The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is a musician always an artist? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 9th January 2017
  #91
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
By your measure, KI$$ and Britney Spears are greater artists than someone like Conlon Nancarrow or Harry Partch...sorry, can't buy into such thinking, or nonsense, whichever the case may be.

Sure subjectivity play a major role in defining what/whom an artist is, but those things you mention are at best subordinate/ancillary factors, not necessarily the meat and potatoes of it...
I didn't say it was my measure, I said it was a measure, and one that is, in that regard, objective.

The two you mention do have a measure of fame, otherwise, would you know who they are?

I checked Conlon Nancarrow's wiki, and, for example, it says, "In 1982, he received a MacArthur Award which paid him $300,000 over 5 years. This increased interest in his work prompted him to write for conventional instruments, and he composed several works for small ensembles."

So that award is an important measure. They wouldn't grant $300,000 to some non artist idiot, would they? And it prompted him to do stuff.

So measures are real and important.

Coincidentally, I was just listening to Paul Simon's latest, which features influence and instruments from Harry Partch.

Old 9th January 2017
  #92
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I didn't say it was my measure, I said it was a measure, and one that is, in that regard, objective.
Objective?...

AFAIC, half of all the people in the R$R HOF are wank*rs...and why the 'eff is it in Cleveland of all places?!?!? It should literally be called the 'white people's version of appropriated black music history'...a friggin' joke...

Popularity has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what can be considered artistry...
Old 9th January 2017
  #93
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
@12tone if you know what race the majority of writers from past and present music publications are the ******y should come as no shock.
Old 9th January 2017
  #94
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boombapdame View Post
@12tone if you know what race the majority of writers from past and present music publications are the ******y should come as no shock.
Suffice it to say, most of my favorite music critics (especially in the jazz realm) were white, and they didn't see color, they only heard sounds.

...now the general public at large, as firmly evidenced by the last election cycle, has serious issues dealing with racial issues, as if they should be issues at all. It's pretty sad and pathetic this day and age if you ask me...
Old 9th January 2017
  #95
Lives for gear
 

Wooooaaahhhh - sailing close to the wind here guys. I've only just bet myself that this thread is heading for the Moan Zone. Don't do anything that will get it locked down before that can happen!
Old 9th January 2017
  #96
It all depends on the opinion of the listener. An artist cannot be rubber stamped and labeled, so it all depends on you just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Old 9th January 2017
  #97
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Wooooaaahhhh - sailing close to the wind here guys. I've only just bet myself that this thread is heading for the Moan Zone. Don't do anything that will get it locked down before that can happen!
my bad...
Old 10th January 2017
  #98
Gear Nut
 

Jeez, you wanna bring race into it, that's a whole other ball of wax. 'Artists?' Black?
Umm.....Can't think of any. Actors maybe. Rock musicians? Living Colour were great.
All the rap artists? I only know a few names and no songs. I don't like rap.
I loved two rap albums in my life, It Takes A Nation of Millions and Apocalypse 91.
I bought the CDs and played them until they wore out. Lil Wayne and name the
other twenty big ones, I can't name a song. Not even a Tupac one, though
I'd probably like him if I had occasion, he had a big deep voice.
Spike Lee is my favorite film maker, always has been. Not too many farm boys
with my skin pigment have even seen Spike Lee movies, let alone him be
anyone's favorite film maker. As far as musicians, I'm so naive. Black musicians to me mean
the guys who played with Sting. I'm not a jazz fan, so Miles Davis, I bought a CD once,
didn't do much for me. Painters? Sculptors? I don't know. Baseball been berry berry
good to me. But I don't know any painters or sculptors anyway. I can say the name
Dali and say the stuff looks trippin cool. Now writers, that's my thing. I read hundreds
of novels, and you won't find me reading Dean Koontz, I'll take the Bronte sisters thank you.
And Richard Price and John Irving. Black authors? Of course I read Native Son, and a few
Baldwin novellas. Others? You'd have to point me to them.
If this reply sounds a little abrasive, it's because I despise racism, and I have
acquaintances, and yes, relatives, who are obnoxious racists. It bugs me really bad,
it gnaws at me because it's so utterly dumb. I argue with people,
I mean really are you that dumb? Do I have to put forth the trite
proposition, if one married your sister and is an astrophysicist and
made 300 grand last year?
And the point is, this world, what's famous, what's looked
at as creative and genius. Well....
And often what's looked at as some kind of below average, to use
a total euphemism. Well...anything that ain't white. Those other
people just, you know, take em out of the jungle, whatdya expect?
Old 10th January 2017
  #99
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by General TAWH View Post
Jeez, you wanna bring race into it, that's a whole other ball of wax. 'Artists?' Black?
Umm.....Can't think of any. Actors maybe. Rock musicians? Living Colour were great.
All the rap artists? I only know a few names and no songs. I don't like rap.
I loved two rap albums in my life, It Takes A Nation of Millions and Apocalypse 91.
I bought the CDs and played them until they wore out. Lil Wayne and name the
other twenty big ones, I can't name a song. Not even a Tupac one, though
I'd probably like him if I had occasion, he had a big deep voice.
Spike Lee is my favorite film maker, always has been. Not too many farm boys
with my skin pigment have even seen Spike Lee movies, let alone him be
anyone's favorite film maker. As far as musicians, I'm so naive. Black musicians to me mean
the guys who played with Sting. I'm not a jazz fan, so Miles Davis, I bought a CD once,
didn't do much for me. Painters? Sculptors? I don't know. Baseball been berry berry
good to me. But I don't know any painters or sculptors anyway. I can say the name
Dali and say the stuff looks trippin cool. Now writers, that's my thing. I read hundreds
of novels, and you won't find me reading Dean Koontz, I'll take the Bronte sisters thank you.
And Richard Price and John Irving. Black authors? Of course I read Native Son, and a few
Baldwin novellas. Others? You'd have to point me to them.
If this reply sounds a little abrasive, it's because I despise racism, and I have
acquaintances, and yes, relatives, who are obnoxious racists. It bugs me really bad,
it gnaws at me because it's so utterly dumb. I argue with people,
I mean really are you that dumb? Do I have to put forth the trite
proposition, if one married your sister and is an astrophysicist and
made 300 grand last year?
And the point is, this world, what's famous, what's looked
at as creative and genius. Well....
And often what's looked at as some kind of below average, to use
a total euphemism. Well...anything that ain't white. Those other
people just, you know, take em out of the jungle, whatdya expect?
If it applies to popular music as it stands, there's no denying the primary influence came from black culture predominately, same probably could be said of most popular dance forms post 19th century...this is pretty much indisputable, just sayin'

It's not a matter of injecting race per se, it's just a matter of proper acknowledgement and accreditation, and not necessarily going along with the whitewashing of history...
Old 10th January 2017
  #100
Lives for gear
 
sfilipee's Avatar
 

People who live off and breathe music are telling me in this thread that knowing when something is new is not objective.

Tell me one Michael Jackson before Michael Jackson? Tell me a Thriller before Thriller? There wasnt, there was every little detail and nuance that Michael used on that album, there were horror movies, there was disco, there was soul and r&b, there was James Brown and Fred Astaire, but there was NEVER all of that put together.

There was no Death Grips before Death Grips, there was hardcore music, there was rap music, there was lo-fi and there was Public Enemy, but there was NEVER all of that put together.

that is my definition of an artist. you can tell just by the influence these acts have that they must have done something special, it's not about sales

There was classical music for centuries and electronic music and acapella music and Steve Reich was already old and Aphex Twin was already off he's peak by 2004, but there still had not appeared a woman named Bjork to put all that together and create something new.

And as I said on my last post, this goes for every art form. I'm not an artist because i paint some pictures, or write some poems, i'm a painter or a writer. Now, did I create a piece that impacted a culture, my peers and people to come, no matter how many people like it or dislike it?

EDIT: again, this is just how i see things
Old 10th January 2017
  #101
Gear Maniac
In my brief stint in the movie industry and TV, we always called the people acting "the talent." When I was in photography, the persons posing for us were "the models." I once got to meet and get to know a writer, Paul Fussell, who in his time was considered an "important writer" and he said something that stuck with me on writers, something he said a lot "there's been much romanticism attached to the idea of being a writer. What makes a writer? It's simple, writers write, those who are not writers do not." When people countered with examples of someone who writes diaries or poetry he'd say "I said they were writers, I never said they were successful or necessarily any good."

That may be a de minimus definition, but if you think about it, it's a functional one that applies to Artists as well. An artist is someone who attempts to display artistry, maybe as opposed to mimicry or performance. That doesn't mean, of course, that artist is "successful or necessarily any good." For example, I know one guy who was often referred to as a "local hip-hop artist." One day, he decided the world didn't have enough Mackelmore clones laying down rhymes on the virtues of shabby chic and put together a new act fashioned on that idea. He did get a few more gigs from that for a while, but people stopped calling him "an artist."

Last edited by AndyDandy; 10th January 2017 at 12:31 AM.. Reason: Grammar
Old 10th January 2017
  #102
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
There was no Death Grips before Death Grips, there was hardcore music, there was rap music, there was lo-fi and there was Public Enemy, but there was NEVER all of that put together.
That's true, I've seen footage.
Old 10th January 2017
  #103
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Objective?...

AFAIC, half of all the people in the R$R HOF are wank*rs...and why the 'eff is it in Cleveland of all places?!?!? It should literally be called the 'white people's version of appropriated black music history'...a friggin' joke...

Popularity has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what can be considered artistry...
I don't think you get what I'm saying, and I said nothing about any particular hall of fame or anything else you're bringing into it, but I'm willing to drop it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Don't do anything that will get it locked down before that can happen!
The way it's going, locking it down would probably be the most sensible move.
Old 10th January 2017
  #104
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Picasso gets credit for everything!
when it was really Einstein who said all those things first!
Old 10th January 2017
  #105
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I don't think you get what I'm saying, and I said nothing about any particular hall of fame or anything else you're bringing into it, but I'm willing to drop it.
If so, my sincerest apologies, as I always dig your opinions...

but, I could infer only one specific HOF in question, and it's not in Cooperstown, NY, Canton, OH, nor Springfield, MA...
Old 10th January 2017
  #106
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
People who live off and breathe music are telling me in this thread that knowing when something is new is not objective.
As a number of people have said in a number of ways, all of which you have decided not to address, the word "objective" has a meaning. A meaning that (like the word 'thrive') you seem to be unaware of.

Quote:
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So again, which musicians are over 6 feet tall is an objective fact. It is something we all can agree upon. Someone who does not agree can be proven wrong - not by a "bah, you are wrong" but by a tape measure.

For height we have feet. For weight we have pounds. What is the objective unit of measurement that 'newness' is defined by? How about "filipees"? What is the cutoff point for newness (in filipees) for a musician to be considered truly bringing something new? 6.8 filipees? 10.0 filipees?

Which musicians are "truly original" is, and will always be, a matter of personal opinion.

You have ALREADY in this thread 'excused' this or that band from admittedly having an "influence" by saying that they still "brought something new" or "made it their own" yadda yadda. How precise! How objective!

Another person might not excuse that same band's "influence" and call it a "rehash". Because that's their opinion of this subjective quality you call "newness"

In my opinion, someone deliberately going out of their way to just be weird, or reaching into the cultural dumpster and deliberately mashing a few things together for the sole reason that no one else has thought of "that one" yet, is not particularly 'creative' or 'artistic'. It could be a completely rote act.

I had a bad feeling from the beginning that this thread would devolve into the same crap that usually infects attempts to define "art". People trying desperately to convince everyone else that their subjective opinions carry extra 'merit' because they have some (bulls#!t) underlying "objective" quality!
Old 10th January 2017
  #107
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post

but, I could infer only one specific HOF in question, and it's not in Cooperstown, NY, Canton, OH, nor Springfield, MA...
There's tons of them....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._halls_of_fame
Old 10th January 2017
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Whether you believe the person is "bringing something new" is ALSO a matter of "taste".

What's so hard to understand about that?
I actually disagree with you a bit. Since we have musical notation and musical theory there's a case to be made for our ability to objectively notate music, and thus objectively describe it. In other words, if we can agree on the basics, i.e. "This is a Cmaj7:" etc, then through analysis of music using said theory we can see if something similar - or 'the same' - existed earlier.

So if a jazz artist today says that he does something new, harmonically, and we analyze his playing and find that several people did the same thing in the 70's for example, then we know he brought nothing "new". He didn't create something that had not already been done.

I personally don't think that matters much in terms of whether or not someone should or can be considered an artist, or a "true artist", or "artist", or however one wants to distinguish this. But I absolutely think we can trace music and musical influences through time using theoretical analysis, and that in turn means we can objectively say whether something was not new.
Old 10th January 2017
  #109
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
...you're right, I've overlooked a lot of them, like the Alabama Jazz Hall of Fame - who knows, maybe that racist MF Jeff Sessions is in it...
Old 10th January 2017
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
Had this discussion with some friends over the holidays: is a musician always an artist?

Personally I don't think so, I don't think a painter or a writer is always an artist just because they do something that is considered an art form.

I think only musicians who are creating something that hasn't been done before should be considered artists, otherwise you are a musician, and everything is fine with that, some people's dreams are to be the best players and play the biggest venues and tour the world, others' are to make songs as similar to their favorite artists as they can, other people dream about making a new sound, blending influences and creating new stuff, in my opinion those are the artists.

What's your opinion on this?
Here's the other thread...

which ended with:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Synth Guru

Closed due to endless opinions and counterpoints.
which is logical, considering the following definition:

Quote:
fo·rum
[ˈfôrəm]
NOUN

a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
Old 10th January 2017
  #111
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
People who live off and breathe music are telling me in this thread that knowing when something is new is not objective.

Tell me one Michael Jackson before Michael Jackson? Tell me a Thriller before Thriller? There wasnt, there was every little detail and nuance that Michael used on that album, there were horror movies, there was disco, there was soul and r&b, there was James Brown and Fred Astaire, but there was NEVER all of that put together.

There was no Death Grips before Death Grips, there was hardcore music, there was rap music, there was lo-fi and there was Public Enemy, but there was NEVER all of that put together.

that is my definition of an artist. you can tell just by the influence these acts have that they must have done something special, it's not about sales

There was classical music for centuries and electronic music and acapella music and Steve Reich was already old and Aphex Twin was already off he's peak by 2004, but there still had not appeared a woman named Bjork to put all that together and create something new.

And as I said on my last post, this goes for every art form. I'm not an artist because i paint some pictures, or write some poems, i'm a painter or a writer. Now, did I create a piece that impacted a culture, my peers and people to come, no matter how many people like it or dislike it?

EDIT: again, this is just how i see things
That's your best soliloquy yet you've made for your point.
You really nailed it, and I dig it.

The whole discussion of the word artist itself it still semantics though,
and everyone's got their subjectivity. I'm pretty sure Thriller is the
number one best selling album in history. Fleetwood Mac Rumours,
and Dark Side of the Moon are right behind it. Thriller didn't do
all that much for me, I like Never Can Say Goodbye a lot better.
But I surely gave the man genius artist status all along.
Bjork, genius artist. What about Madonna? Janet Jackson?
Whitney Houston? Anita Baker? Does every one get selected
either deserving of the term or not? It's subjective! Cindy Lauper.
Tina Turner. Olivia Newton John. Bruce Springsteen.
Prince, there you go, Prince. I never caught on. I liked
the radio stuff, never bothered with all the albums and
what was on them. Surely an artist. Genius? I guess.
Jim Morrison. Now, well, who could possibly refute?
Elvis Presley. Biggest thing ever. Not to me. He was okay.
Chuck D was a genius artist. No other rappers were to me.
I'm sure there's millions of people all over the world who
would say, are you kidding? Eminem? God, how overated,
his rinky dink keyboard sounds. Amusing lyrics sometimes.
Even his rhythm with his rap itself I thought was rudimentary.
Hey, what do I know? If I were at a party and could put on
a rap song I'd put on Bust a Move.
Old 10th January 2017
  #112
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by General TAWH View Post
That's your best soliloquy yet you've made for your point.
You really nailed it, and I dig it.

The whole discussion of the word artist itself it still semantics though,
and everyone's got their subjectivity. I'm pretty sure Thriller is the
number one best selling album in history. Fleetwood Mac Rumours,
and Dark Side of the Moon are right behind it. Thriller didn't do
all that much for me, I like Never Can Say Goodbye a lot better.
But I surely gave the man genius artist status all along.
Bjork, genius artist. What about Madonna? Janet Jackson?
Whitney Houston? Anita Baker? Does every one get selected
either deserving of the term or not? It's subjective! Cindy Lauper.
Tina Turner. Olivia Newton John. Bruce Springsteen.
Prince, there you go, Prince. I never caught on. I liked
the radio stuff, never bothered with all the albums and
what was on them. Surely an artist. Genius? I guess.
Jim Morrison. Now, well, who could possibly refute?
Elvis Presley. Biggest thing ever. Not to me. He was okay.
Chuck D was a genius artist. No other rappers were to me.
I'm sure there's millions of people all over the world who
would say, are you kidding? Eminem? God, how overated,
his rinky dink keyboard sounds. Amusing lyrics sometimes.
Even his rhythm with his rap itself I thought was rudimentary.
Hey, what do I know? If I were at a party and could put on
a rap song I'd put on Bust a Move.
dude, you need to get past the mainstream.

There's a whole other artistic world out there...
Old 10th January 2017
  #113
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I actually disagree with you a bit. Since we have musical notation and musical theory there's a case to be made for our ability to objectively notate music, and thus objectively describe it. In other words, if we can agree on the basics, i.e. "This is a Cmaj7:" etc, then through analysis of music using said theory we can see if something similar - or 'the same' - existed earlier.
except that "notation" hardly tells the whole story. People could be using the same notes and be doing different things with them. No musical analysis can objectify the emotional content of a piece of music which will obviously vary from listener to listener - subjectively.

Nor does such analysis encompass performance and sound. A high "C" on a trumpet is thrilling. That same high "C" on a synth might be merely annoying. How are the notes put together? What is the space between the notes like? Very quickly, such "analysis" turns back into personal opinion. There is no 'formula' in music theory or mathematics for looking at the notes, the rests, the tempo, the instrumentation, the arrangement, and 'analyzing' them for "newness".

Quote:
But I absolutely think we can trace music and musical influences through time using theoretical analysis, and that in turn means we can objectively say whether something was not new.
Only such "analysis" does not exist in the objective sense. There is no algorithm that you can put into a computer along with the notation of someone's song or playing and the computer spits out a value (in Filipees!) of how "new" it is.

All such analysis is ultimately conducted by human beings, self-styled 'experts' no doubt, who will look at the melodies and harmonies and render an opinion - an old-fashioned human opinion on what this "analysis" is telling them.

As an analogy, consider lyrics. You could prove that this person was the first to use a certain word in a song: "theologians" for example, but that's it. Perhaps it is used in a very ordinary way. Perhaps its use was directly inspired by someone else's deliberate use of similar sounding oddball word for mere 'effect' and not 'meaning' (my opinion!) Meanwhile some other writer used moon, june, and spoon but in a very creative way that is completely unique, new and different. Again in my opinion.

You could subject these lyrics to "linguistic analysis" which is a real discipline, but you are merely kicking the can further down the road. Some linguist is conducting the analysis. It is not a tape measure, it is not a laboratory balance, it is not even a forensic accountant adding up bank statements. There is no stable 'substance' of newness that exists and continues to exist in objective reality such that all observers using the same ruler get the same result when 'measuring' it.

Therefore not objective.


Not objective AT ALL:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Musical analysis "is the means of answering directly the question 'How does it work?'."(Bent 1987, 5) The method employed to answer this question, and indeed exactly what is meant by the question, differs from analyst to analyst, and according to the purpose of the analysis.
Old 10th January 2017
  #114
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
except that "notation" hardly tells the whole story. People could be using the same notes and be doing different things with them. No musical analysis can objectify the emotional content of a piece of music which will obviously vary from listener to listener - subjectively.

Nor does such analysis encompass performance and sound. A high "C" on a trumpet is thrilling. That same high "C" on a synth might be merely annoying. How are the notes put together? What is the space between the notes like? Very quickly, such "analysis" turns back into personal opinion. There is no 'formula' in music theory or mathematics for looking at the notes, the rests, the tempo, the instrumentation, the arrangement, and 'analyzing' them for "newness".



Only such "analysis" does not exist in the objective sense. There is no algorithm that you can put into a computer along with the notation of someone's song or playing and the computer spits out a value (in Filipees!) of how "new" it is.

All such analysis is ultimately conducted by human beings, self-styled 'experts' no doubt, who will look at the melodies and harmonies and render an opinion - an old-fashioned human opinion on what this "analysis" is telling them.

As an analogy, consider lyrics. You could prove that this person was the first to use a certain word in a song: "theologians" for example, but that's it. Perhaps it is used in a very ordinary way. Perhaps its use was directly inspired by someone else's deliberate use of similar sounding oddball word for mere 'effect' and not 'meaning' (my opinion!) Meanwhile some other writer used moon, june, and spoon but in a very creative way that is completely unique, new and different. Again in my opinion.

You could subject these lyrics to "linguistic analysis" which is a real discipline, but you are merely kicking the can further down the road. Some linguist is conducting the analysis. It is not a tape measure, it is not a laboratory balance, it is not even a forensic accountant adding up bank statements. There is no stable 'substance' of newness that exists and continues to exist in objective reality such that all observers using the same ruler get the same result when 'measuring' it.

Therefore not objective.


Not objective AT ALL:
I'm incredibly tempted to respond point by point using quotes, but I think it'd be annoying.

I really think you're pulling this to its extreme, and it goes beyond reason. It seems as if you're saying that merely agreeing that a Cmaj7 is made up of certain frequencies is not enough. So fine. Apparently "using the same notes" also doesn't suffice. Ok. How about the same notes in the same order? Still not the same. Same tempo? And so on. We could continue to add qualifiers until we're blue in the face, and because we're dealing with real life there will be practical limits to what we can accurately even measure. So of course "no", we can't objectively quantify everything a musician has done 100%.

However, if tenor player gets up on stage and plays Giant Steps in its original tempo, original key, and plays Coltrane's solo as closely as he can, and then someone says he did something "new", then most normal musicians who knows Trane's version or compares the two will disagree. They will say it wasn't new at all. It was the same song, tempo, key, melody, harmony, solo etc. Not new. But, using what you imply above of course it was new. Nobody had done exactly that before.

But this is just meaningless ******y. I don't think anyone doesn't know what the other guy meant by "new". The only question is where we draw the line between new and not new. It's not really the method of measurement that's in question, it's the results of whatever measurement method(s) we choose to employ (that's why the Wikipedia quote is irrelevant; it talks about people using different methods for describing music, which is a different matter compared to whether or not a given method will show if something is indeed new or not).

Again, in practice a lot of this is pretty obvious to working musicians. If me playing the melody to Giant Steps qualifies as "new" in the sense we're discussing then I'm also not doing the same thing. If you want me to play in your band and tell me to play the same melody to your song every gig I will fail, as will anybody else, because there will always be a new melody every night. Of course that's sounds ludicrous, but that's just because music is a language and we do know that there are certain meanings inherent in certain words. Perhaps not super-tightly defined, but close enough.
Old 10th January 2017
  #115
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
However, if tenor player gets up on stage and plays Giant Steps in its original tempo, original key, and plays Coltrane's solo as closely as he can, and then someone says he did something "new", then most normal musicians who knows Trane's version or compares the two will disagree. They will say it wasn't new at all. It was the same song, tempo, key, melody, harmony, solo etc. Not new. But, using what you imply above of course it was new. Nobody had done exactly that before.
...you mean every other tenor player in NYC at one point or another.

The thing is, Trane himself abandoned GS for the most part immediately after recording it, and among all his Atlantic period output, it was probably his least inspiring improvisations, repleat with too many 123-5 patterns, preconceived ideas and etude like melodicism.

It really wasn't until his late period where he picked it up again, not GS per se, but the tonicization of the augmented triad, which is the essence of Coltrane changes. You hear it prominently in Interstellar Space, especially on Venus, as well as on snippets on Stellar Regions.

Trane was a consummate artist, in that he himself realized his shortcoming at the time, circa 1960, though I think he felt organically drawn to his modal period.

That's what artistry is - to follow one's guts and instincts, and let it fly, as it may...
Old 10th January 2017
  #116
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
The thing is, Trane himself abandoned GS for the most part
Yeah, haven't seen him post here in ages....
Old 10th January 2017
  #117
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

However, if tenor player gets up on stage and plays Giant Steps in its original tempo, original key, and plays Coltrane's solo as closely as he can, and then someone says he did something "new", then most normal musicians who knows Trane's version or compares the two will disagree.
most normal musicians is not all normal musicians - there will be a range and that range will differ based on opinion

OTOH, if the tenor player was six foot, you could say he was taller than John Coltrane and you would be objectively correct. No opinion is involved. Just get out the tape measure.


Quote:
They will say it wasn't new at all. It was the same song, tempo, key, melody, harmony, solo etc. Not new. But, using what you imply above of course it was new. Nobody had done exactly that before.
Mere sophistry. Which is this whole thread in a nutshell. It lies on a continuum. Because it lies on a continuum a person's judgement will be necessary to say whether or not the critical threshold of newness has been "crossed."
Quote:
But this is just meaningless ******y.
the whole ****ing thread is meaningless ******y.

Quote:
I don't think anyone doesn't know what the other guy meant by "new". The only question is where we draw the line between new and not new.
Drawing a line is a subjective act! I don't see how that could be any more clear. The 'analysis' may provide intellectual "cover" to the line-drawer but another person looking at the same 'analysis' could easily pull out other things to focus on and draw a different line. Conversely if you were adding numbers, or weighing vegetables, different people must reach the same conclusion. Not so with this vague 'analysis' BS.

Quote:
It's not really the method of measurement that's in question
It is to me. You will have to explain to me exactly what you think is being "measured" here, and in what UNITS that measurement is expressed! Even choosing WHICH analysis 'system' to use is part of a subjective judgement.

Quote:
it's the results of whatever measurement method(s) we choose to employ
What are these mythical 'results' measured in? Filipees? It's all opinion in the end.

Quote:
Perhaps not super-tightly defined, but close enough.
'close enough' is itself a subjective determination. period

Most won't add 2 + 2, get 5, and say "close enough". I wouldn't. Some might add 2 million and 2 million and get 4,000,001 and say "close enough". But in-between are literally millions of similar calculations and it depends entirely upon the individual's subjective opinion which one is "close enough".
Old 10th January 2017
  #118
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Yeah, haven't seen him post here in ages....
...he would have tho, asking questions about his Selmer Varitone electric sax.
Old 10th January 2017
  #119
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
...he would have tho, asking questions about his Selmer Varitone electric sax.
lol.... varitone.... awesome!
Old 10th January 2017
  #120
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
most normal musicians is not all normal musicians - there will be a range and that range will differ based on opinion

OTOH, if the tenor player was six foot, you could say he was taller than John Coltrane and you would be objectively correct. No opinion is involved. Just get out the tape measure.




Mere sophistry. Which is this whole thread in a nutshell. It lies on a continuum. Because it lies on a continuum a person's judgement will be necessary to say whether or not the critical threshold of newness has been "crossed."


the whole ****ing thread is meaningless ******y.



Drawing a line is a subjective act! I don't see how that could be any more clear. The 'analysis' may provide intellectual "cover" to the line-drawer but another person looking at the same 'analysis' could easily pull out other things to focus on and draw a different line. Conversely if you were adding numbers, or weighing vegetables, different people must reach the same conclusion. Not so with this vague 'analysis' BS.


It is to me. You will have to explain to me exactly what you think is being "measured" here, and in what UNITS that measurement is expressed! Even choosing WHICH analysis 'system' to use is part of a subjective judgement.


What are these mythical 'results' measured in? Filipees? It's all opinion in the end.


'close enough' is itself a subjective determination. period

Most won't add 2 + 2, get 5, and say "close enough". I wouldn't. Some might add 2 million and 2 million and get 4,000,001 and say "close enough". But in-between are literally millions of similar calculations and it depends entirely upon the individual's subjective opinion which one is "close enough".
Yeah, I think I explained fairly clearly what my point was. Clearly we have different opinions about this, which proves your point. Unfortunately since everything is opinion it also disproves it, since you're stating the subjective nature with such certainty, certainty you can't possible know is warranted since it's really just your opinion, like everything everyone ever said about anything.....

Like concert C... what is it really?...
Topic:
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump