," only your perception or other's foolish misrepresentations are limits on your creativity. But, hey your absolutely entitled to see this your way, its not an attack, but at the same time I feel really strongly aboutwhat you said, and I wonder if you ever thought about it my way, because I used to think what you wrote almost exactly, until I realized it is a non-argument, about a set of laws that aren't there
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I see what your saying and I believe that I'm in the process of making that transition in my life. I just have to come to terms with the old aphorism as I've discovered it recently. Like I said earlier in this thread. Most of what I have to get over is myself.
And to everyone here: You are all awesome!
I haven't been able to really deal with this at all for that last 10 years. This is the first time I've been on a forum, let alone in person, where I can talk with people that I can actually relate to.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, and keep up thinking about this stuff, this has made me consider what other people beleive about what I do, and what I beleive about what they do, its good to keep your orientations fluid (the enemy's gate is down?)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
@ KQ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Poor kids never knew what hit them.)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
this is very apt indeed boog
