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 12th January 2017
  #181
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Art has to have a level of skill? What level? What is the bare minimum? Now we're back to monkeys painting!
Yes, we are, and I maintain that art is a human activity in which some level of skill is involved. Therefore monkeys painting doesn't qualify. Neither does paintings of elephants, or sculptures by apes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
When a child paints a painting, is that enough skill? Or is that not art?
A toddler? No, not art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I'd ask again about a word to describe what I said above about the aesthetic quality of things. What word would you use to describe that, and why isn't "art" a good one?
As I said before, "art" isn't a good word because there already is something we've defined as art for quite some time, and it isn't "anything". I don't have a problem with people saying that something is "Like a piece of art", but that is still different from saying it is art.
Old 12th January 2017
  #182
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
So, for example, we can look at a piece of jazz right now and analyze the basic chord structure of the tune.
But what does that even mean? "Analyze"? This is hand-waving at its worst. It's like some science-fiction show where they "scan" something and make a pronouncement about what it is or is not. Take a song, any song. Twinkle twinkle little star, will do. And 'analyze' it by this system of yours. Post your analysis in this thread. I would like to see what such an "analysis" consists of, what it does not consist of, and how it is independent of human judgement. I would like to see if this analysis is a real objective thing or some vague generalization you have invented.

You can "analyze" a water sample and say there is 2ppm of lead in this water. You can analyze the light from a star and say how much helium or carbon is in the star.

here's what an analysis of a water sample looks like:


what does the equivalent scientific 'analysis' of a song/melody/chord structure look like? I would like to see it printed out to see that it is truly as independent of a person's judgement as this water analysis is.

You can make a list of all the chords used in a song and call that 'analysis'. But it's really just a list. Since there are a finite amount of chords, it is highly unlikely that anyone has not "used" those chords before. Almost any 'system' that could be hard-quantified would have to be so narrow as to find that pretty much nothing is "new". The next fallback - already generously employed in this thread - is to say OK, yes, the same basic "things" are there... but are being used in a 'new way'. Says who?

you can "analyze" a painting and see that it has cadmium yellow and burnt umber - such "analysis" tells you Rembrandt already used those two colors before, so no matter how good the painting - this other dude is 'not an artist'. It's not new enough.

In any case, even if it could exist apart from human judgement, how easy it would be to spoof such a system by merely being deliberately weird. Like slipping some Armor All or kumquat juice into my water sample. But weirdness is not really newness. How much "creativity" is required to look around and merely find something no one has 'done before'? Some particular spot that is simply "unclaimed"?

In the OP's world, the "first" person to smear himself with human feces and call it "art" is an "artist" because he is doing "something new". Meanwhile someone using a brush and paint on a canvas -no matter how great the painting - is clearly doing something that has been "done before".

This is where the search for a 'system' for defining art leads you. Nowhere.
Old 12th January 2017
  #183
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
Trolls and idiots make art, too. It is the artwork of a troll/idiot, but art nonetheless.
But it required intent, and there was no intent. So how could it then be "art"?
Old 12th January 2017
  #184
Lives for gear
 
RRCHON's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Ok. You state that with a fair amount of certainty.

So suppose you see some piece of supposed art, and the creator says he intended it as a piece of art. Would you then say it is art regardless of what it is and how it was produced?

Suppose he admitted to someone else that his goal was to fool people into thinking crap was art. Then is it art, to you?
Yes, if you tell me its art I will say OK, it is art congratulations

... but you miss the obvious, just because it is art.....

doesn't mean I have to like it, respect it, appreciate it, or even care that it is art.

That particular artist might have a gaggle of fans that appreciate and value his/her efforts, there is nothing that forces to me be one of them. I have my own sensibilities and reason.

For example: is Rembrandt an artist. Most would agree, I think he was a great artist, but I don't like any of his work. I don't even like other painters of that realist style, be George Frederick Watts, John Baptist ,or Evert Pieters. All of those are not just artists they are famous well known artists with painting in museums. Those painting have value because of other people like it enough to pay for them or they are priceless because they are not for sale no matter the offer, etc... but for me, they are not interesting outside of that.

If you offered me a choice, I would rather have a Seurat, or Monet any day of the week.

We are allowed to have our judgement regardless of what is or is not art.
Old 12th January 2017
  #185
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post



A toddler? No, not art.

What is it?
Old 12th January 2017
  #186
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Okay.

I just think, generally speaking, as I said, reputations may flow, but I don't think they shift that much for the most part. And Bach didn't seem to have a bad reputation.

And now his reputation is pretty much written in stone, right?
He had a reputation as a severe coffee fanatic...I don't know if that counts.

Oh, and the baby thing - that dude was like a baby factory...20 or so, OK I guess that's not that out of line during that time, but still...
Old 12th January 2017
  #187
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
But what does that even mean? "Analyze"?
I take it you've never had a single music theory lesson in your life then. Right?

Other than that I find your argumentation 100% meaningless on a meta level. It's completely clear that you have absolutely no intent of being open to the possibility that you're not right. Like I said, I find that highly ironic because you seem to keep arguing that this is all opinion - seemingly with exception of your own that is, which appears to be a statement of supposed fact, and in addition to that you spend a fair amount of time on this meaninglessness.

So, again, I think I've explained pretty well why "new" can be dismissed in some cases, unless everything is "new" in which case we're faced with the other issues I mentioned (that you've so far completely ignored btw). If you don't agree then fine. Whatever. You think the discussion is meaningless because it's all opinion and as long as there are different ones and no consensus it can't be objective, which in turn means that as long as you disagree you're proving your own assertion correct - which is logical, but only internally.

At any rate, if there's nothing I can say to convince you then I really don't see why I should respond.
Old 12th January 2017
  #188
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
A toddler? No, not art.
Why not? What about someone that has a disease preventing their brain from developing? Are their senses and perceptions translated onto a medium that we can see or hear automatically not considered art?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
"art" isn't a good word because there already is something we've defined as art for quite some time
But the definition of "art" has evolved through human history, and it seems that your understanding of what constitutes art might neglect artwork made by humans thousands of years ago. Many human sacrifices have been done in extremely artistic and specific ways for whatever god to "appreciate" what has been done - but it makes sense for us to not consider that as "art" in modern society anymore, what with our moral ideas of basic modern human decency and laws.
Old 12th January 2017
  #189
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
Yes, if you tell me its art I will say OK, it is art congratulations

... but you miss the obvious, just because it is art.....

doesn't mean I have to like it, respect it, appreciate it, or even care that it is art.
Sorry, but that wasn't actually what we were talking about. The question wasn't whether or not you have to like, respect or whatever any given art, the question was actually whether or not something was art to begin with.

So again: I tell you something is art, and now you say it is art, and then I confess to someone else that I just intended to deceive you, and there never was an intent to create art at all - is it still art?

Neither me, nor I think anyone else in this thread, is trying to tell you what to like or respect or appreciate.
Old 12th January 2017
  #190
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
Why not? What about someone that has a disease preventing their brain from developing? Are their senses and perceptions translated onto a medium that we can see or hear automatically not considered art?
If the brain isn't developed then "intent" has been reduced to essentially just reflexive motor movement. Is that art? Not to me it isn't.

I get the feeling that there's a context here that isn't fully understood by several people, and I'm hesitant to get into why that would be the case, but nevertheless there it is.
Old 12th January 2017
  #191
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
"Analyze"? This is hand-waving at its worst.
What you see as "hand-waving," I see as "appreciation."

It's not necessary, it's not important - it's just something nice to do - to want to see and find more information than what you would personally take from it.
Old 12th January 2017
  #192
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
If the brain isn't developed then "intent" has been reduced to essentially just reflexive motor movement. Is that art? Not to me it isn't.

I get the feeling that there's a context here that isn't fully understood by several people, and I'm hesitant to get into why that would be the case, but nevertheless there it is.
So art is now subjective to "intent?" That means most of the artwork preserved through history is not art, like the graffiti of Pompeii (tasteless dick pics made by underdeveloped and malnourished children), body modifications of various cultures (crude practices of mutilation), methods of hunting (artistic aspects of hunting? pshhhhh), etc. Even then, most artists have a completely different intent than what is appreciated by the public. Stravinksy threw down already composed music for a ballet based around a certain mountain range, and people of the time complimented him on how the music TOTALLY SOUNDS LIKE THOSE MOUNTAINS, when he thought they were being idiots, shrugged his shoulders and agreed. Your idea of "art" is very 19th century, and you need to git gud. :p

Or not - you can just let art continue to flow and reflect the madness and chaos that is human nature.
Old 12th January 2017
  #193
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
If the brain isn't developed then "intent" has been reduced to essentially just reflexive motor movement. Is that art? Not to me it isn't.

I get the feeling that there's a context here that isn't fully understood by several people, and I'm hesitant to get into why that would be the case, but nevertheless there it is.
Not to you? I thought we were talking about clear cut definitions. If it's about what it means to you, and that's different than me, isn't that what you were referring to as meaningless?

I would again ask, if a toddler's painting, or anyone else's, isn't art, what is it?
Old 12th January 2017
  #194
Lives for gear
 

[QUOTE=mattpyter;12370271]So art is now subjective to "intent?" [/qutoe]

That proposition wasn't brought up by me I think, but it seems many people agree that intent is necessary for something to be a piece of art, and I agree. I think if we're to consider something as a piece of art then it should have been created with that intent. If not we can use other words to describe it.

Really what we're dealing with is semantics for the purpose of discussing a topic. So I again reiterate that the looser we make this particular term the less valuable it becomes as we use it in this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
That means most of the artwork preserved through history is not art, like the graffiti of Pompeii (tasteless dick pics made by underdeveloped and malnourished children), body modifications of various cultures (crude practices of mutilation), methods of hunting (artistic aspects of hunting? pshhhhh), etc.
I think at least some of the above indeed are very good examples of what is not art the way I think it's reasonable to use the term in contemporary discourse in our 'subculture'.

There is the distinction between art and craft, or art and folk-art, and I can see how some would find it hard to draw a line there. For me though, cave paintings which were intended to instruct people on how to hunt isn't art, it's something else (of tremendous value).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
Even then, most artists have a completely different intent than what is appreciated by the public. Stravinksy threw down already composed music for a ballet based around a certain mountain range, and people of the time complimented him on how the music TOTALLY SOUNDS LIKE THOSE MOUNTAINS, when he thought they were being idiots, shrugged his shoulders and agreed. Your idea of "art" is very 19th century, and you need to git gud. :p
I'm not sure I see your point relative to what we were talking about.
Old 12th January 2017
  #195
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Not to you? I thought we were talking about clear cut definitions. If it's about what it means to you, and that's different than me, isn't that what you were referring to as meaningless?
You're nitpicking my words now. "Not to me", "not in my opinion" etc would be entirely consistent if you're understanding the basis for why someone like me would say it. In other words, "Not as far as I can see based on how objective terms are applied". I'm not saying it is my opinion that determines whether or not it's art, I'm saying that as far as I can evaluate it it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I would again ask, if a toddler's painting, or anyone else's, isn't art, what is it?
Is there any problem calling it a "painting"?

I swear to god I'm getting the feeling that people are incredibly 'attached' to the term "art" because they've viewed themselves as artists, and are now fearing that if that's not a view that the community shares in their case then better to define the term so it fits.... that's what it feels like.
Old 12th January 2017
  #196
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I think if we're to consider something as a piece of art then it should have been created with that intent. If not we can use other words to describe it.
But there are plenty of masters, from musicians to writers, that did *not* consider their work as art, and tried to destroy their work upon their deaths - which, thanks to people who did consider it as art, was saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
So I again reiterate that the looser we make this particular term the less valuable it becomes as we use it in this context.
What you consider as looser, I consider as closer to a truer understanding - which are both foolish ideas concerning art, as you can't be loose or close to something so chaotic as this concept and its influences through human history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
cave paintings [...] something else (of tremendous value)
Well now it has even more meaning - the value of a relic, of something that reminds us of where we all came from. Hasn't art throughout human history also had that effect on us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I'm not sure I see your point relative to what we were talking about.
Earlier you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But it required intent, and there was no intent. So how could it then be "art"?
I was referring to the intent - Stravinsky did not intend for a certain contribution of his music for a ballet to depict mountains, but people felt that it did. Surely that does not invalidate Stravinsky's work for that ballet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I swear to god I'm getting the feeling that people are incredibly 'attached' to the term "art" because they've viewed themselves as artists, and are now fearing that if that's not a view that the community shares in their case then better to define the term so it fits.... that's what it feels like.
I, on the other hand, am getting the feeling that whatever you personally find repulsive, or not created to suit a specific role for all intents and purposes, is automatically not considered art. I think that there are many contributors to this ever-expanding idea of what constitutes "art" that you didn't even know exist; you can't have "art" without including *both* the good and the bad, and I admit there is a lot of art I don't understand because I am unfamiliar with certain cultures, ideas, practices, religions, spiritual experiences etc.
Old 12th January 2017
  #197
Lives for gear
 
RRCHON's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Sorry, but that wasn't actually what we were talking about. The question wasn't whether or not you have to like, respect or whatever any given art, the question was actually whether or not something was art to begin with.

So again: I tell you something is art, and now you say it is art, and then I confess to someone else that I just intended to deceive you, and there never was an intent to create art at all - is it still art?

Neither me, nor I think anyone else in this thread, is trying to tell you what to like or respect or appreciate.
The answer is the same, you tell me it's art, I agree, it art.

You tell someone else something else, does not affect me at all.

Things are what we call them, you tell me it's art is enough for me to say, OK, good on you. You telling someone else doesn't change that I would consider your creation your art work.

Making something into art doesn't imbue it with any special qualities whatsoever.

It can be a doohickey and be art, but it is still a doohickey and therefore nothing special unless it is appreciated. Art is not special in itself, the appreciation of art is what makes give it any sort of value (that term does not just refer to money as I am using it.)

I am not sure where you are going with this, but it doesn't matter to me. Anything can be art, and being art doesn't make it special, it is just an other word.
Old 12th January 2017
  #198
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
But there are plenty of masters, from musicians to writers, that did *not* consider their work as art, and tried to destroy their work upon their deaths - which, thanks to people who did consider it as art, was saved.
So?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
What you consider as looser, I consider as closer to a truer understanding - which are both foolish ideas concerning art, as you can't be loose or close to something so chaotic as this concept and its influences through human history.
You can if you choose to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
Well now it has even more meaning - the value of a relic, of something that reminds us of where we all came from. Hasn't art throughout human history also had that effect on us?
Yes it has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
I was referring to the intent - Stravinsky did not intend for a certain contribution of his music for a ballet to depict mountains, but people felt that it did. Surely that does not invalidate Stravinsky's work for that ballet?
By "intent" I thought people meant "intended to be a piece of art", not "I intended this to look like a duck, but it looks like dog poo".

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
I, on the other hand, am getting the feeling that whatever you personally find repulsive, or not created to suit a specific role for all intents and purposes, is automatically not considered art.
Ok, so give me an example of that then.
Old 12th January 2017
  #199
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
By "intent" I thought people meant "intended to be a piece of art", not "I intended this to look like a duck, but it looks like dog poo".
Yes, and there have been incredible artists that have tried to destroy their "art" because they decided that it wasn't art or that it wasn't valuable as a form of "art" or whatever reason.

And your response was - "so?"

The point is that what is obviously art to us might not have been considered art to those that had a thought process beyond what you or I could even comprehend, and you say it therefore must not be art if the artist didn't think it was art. If you don't really even care about the consistency of your own definition of the word "art," why should anyone else care about how you perceive "art?"
Old 12th January 2017
  #200
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
The answer is the same, you tell me it's art, I agree, it art.

You tell someone else something else, does not affect me at all.
Your view on this is seemingly quite egocentric. That's why it's similar to another guy here in that it's not without irony that you can proclaim that "it's art" yet at the same time proclaim it's entirely subjective and personal.

In other words, there is no such thing as an art object, there is only art emotions and sentiments. Nobody can ever state that anything is a piece of art, simply because there is no objective basis for saying so. Saying that the Mona Lisa is an art work is essentially moving beyond the boundaries of what can be known.

The only legitimate expression one can make, as an individual, which would then be correct, is "The Mona Lisa is a piece of art to me."

Thus, the question "Hey Frank, is the Mona Lisa a piece of art?" Can't be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", but should rather be followed up with a "To whom?". After Frank knows whose opinion we're referring to he can answer the question; "Yes, Jessie thinks Mona Lisa is a piece of art".

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
Things are what we call them,
War is peace then, if we say so, is that correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
Making something into art doesn't imbue it with any special qualities whatsoever.
Ignoring then for a second that dictionaries and various teachers etc disagree with you, wouldn't you then agree that the term is inherently meaningless? You're saying that making anything "into art" yields no "special qualities whatsoever", which in turn then leaves us with only what that object already was.

There is therefore no value in calling a painting "art", because that doesn't tell us anything about it, whereas "painting" does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
being art doesn't make it special, it is just an other word.
Right, just like all other words. I suppose the question is if we should try to give them meaning or just be like, 'whatever'...... The recent election should be a clue....
Old 12th January 2017
  #201
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
So to use the Steibelt vs. Beethoven example, the article says,

"As a man Steibelt was vain and bombastic. As a composer he was superficial and trite. Consequently, the gates of obscurity opened wide to him when he died in St. Petersburg in 1823. No man bore the stigma of plagiarism more openly. His most widely know pianoforte work of merit is his “Etude”, a collection of studies. Steibelt’s life is an excellent illustration of how the public may be deceived by the pretensions of an artificial and insincere composer."

it would seem that history got it right? Perhaps even at the time, though he was popular, maybe like KennyG, he was thought of in certain ways. Hate to keep picking on KennyG, but he is, or was popular, but does he have a chance of being thought of as a Beethoven? He's probably not even that good of an example.

But do you think it's possible that Beethoven's place will diminish into also ran, and Steibelt will be thought of as a great genius in the future?
There's a whole lot of artistic territory between Steibelt and Beethoven. (Mind, I'm just taking the above at face value, here, as I recall no familiarity with his music.)

I think there's constant flux in what established composers are currently fashionable -- but unlike the days/weeks scale of pop flux, it's more like years and decades. I remember when Ives was the rage.
Old 12th January 2017
  #202
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

At any rate, if there's nothing I can say to convince you then I really don't see why I should respond.
You could demonstrate an example of an objective analysis of a piece of music - at the same level of objectivity as the analysis of a water sample that I posted above. No ambiguity, the same results every time, every chemist in agreement. Post it. Let's see what this analysis looks like on paper and how it leave NO ROOM for opinion or human judgement - the way the water analysis does.

Of course you cannot, and that is why you aren't going to convince me. Not that I am unconvinceable, but because you have no example of a purely objective form of musical "analysis". It is a hypothetical operation that you are proposing to prop up your argument.
Old 12th January 2017
  #203
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
Yes, and there have been incredible artists that have tried to destroy their "art" because they decided that it wasn't art or that it wasn't valuable as a form of "art" or whatever reason.

And your response was - "so?"

If you don't really even care about your own definition of the word "art," why should anyone else care about how you perceive "art?"
I do care; I'm asking you what the point of your statement was.

So what if they decided retroactively that it no longer was art to them? Does that retroactively delete prior intent? Of course it doesn't.
Old 12th January 2017
  #204
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
You could demonstrate an example of an objective analysis of a piece of music - at the same level of objectivity as the analysis of a water sample that I posted above. No ambiguity, the same results every time, every chemist in agreement.

Of course you cannot, and that is why you aren't going to convince me. Not that I am unconvinceable, but because you have no example of a purely objective form of musical "analysis". It is a hypothetical operation that you are proposing to prop up your argument.
Go get a degree in music composition and get back to me. I'm fairly certain that you'll end up doing a fair amount of analysis in the process.
Old 12th January 2017
  #205
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
What you see as "hand-waving," I see as "appreciation."

It's not necessary, it's not important - it's just something nice to do - to want to see and find more information than what you would personally take from it.
I have no beef with appreciation. Take all the "information" you like. Just don't pretend that there is something objective in that information that makes all right-thinking people agree on some aspect of art.

My complaint about "hand waving" is the hand-waving that is being used to support the idea that there is such a thing as an objective "musical analysis" .

"We will run every note that John Coltrane ever played into the Chord-O-Matic Nebulizer and it will tell us scientifically if he was indeed the first person to do whatever it is that we have decided he was the first person to do."
Old 12th January 2017
  #206
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Go get a degree in music composition and get back to me. I'm fairly certain that you'll end up doing a fair amount of analysis in the process.
I don't care how much analysis you have done. Another person using the same 'analytical' techniques can and often will arrive at a different conclusion from you. It has already happened over and over and over. Therefore = not objective. Simple as that.

Post your analysis. Of something, anything. Let's SEE it. Let's how it leaves no room for people to disagree.
Old 12th January 2017
  #207
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't care how much analysis you have done. Another person using the same 'analytical' techniques can and often will arrive at a different conclusion from you. It has already happened over and over and over. Therefore = not objective. Simple as that.

Post your analysis. Of something, anything. Let's SEE it. Let's how it leaves no room for people to disagree.


You still don't understand. I'll explain it again:

- Above you are making the claim that if I choose a method for analysis, someone else could use the same method and come to a different conclusion.

First of all, I think the above is actually not really correct. If they are using the same method they will come to the same conclusion. It could be that they're understanding the method differently than me, but that only leads to the next point;

- As long as they use a method (their way) that is internally consistent (their way) they can still evaluate two pieces of music and compare the two.

So, any consistent method would certainly determine that the song played in the first chorus here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMTQpkRmFFI

Is the same as the song played in the first chorus here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU

You could use classical music theory analysis to yield the same result (same song) as using modern jazz theory analysis. If someone consistently fails at correctly notating jazz theory he'll fail in both of these cases and probably come to the same conclusion - they're the same song.

ANY decent method for analyzing melody will do to achieve that goal, as long as the practitioner of the method knows how to apply it consistently - EVEN IF his application or method differs from mine.

How about we do the opposite: You choose a method for analyzing music and apply it to the melody/song of the first choruses in bother recordings above and tell us how you get different results. How about you even give us the name of a music analysis method that would? I can't think of a single one.

There's a reason education works when teaching music, and it's the same reason analysis works.
Old 12th January 2017
  #208
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
no one had done exactly what Coltrane did.
hey no one did exactly what Kenny G did either. Almost exactly, but not exactly exactly. You do know what the word "exactly" means, don't you?

The issue is not even your definition of 'exactly' The issue is the value you place on whatever differences you notice. Because there are thousands of artists somewhere 'in between' Coltrane and Kenny G and every listener will draw a line somewhere different. And every listener will notice different things. And place a different value on those things. Every listener will not only draw the line at a different place they may even (gasp! ) shuffle the ORDER!!! Putting some people ahead or behind others!

There goes your objectivity. You cannot convince us that such a thing as artistic objectivity exists merely by trying to find some proposition that you can force a general agreement to. There will always be someone who does not agree. There will always be some artist that even the ones who agree with you on the others will say 'well, not that guy'.

Quote:
Michael Jackson didn't invent dancing or horror movie soundtracks or shouting random adlibs,
That's right! He didn't! But you are willing to give him a 'pass'! Totally based on your personal arbitrary opinions. Even after all the dancing moves he stole from Bob Fosse who stole them from Gene Kelly, you will give him a pass.

someone else might not be willing to give him a pass, just as you are not willing to give Coldplay a pass. You have utterly failed over and over to produce anything even resembling "objective".


Quote:
but there wasn't a Thriller before he made one, was there?
the wasn't a Philosophy of the World before the Shaggs made one. What's your point? You are basing your argument on the assumption that Everyone considers Thriller to be the undisputed musical landmark that YOU think it is - and sorry to say, not everyone agrees with you. On the other hand, Everyone who looks at John Coltrane's height will agree that he was 5' 8" Because it is an objective fact.


Quote:
but once some asks you to name another Michael Jackson before Michael
Oh, please. Name another Coldplay before Coldplay. You can say Radiohead but no - they had a different name, and different people and 5 guys instead of 4 and yadda yadda. Coldplay has two harmonica players and Radiohead has none! Not 'exact'. Everything lies along a continuum. Everything. There is no bright line anywhere. I do not concede your assumptions.

who really wrote michaeljackson's songs
Old 12th January 2017
  #209
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
information that makes all right-thinking people agree
That's not fair, and definitely not what I meant - someone interested in understanding something in finer detail doesn't make someone "right-thinking;" everyone has their interests and obsessions, and having these methods of organization really helps much of the musical community stay on the same page. It's not necessary in order to be an artist, and it doesn't make one's music any more "right" to understand how to read, but its just there. You can use it to your benefit or not.

All I am saying is that you'd be surprised what you can discover by applying scientific methods of organization to something as "unscientific" as music. It might even allow you to view music from a different perspective - and who could possibly argue against understanding more, aside from those living in fear or basing their daily decisions based on a fear of change? Destroying the ego, personal beliefs, or nostalgic thoughts, has helped many to achieve greater understanding. Again, it is not necessary, just something to do; something worth looking into when you are bored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the idea that there is such a thing as an objective "musical analysis"
You must agree that music consists of sound - but many people don't understand that these sounds consist of distinct *objective* frequencies, which can and are *objectively* notated. That is a fundamental aspect of musical analysis, and I assure you it exists. Another objective aspect of musical analysis is the relationship between those frequencies, known as intervals. There has been incredible amounts of detail placed into the study of this objective relationship between intervals for thousands of years, and you can maybe look into ancient Greek music and how it was arranged and created because of the application of this objective musical analysis to their music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica...ancient_Greece

We wouldn't even be able to understand how people viewed or created music thousands of years ago *without* the existence of objective musical analysis - that is, before the paleophone and other sound recording and reproduction machines were invented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
"We will run every note that John Coltrane ever played into the Chord-O-Matic Nebulizer and it will tell us scientifically if he was indeed the first person to do whatever it is that we have decided he was the first person to do."
We can joke about a Chord-o-matic or Orwell's Versificator, but there actually are programs and machines that utilize objective musical analyses and rules to create music - Inmamusys for example.

That wouldn't exist without objective musical analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't care how much analysis you have done. Another person using the same 'analytical' techniques can and often will arrive at a different conclusion from you. It has already happened over and over and over. Therefore = not objective. Simple as that.

Post your analysis. Of something, anything. Let's SEE it. Let's how it leaves no room for people to disagree.
I'm not sure of what objective analysis of music people would disagree with that you are referring to. Surely, there are plenty of people who disagree of what Hertz frequency the modern A4 should have, but I assure you that there are machines and simple methods to objectively determine what frequency a sound has. The other objective analytic systems applied to music, such as musical notation, follows.
Old 12th January 2017
  #210
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the wasn't a Philosophy of the World before the Shaggs made one.

The. Best. Ever.
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