The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Music vs. sound? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 3rd April 2010
  #121
Gear Head
 
Wolfenstadt's Avatar
 

I haven't read throught this entire thread so if this have been said before, sue me.

Back in Bach's days, you would write music for the ensemble you were given access to by whoever you worked for. It would be absurd for a composer to ask for instruments other than those that were readily available at the given time and place. "Sound design" was limited to choosing what instruments would play what when, and must have been considered peripheral to the art of composing. This of course changed during the years, composers becoming increasingly involved in the design of the orchestra, with an ever increasing number of instruments and instrumental techniques to incorporate into their compositions. Culminating in the huge orchestral works of the romantic period, the orchestra evolved from a relatively simple collection of instruments to a field of huge and diverse sonic possibilities, the composer from a writer of melody to a sculptor of sound.

As a continuation of this tradition, todays composers face two challenges: 1. the original harmonic challenge that Bach faced - i.e. what should the instruments play, and 2. what instruments, playing techniques, etc. should be employed to further support the harmonic aspects of the composition - and vice versa.

I will go out on a limb here and say that it is much easier to get an interesting *sound* out of a synth, guitar, orchestra or whatever than it is writing a piece of music that is actually harmonically and/or rhythmically interesting. My hypothesis is that people get lost in the instant gratification of cool and surprising sounds, forgetting or perhaps denying their music's harmonic and rythmic potential.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #122
Gear Nut
 
JoeyRec's Avatar
 

This is right up my alley. I am a guitar player and I take my electronic music composition a lot differently than most I see. I look at it like Im writing a song, most look at it as pumping out a track. I like a little more melodic and complexity and complex arrangements too. I am not saying I am alone, but you know.

I definitely am not as technically savy with sound design and synthesis as many Im working on it, but I think the love/heart and emotional journey is left out of much of the electronic music also as compared to the 90's. When you write something on the guitar it comes from your soul, I am not a pianist, but I find its harder to translate that onto a computer. Its just not as much of an organic thing. Strings and feeling the vibrations and all let you feel the music as you are playing it. That is just my feeling. Im sure if I was good at piano I would feel much differently.

Basically what I am saying is that I think many people doing electronic music need to look at what I focus on, and I need to get better at what you guys seem to focus on (generalization). And I think the songwriting and arrangement is crap. Like you were saying if you are old school and like just tweaking something live than thats a style. But I like laying it out a little more thoughtfully. Its also a different approach and style. I do love much of the knob tweaking awesomeness too.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #123
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestack View Post
I want to know theory better. Trust me, I'm not anti-intellectual, but knowing theory inside out while also being a virtuoso instrument player wont give you the ability to make great music if you are a dork with ****ty taste.
Lol! You're absolutely right about that!
Old 3rd April 2010
  #124
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadJohn View Post
I am having a really hard time understanding the anti-theory, anti-intellectual vibe that I am seeing sometimes on this thread.
My responses you see here are not anti-anything - but they are reactions towards a condescending attitude from people who have music theory down.

The problem with this attitude is that we are obviously living in a cultural environment where that knowledge no longer is necessary to create music and be successful with it.

Of course i know that a number of musical doors (mainly jazz and classical) are locked to me because i don't know any theory, but that doesn't mean that i couldn't play a large variety of music and be good at it - it just means that i have to focus on other aspects of music than theory.

This "lack of theoretical knowledge" does not make anyone a lesser musician - except in the eyes of people who seem to have the need to boost their egos by pointing out that "lack" and acting as if that specific knowledge needed to play their chosen genre is all there is to music.

While i wholeheartedly agree that you can't really play jazz without extensive theoretical and practical training, jazz certainly isn't the be all, end all of music - and the training specific to jazz simply does not make much musical sense in other genres.
So why that attitude?

Just accept that music is for everybody (and their dogs) and that people enjoy it and can be very good at it regardless of their formal training.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #125
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
for there to be no rules there must be rules first. otherwise we just have sound and not music.

I can setup a random lfo, attach to pitch and cutoff, lean on a key and sweep lfo speeds up and down. Do I have music?
Yes, actually you have music heh

This is music too:


Helikopter-Streichquartett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are describing was avantgarde in the 50's and is pretty commonplace today.



As for the "rules" - in music they really are arbitrary and it makes no sense to speak of "breaking them" or not.

To the indonesians break musical rules by not even having 12 tone scales?
Do they even know or care about those "rules"?

Not too many years ago (white) classically trained musicians argued that "blues" was not music - because it couldn't be notated with the tools available then...

...but hell... those uppity negroe boys [/southern drawl] just kept on making their noises anyway - and instead of them adjusting to proper standards of music the theory eventually had to adjust...

Arbitrary rules...

Musical rules are a bit like the rule about the use of the F-word on this site - it's a rule here (and in many other social situations) to not use it (fair enough, that rule doesn't harm me) but it certainly doesn't mean that the rule has anything to do with real life where most people probably do swear occasionally...
Old 3rd April 2010
  #126
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
As for the "rules" - in music they really are arbitrary and it makes no sense to speak of "breaking them" or not.
Rules have context, defining the sphere of influence by their existence. Some rules are universal. It is important to understand different rules can cover the same ground: Indian vs Western scale, for example.

I am personally not concerned with all art nor all music (not that my opinion really matters in the grand scheme). Saying all sound, or combinations of sound, is music is to reduce art to a point of meaninglessness (for me, perhaps a limitation?). If we consider a random lfo burbling on for an hour music, then I would say--its bad music.

I am more concerned with art that is good enough. We might not agree on what makes bad art, nor what makes great art. But I think we can agree, after sufficient exposure, on which art is good enough. Perhaps our take on its greatness is different, but all can agree a piece is above a perceived quality level. Novelty alone isn't enough.

What is enough then? That's where rules and convention come into play.

I'm not suggesting rules be abided by...but knowing what they are can really help you know where to break them.

Lets not forget that sometimes the restrictions of rules are a creative act itself.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #127
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Please. Many of us, who have the tools for sound design, are still more into notes. For me, personally, music IS the notes. One can write a piece of music and various instruments can play it. Regardless of the instrument it's still the same MUSIC. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ellington all knew and did this. They wrote for the notes as well as the instrument. But the instrument could be substituted and the integrity of the music would not likely be harmed.

It's ALL about the notes for me.
ah - this seems to be devolving properly into another silly discussion of music vs noise, in which the 'note' crowd really don't understand what's being said.

That's fine for you to prefer harmonically based music. And I love Bach....but what was said was obviously true - Bach was limited by the instruments and conventions of his time.

But ultimately, it's absurd to tell someone, for instance, who likes listening to noise music, or more generally to music in which the timbres used are actually an essentially part of the music, that they are not listening to music. You don't appreciate this aesthetic, and there is obviously no moral compulsion to, but notions of what constitutes music have expanded since Bach's day and that is a good thing. It doesn't detract from Bach or his music in any way.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #128
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Thanks! Clearly they'd use the tools at hand: Finale, Sibelius would start. Sure they'd use samples and virtual instruments. Of course! It's cheaper than hiring an orchestra, to at least be able to hear the pieces. But a lot of these guys don't NEED to hear it. They know how it sounds.

But a lot of these guys would STILL rather spend their time composing, pencil to virtual paper, than searching for sounds and tweedling with DAWs. That is unless genius dude is a virtuoso pianist.
Where can I get this ouija board that you're using?
Old 3rd April 2010
  #129
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
ah - this seems to be devolving properly into another silly discussion of music vs noise, in which the 'note' crowd really don't understand what's being said.

That's fine for you to prefer harmonically based music. And I love Bach....but what was said was obviously true - Bach was limited by the instruments and conventions of his time.

But ultimately, it's absurd to tell someone, for instance, who likes listening to noise music, or more generally to music in which the timbres used are actually an essentially part of the music, that they are not listening to music. You don't appreciate this aesthetic, and there is obviously no moral compulsion to, but notions of what constitutes music have expanded since Bach's day and that is a good thing. It doesn't detract from Bach or his music in any way.
Well you're assuming I don't like this music. I can see why you get that. Not true. The first time I fell in love with "noise" music was way back - listening to Penderecki. AMAZING stuff. And Stockhausen.

There's this tendency to take what a person says an generalize to the point of stupidity. Person says I like the color blue. Then someone posits the false idea that the ONLY color the person likes is blue and therefore he HATES all colors but blue. Silly.

I love notes. That doesn't mean I don't like sound, timbre and rhythmless toneless music as well.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #130
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Where can I get this ouija board that you're using?
I'm talking about the contemporary musical "geniuses" I know, who are the closets approximates to those old ones. I'm just extrapolating, of course.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #131
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadJohn View Post
Most big innovators in jazz were very much coming out of a tradition (listen to some Miles records from the forties through to the eighties). Also, even in the musically revolutionary twentieth century, many of the composers who made the biggest break with classical or romantic tradition ( e.g. Schoenberg, Bartok, Webern) were very much connected to and rooted in the past.

There's an undertone sometimes in these discussions that seems to say "Well, music has explored harmony and melody, and timbre is what's happening now, and that other stuff is not so important anymore" I don't agree. I'm with Henry about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As far as I can tell, great music (of all kinds) has always come out of artists deeply interacting with tradition and the past, as they work in the present and look to the future. I don't see anything that would make this less true now.

Best,

John
I don't see anyone throwing anything out. This is a false position inferred by those who generally want to imply that the 'new forms' aren't music, or aren't valid in some way. Obviously any piece of music must in some sense result in interaction with the past, because it would be pretty impossible for a person to live in a total vacuum, never having heard and having been influenced by the past, and start composing music competently. But that doesn't imply on any level that a contemporary composition MUST employ ALL of the historical elements of music that Bach, Mozart, etc employed.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #132
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
But not limiting it to electronic music alone, there's a lack of musical intelligence and education, which dove tails into the problem I've been talking about.

Johnny doesn't know how to read, so invent elaborate picture books - may not be the best, most optimal solution. He may eventually want to "write" novels but can only draw stick figures. Very cool stick figures that seem to point to a plot with no dialogue, but he's missing the experience writing the great works. And he's very defensive about it and discounts the need to read. OK, but he's the one who's missing out, as well as society. As usual, you don't know what you don't know.
It is the people who insist that music must contain harmony that seem defensive to me. What threatens you, exactly? If someone writes a piece of music that you don't like, don't listen to it!
Old 3rd April 2010
  #133
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

For the most part, the best music isn't trying to "convey" emotions. This is a description of manipulative film scores more than anything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicandme View Post
Maks I agree with you completely...Musical instrumentation in popular music has been gravitating towards the electronic field since the first days of electric guitars, and possibly even earlier. I feel that in today's musical climate utilizing electronic textures and production techniques is a way of making the process of creating music more accessible to those that have not taken the time to study music theory or do not have the intellectual capacity to wrap their heads around the subject. Regardless, great music is being made by those that do and do not understand why certain notes go together or what makes a great melody and I think this is a good thing. By allowing those without a "traditional" understanding of our western music culture we are opening avenues for much greater artistic creation. We're all just using a new paint brush to convey our emotions through music
Old 3rd April 2010
  #134
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I don't see anyone throwing anything out. This is a false position inferred by those who generally want to imply that the 'new forms' aren't music, or aren't valid in some way. Obviously any piece of music must in some sense result in interaction with the past, because it would be pretty impossible for a person to live in a total vacuum, never having heard and having been influenced by the past, and start composing music competently. But that doesn't imply on any level that a contemporary composition MUST employ ALL of the historical elements of music that Bach, Mozart, etc employed.
DUDE!!!! No one, least of all me, is saying the new forms AREN'T MUSIC!!! What's going on here? I'm am saying a lot of people are forgoing learning music, notes, harmony, chord and relationships of the traditional symbology, for whatever reason -- laziness probably. And that laziness is creating a loss -- the throwing the baby out with the bath water. That's the meaning of that phrase. Yes, you have something GOOD. No one has said it's not. But don't throw everything else out because of this other good thing.

Some folks have a big button on this. I used to have a tutoring school I was the head of. We specialized in teaching reading and teaching how to study. We often had adults who were illiterate. Most adults who are illiterate are very defensive about it. First they''re embarrassed about it. Then they hide it. Then they pretend they don't need it. They've come this far without it. But they're also ashamed, which finally led them to me. But they also attack those "educated folk."

There's no reason to have a button. Either you learn some theory or you don't. I'm not saying your music will improve one iota. But I do know one thing I'm pretty sure of: if you knew your theory, you wouldn't have this big old button and feel the need to attack people who do.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #135
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicksibicky View Post
"sound is produced by the natural world
music is produced by man--by intelligence, a sign of civilization. Music is an invitation to genius and a seat at the circle of enlightenment, available to anyone with ears....."


DISAGREE. I teach my college students that music is a way of interpreting reality (usually sound). Sound is a physical process, music is the human observation...it is not reflective of how it was created.
"a way of interpreting reality"? You teach them this? Music is an "observation"? How exactly does that work?
Old 3rd April 2010
  #136
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
DISAGREE. I teach my college kids differently. LOL! Music is completely dependent upon being CREATED. It's a cause point. That's what makes it art. It's also a communication. Since it is communication of artistic things, that means it must be a creation and a creative endeavor.
It is a mistake to say that music is communication. But it's a nice cliche.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #137
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

That's not what he's saying. Can you not know that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Hm. There most certainly are rules. That's why it's so unsettling to end a song on a dominant chord. Joe Public has no idea what that is but he sure wants you to go to the tonic! Put an Eb in a C Major 7th chord or and F in the same and dude who doesn't know anything about music will perceive those as grossly wrong notes.

Now nobody is telling you you can't do these things. These aren't rules that will put you in jail. And if you actually know what you're doing it might be hip. If you don't know what you're doing it could just be stupid.

It's like having dinner with the queen. You could be a radical and pick your nose while grabbing the blood pudding, but if you have no idea that your actions are offensive and why you're immediately being escorted out, it's just stupidity.

Music is a fantastic thing. The rules seem to work across cultures. Those tones communicate in ways that seem universal. 12 tones with scales that have a wonderful balance within themselves. Each tone relates to every other in understandable ways. To pretend that they don't is silly.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #138
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

But what you say if false - I do occasionally attack people who pontification about subjects and don't get their facts right. I never claimed that it's BAD to learn theory, and I've never attacked someone because they know theory. I DO think that often people who are formally trained become quite limited in their ability to break the rules that they have learned - being a violin player, I was sometimes quite amused by the attempts of famous classical violinists to play other types of music. It generally sounded absolutely horrendous to me.

I think that it likely is very true that, similarly to someone becoming a nuclear physicist - one would generally need some formal training to compose competently in a particular Western classical style. But I think that there are lots of people who are not concerned with that, and in many cases, spending years studying how classical music is constructed doesn't really translate to constructive use of time if one isn't interested in composing related music.


Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
DUDE!!!! No one, least of all me, is saying the new forms AREN'T MUSIC!!! What's going on here? I'm am saying a lot of people are forgoing learning music, notes, harmony, chord and relationships of the traditional symbology, for whatever reason -- laziness probably. And that laziness is creating a loss -- the throwing the baby out with the bath water. That's the meaning of that phrase. Yes, you have something GOOD. No one has said it's not. But don't throw everything else out because of this other good thing.

Some folks have a big button on this. I used to have a tutoring school I was the head of. We specialized in teaching reading and teaching how to study. We often had adults who were illiterate. Most adults who are illiterate are very defensive about it. First they''re embarrassed about it. Then they hide it. Then they pretend they don't need it. They've come this far without it. But they're also ashamed, which finally led them to me. But they also attack those "educated folk."

There's no reason to have a button. Either you learn some theory or you don't. I'm not saying your music will improve one iota. But I do know one thing I'm pretty sure of: if you knew your theory, you wouldn't have this big old button and feel the need to attack people who do.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #139
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

That is just not true logically, that there must be rules first in order for there not to be rules. Obviously if there are no rules first, there still aren't any....but perhaps it reassures you to spout stuff like this.

I think that what you're saying (perhaps) is that one must know a rule in order to break it. And even this is simply false. All you're saying is the very trivial statement that in order for someone to consciously break a rule, one must know the rule. But sometimes this just means that someone must unlearn brainwashing....

As far as your example. If you released it as a piece of music, I think that most people would not think that it was GOOD music. But whether something is or isn't music isn't something that can be definitively described with a bunch of statements about rules and content.



Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
for there to be no rules there must be rules first. otherwise we just have sound and not music.

I can setup a random lfo, attach to pitch and cutoff, lean on a key and sweep lfo speeds up and down. Do I have music?


Code:
Should these words
   be apart,
gone is my
   poetic fart.
just because it rhymes doesn't make it poetry.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #140
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Yes, actually you have music heh

This is music too:


Helikopter-Streichquartett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are describing was avantgarde in the 50's and is pretty commonplace today.



As for the "rules" - in music they really are arbitrary and it makes no sense to speak of "breaking them" or not.

To the indonesians break musical rules by not even having 12 tone scales?
Do they even know or care about those "rules"?

Not too many years ago (white) classically trained musicians argued that "blues" was not music - because it couldn't be notated with the tools available then...

...but hell... those uppity negroe boys [/southern drawl] just kept on making their noises anyway - and instead of them adjusting to proper standards of music the theory eventually had to adjust...

Arbitrary rules...

Musical rules are a bit like the rule about the use of the F-word on this site - it's a rule here (and in many other social situations) to not use it (fair enough, that rule doesn't harm me) but it certainly doesn't mean that the rule has anything to do with real life where most people probably do swear occasionally...
My understanding is that theory does in fact come after the music. When you learn to write counterpoint a lot of what you're studying is rules based on how composers (eg. Bach) actually wrote their music. It's the same with jazz theory. Music has never followed a path laid down in advance by some authoritiy. Also, your example Stockhausen taught theory and composition for years, and also wrote about the theory of modern music.
At some level, theory is significant for anyone who takes music or anything else seriously. It's a natural human impulse to describe and organize what we do. You don't have to invest in whatever you think jazz or classical training is, but SOME theoretical knowledge of the equal tempered system seems to me to be kind of natural to want to acquire since this tonal system is so prevalent as to almost be part of our air.

Best,
John
Old 3rd April 2010
  #141
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
My responses you see here are not anti-anything - but they are reactions towards a condescending attitude from people who have music theory down.

The problem with this attitude is that we are obviously living in a cultural environment where that knowledge no longer is necessary to create music and be successful with it.
If you're talking about financial success, certainly not. I wouldn't consider myself as having music theory down, and I haven't seen too much condescension here toward anyone, although maybe it's in the eye of the beholder. But I bet traditional Gamelan music has its own rules and theory, and I'm sure rules and theory exist for other types of music as well.Theory is nothing more than an organized, rational approach to understanding something. OBVIOUSLY knowing any kind of theory won't make you a good musician.

Best
John
Old 3rd April 2010
  #142
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I don't see anyone throwing anything out. This is a false position inferred by those who generally want to imply that the 'new forms' aren't music, or aren't valid in some way. Obviously any piece of music must in some sense result in interaction with the past, because it would be pretty impossible for a person to live in a total vacuum, never having heard and having been influenced by the past, and start composing music competently. But that doesn't imply on any level that a contemporary composition MUST employ ALL of the historical elements of music that Bach, Mozart, etc employed.

I didn't say that it did. Also I explained my understanding of the baby and the bathwater analogy somewhere earlier in the thread. If I wanted to say I didn't think something was music I would just say it. It's easier to be direct. I'm not sure I'm in a position to say what is and isn't music.

Best,
John
Old 3rd April 2010
  #143
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I think that what you're saying (perhaps) is that one must know a rule in order to break it. And even this is simply false.
Welll..

What i am saying is that there are universal rules of music that exist regardless if we are aware of their existence, and that to really break them in a meaningful manner, to really shatter them, one must be aware of them first.

We are not born with a knowledge of gravity. Yet, as children, we defy gravity by walking and jumping. Have we really defied the natural laws of gravitational attraction? Perhaps in a clinical sense but not in an artistic sense. We merely skimmed along the surface of possibility, unaware of the depths that exist.

Knowing how gravity works however--now we can demolish it properly. From the destruction can be constructed new rules, new laws, as a result of that discovery--a way to make the wild understandable. So it is with music, music being the absence of entropy in sound.

Otherwise we could all buy shortwave radios, listen to the satellites talk and call it a day!
Old 3rd April 2010
  #144
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
Welll..

What i am saying is that there are universal rules of music that exist regardless if we are aware of their existence, and that to really break them in a meaningful manner, to really shatter them, one must be aware of them first.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'meaningful'. But surely a statement as definitive as this should be proven to some degree. Surely, to break a rule consciously, or to break a rule with reference to the rule (play with it in some sense) one must be familiar with it - but if someone writes meaningful music without any grounding in western theory, and it breaks 'the rules' - who are you to say that it doesn't do so 'meaningfully'? If someone in another culture without formal training writes something in a totally different scale, etc, with very different rules, how is it not breaking these rules that you refer to?

Quote:
We are not born with a knowledge of gravity. Yet, as children, we defy gravity by walking and jumping. Have we really defied the natural laws of gravitational attraction? Perhaps in a clinical sense but not in an artistic sense. We merely skimmed along the surface of possibility, unaware of the depths that exist.
This is quite the silliest analogy I've seen in a long time.

Quote:
Knowing how gravity works however--now we can demolish it properly. From the destruction can be constructed new rules, new laws, as a result of that discovery--a way to make the wild understandable. So it is with music, music being the absence of entropy in sound.
Even going along with this 'definition' of music for the sake of argument - how does one need formal training to avoid entropy in sound?

Quote:
Otherwise we could all buy shortwave radios, listen to the satellites talk and call it a day!
This is all pompous posturing, with only bad analogies and declarations for argument.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #145
Its like Ying/Yang... the creative and the methodical (is that the right word?) procedure. Musicality and technicality...

Tastes best if combined


But yeah, i also feel alot of electronic music (especially psytrance, some house and techno) is severely limited when it comes to the "musical" side of it. Ive always had a mission to fuse those two together, to create a full musical experience.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #146
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by 'meaningful'.
meaningful art inspires others. the more that are inspired, the longer the inspiration occurs, the more meaningful the piece is, in the absolute sense.

Everything discussed is in the absolute sense, artistic relativity is obvious (I hope), eg a mother singing to her children, regardless of how the performance is from an absolute sense, from the relative perspective of her children it will be the best show on earth.

Quote:
Even going along with this 'definition' of music for the sake of argument - how does one need formal training to avoid entropy in sound?
I'm not learned enough to say for sure, but I suspect formal training is not required, the universality of the womb experience may lead people to natural universal tendencies in music. Simply being born is enough to avoid entropy of sound.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #147
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
For the most part, the best music isn't trying to "convey" emotions.
Then what's the purpose/function of the 'best" music? Shouldn't music try to accomplish something with it's intentions? Surely it's not just background sound meant to occupy dead air. Even Eno's most subtle music, music meant to "stay out of the way" has a feeling to it.

Just curious.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #148
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
meaningful art inspires others. the more that are inspired, the longer the inspiration occurs, the more meaningful the piece is, in the absolute sense.
You're talking of inspiration and meaning in "the absolute sense"? By what you've said, ethnic music which obviously breaks the rules of classical western music isn't meaningful, because the musicians/composers aren't familiar enough to break the rules of western music in a meaningful way. That, of course, is nonsense.

You also seem to be claiming the sheer popularity of a piece is connected to how meaningful it is?

Quote:
Everything discussed is in the absolute sense, artistic relativity is obvious (I hope), eg a mother singing to her children, regardless of how the performance is from an absolute sense, from the relative perspective of her children it will be the best show on earth.
This is all simply nonsense.

Quote:
I'm not learned enough to say for sure, but I suspect formal training is not required, the universality of the womb experience may lead people to natural universal tendencies in music. Simply being born is enough to avoid entropy of sound.
What does this have to do with having to learn the rules in order to break them? I'm not sure what you're babbling about at this point.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #149
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragletrollet View Post
Its like Ying/Yang... the creative and the methodical (is that the right word?) procedure. Musicality and technicality...

Tastes best if combined
Totally agree! It's a process, different process for different folks, but the creative/technical process...that is the key! the road can sure be strange though.

I guess bad music can be meaningful, if only to say 'this is a road not to go down'. *shrug* wish I had more time to make music to be honest. sometimes sound is all i have room for....
Old 3rd April 2010
  #150
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

The question obviously, is what is the purpose of the composer. In itself, music doesn't have a purpose - it is inanimate. And 'function'? I'm not sure what you mean - if you want to call something that you listen to as having a function, fine, but I'm not sure where that gets us.

A composer might have a wide variety of purposes, and they might not be evident to someone who listens to the music. I suppose that some composers might write their music as a form of meditation, or religious devotion, or simply to amuse themselves, or not really think about it in terms of 'purpose' at all - it might be something that they are just driven to do. Obviously, some teary strings at the finale of a sad movie conveys its purpose, but I really don't think that most music conveys anything. You listen to it, and you enjoy it, and then you manufacture some of this other stuff. And even when a composer conceives of an extra-musical purpose, that he/she might be trying to convey - someone obviously can enjoy the music on their own terms, and in fact be affected by it in ways totally different than this 'purpose'.

Saying that a piece of music has 'a feeling' to it doesn't mean the same thing as saying that music is trying to convey emotion, or some such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post


Then what's the purpose/function of the 'best" music? Shouldn't music try to accomplish something with it's intentions? Surely it's not just background sound meant to occupy dead air. Even Eno's most subtle music, music meant to "stay out of the way" has a feeling to it.

Just curious.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lovecapacitor / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
2
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
21
navitus / Music For Games
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump