why is it hard to write good music?

[foosnark]

PERFECTION

The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pounds of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”. Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work-and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

― David Bayles and Ted Orland, Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking

[Mike777]

First and foremost, If you are using the terms "good" and "bad" you are not being objective, it is always an opinion, and is always subjective, no matter how universally held of an opinion it is. really. end of argument. there is no such thing as objective good and bad.

As for whether an "expert" opinion is worth more than a layman or ignorant opinion? Sure, but with limits. there's many factors at play, and music is too broad of a discipline to allow for total expertise anyway. To wit, there's no reason to trust the opinion of a world class classical composer on the subject of the best Norwegian death metal album over that of a standard fan of that genre, unless said composer moonlights in that field. Additionally the process of becoming a musician in whatever form gives that person not only experience and knowledge, but also a set of biases that need to be taken into account when taking their opinions at face value. anything from instrument or form preferences, to a growing disdain for simpler compositions as not being challenging, to as far as simple resentment when someone hamfists 3 2-finger powerchords into a platinum selling smash hit, while our Julliard boy who practices 12 hours a day has trouble paying the rent.

In the end, this is art. if that art satisfies the needs of its creator for self expression, and has the intended effect on its intended audience, I would call that good, whether its clever enough for the intelligentsia or not. The opinions of that audience and that creator are more important than the opinions of others, no matter how learned.

I agree with some of what you said. In my op my question of why is it hard to write good music, that's meant to each person for the type of music they desire to create. If someone wants to write 'good' club music, studying jazz not going to help much.

I'm not saying one style of music is better then another, I'm saying within a particular style and genre you are writing in, then you can compare apples to apples, learning why some apples are better then others, and improve your music making craft. That's the objective side. But you must compare apples to apples and not Bach to hip hop, etc.

[harryupbabble]

maybe i just don't understand people. music or any art for that matter is a gift given to you. it is for you. you should do it to please yourself and you alone. now if others can appreciate it then it is shared... but if you feel the 'need' to share then that 'need' is nothing more than an ego or a self esteem problem. if you please yourself then that is the point for which it was given. if others find value it in then it is a shared gift. bottom line is... please yourself. you can create the best possible thing and there will STILL be those that don't appreciate it or like it. don't base your self worth on others... they will ultimately let you down. it is a spiritual thing. cheers

I think that ego is not always bad. I'm looking at my music collection and I'm thinking 90 percent of the musicians in it had ego and most of them, in the beginning, were driven by the need to be famous. Here are some examples... Beatles, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Cure, Sex Pistols, and many others. If those people didn't want to be famous then they sure chose the wrong profession. Yup, I'm glad they wanted to be famous or else my music collection would probably be empty.

Besides, wanting to be famous and having an ego might not necessarily be bad for the craft. Ego is just another word for confidence? Who says that because you have an ego your music will suffer? Who say it's detrimental?

Sharing is good whether it's driven by ego or not. Take Robert Smith as an example. he says, I later found out, that David Bowie is one of his main influence but not the only influence. It means he had access to other people's music. So then this must have affected his musical output. All because other musicians SHARED their work. So you get Reggae-rock bands, punk-metal bands, etc. Lotsa hybrids. All because all sorts of music got out there and not stayed private.

Sharing is good for evolution. Google could be shaping evolution now. Google is mostly about sharing data. So it shouldn't matter if ego is what causes certain musicians to share their music or people to share data by way of Google. The sharing increases the data pool. Sharing, no matter what selfish or other drive behind it is, ends up being not a selfish act?

[jancivil]

In the end, this is art. if that art satisfies the needs of its creator for self expression, and has the intended effect on its intended audience, I would call that good, whether its clever enough for the intelligentsia or not. The opinions of that audience and that creator are more important than the opinions of others, no matter how learned.

You're engaging in some real sophistry with these arguments. I don't have time for the mountain of it you present here at this time, but I'll focus on this in particular right now.

Not all music is an art or artistic. A lot of it functions as cynical pandering to a market than can be counted on to, because this product provides a suitable lifestyle sign, like a jacket with a brand logo, buy the product.

"clever enough for the intelligentsia" seems to work for you as a tactic to dismiss anything said about standards.
It creates a compound straw man. I actually brought in the ethics of this consideration of quality by two contrasting examples. The one I asserted as good, is not highly technical music. It's a sort of passacaglia, a repeated simple ground, in fact.
The other was made fecklessly, let's say. Cynically. It's there to gratify people with a shallow impulse.

The opinions of that audience are supposed to be "important" through the argument to popularity. A fallacy.

The thing that one should note in the post where I did that is: 1) the "good" has lasted for centuries; 2) the "bad" has no lasting value. I would bet anything on it.

Some things are built shoddily. You want to deny that for some reason. Your main tack is to attack snobbery as though this makes an argument to knowledge suspect, and this works to flatten objectivity. What it does really is strain to ignore it.

The 'that' in this sentence: "I would call that good." is not music, it's people's response. Ok, let's deal in *that* for a moment. People responded w. wild enthusiasm to Hitler. So all gratification of emotion or a successful execution of intention are equally good, then?

[vurt]

I'm not saying one style of music is better then another, I'm saying within a particular style and genre you are writing in, then you can compare apples to apples, learning why some apples are better then others, and improve your music making craft. That's the objective side. But you must compare apples to apples and not Bach to hip hop, etc.

that's what i was saying about context, that we cannot anymore judge music as one entity.
intent of the artist has to come in to account.

not that once we break it down to genres there wont be examples of good and bad there in.

rap/hip hop for example.
good - rappers delight - sugarhill gang.
bad - ice ice baby - vanilla ice.

[lotus2035]

I would judge a skill by how far removed it is from average human ability (relative to the intelligence of the person in question).
Playing guitar like some guitar virtuoso takes a huge amount of effort even for the most gifted.
Banging two rocks together can be done by any 2 year old.
Which of those outcomes/actions pushes objective human ability to its limits? Which requires more objective skill?
If you could find an audience dumb enough to enjoy watching some dude bang rocks together then for that audience it would be something "good" but objectively it would be of very low musical/technical standards. (An extreme example I know).

There ARE solid objective yardsticks by which we can measure our progress.
Some need more difficult, high-brow challenges, some have problems with basic human function. IQ and intelligence levels are a real thing. The question is, who sets the standard? The rock-bangers or the guitar virtuosos?
A post-modernist dismantling of the subject may lead to a situation where a guy banging two rocks together is held in the same high regard as a guitar virtuoso. The outcome of such a dismantling would of course be a result of the rock-banging artist being more popular, a result of some kind of emotional mob-rule rather than a logical analysis of objective reality.
Commercialism and Marketing would play a huge part in this situation. Our world is run by suits and lawyers and bankers who only care about profit margins. If the rock-banging fans outnumber the guitar virtuoso fans 1000 to 1 then who will the suits and bankers pander to? MTV/YouTube would be no doubt flooded with rock-banging artists spreading the dumb-downedness far and wide.
"He is so good!!" they all said and in increasing numbers. But they would all be objectively wrong.
Why?
Because it's a guy banging f**king rocks together.

[vurt]

how big are these rocks?
i could be impressed by his strength

[Hink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnU_x2ZAi-g

[vurt]

i suspect its not authentic recordings

[ShawnG]

In the end, this is art. if that art satisfies the needs of its creator for self expression, and has the intended effect on its intended audience, I would call that good, whether its clever enough for the intelligentsia or not. The opinions of that audience and that creator are more important than the opinions of others, no matter how learned.

You're engaging in some real sophistry with these arguments. I don't have time for the mountain of it you present here at this time, but I'll focus on this in particular right now.

Not all music is an art or artistic. A lot of it functions as cynical pandering to a market than can be counted on to, because this product provides a suitable lifestyle sign, like a jacket with a brand logo, buy the product.

"clever enough for the intelligentsia" seems to work for you as a tactic to dismiss anything said about standards.
It creates a compound straw man. I actually brought in the ethics of this consideration of quality by two contrasting examples. The one I asserted as good, is not highly technical music. It's a sort of passacaglia, a repeated simple ground, in fact.
The other was made fecklessly, let's say. Cynically. It's there to gratify people with a shallow impulse.

The opinions of that audience are supposed to be "important" through the argument to popularity. A fallacy.

The thing that one should note in the post where I did that is: 1) the "good" has lasted for centuries; 2) the "bad" has no lasting value. I would bet anything on it.

Some things are built shoddily. You want to deny that for some reason. Your main tack is to attack snobbery as though this makes an argument to knowledge suspect, and this works to flatten objectivity. What it does really is strain to ignore it.

The 'that' in this sentence: "I would call that good." is not music, it's people's response. Ok, let's deal in *that* for a moment. People responded w. wild enthusiasm to Hitler. So all gratification of emotion or a successful execution of intention are equally good, then?

Mod Edit

Jancivil, I have had "discussions" with you here before, and I'm not going to do so again. It isn't worth it, I am generally of the assumption that the last two syllables of your user name are an act of the utmost irony, but I digress. Simply put, your representation of my point, and the point that I am actually making are 2 completely different things.

Purity of purpose in the history of music is very limited, the music that we rightfully love 300 years after its creation was largely created in an attempt to pander to the egos of the aristocracy and the renaissance church who were paying for it. And no, I am not saying that all music is equivalent in quality, what I am saying is that the process of critiquing it is inherently NOT objective, as it is a function of our biases as well as our sensibilities. I also dont look at subjectivity as being subjectively "bad". I will though vehemently argue against any "art police" mentality.

I still remember taking my then seven year old daughter to the Smithsonian art museum and the carnegie exhibits. Seeing the look of mild disdain on her face as we toured some of the modern paintings, and she whispered "daddy, I could do that". She was right, she could have, and that sort of art is not to my taste either, but who am I to judge? Similarly, I generally dislike EDM, but I'm not going to call it "not music". It just isn't made for me.

[Hink]

In the end, this is art. if that art satisfies the needs of its creator for self expression, and has the intended effect on its intended audience, I would call that good, whether its clever enough for the intelligentsia or not. The opinions of that audience and that creator are more important than the opinions of others, no matter how learned.

You're engaging in some real sophistry with these arguments. I don't have time for the mountain of it you present here at this time, but I'll focus on this in particular right now.

Not all music is an art or artistic. A lot of it functions as cynical pandering to a market than can be counted on to, because this product provides a suitable lifestyle sign, like a jacket with a brand logo, buy the product.

"clever enough for the intelligentsia" seems to work for you as a tactic to dismiss anything said about standards.
It creates a compound straw man. I actually brought in the ethics of this consideration of quality by two contrasting examples. The one I asserted as good, is not highly technical music. It's a sort of passacaglia, a repeated simple ground, in fact.
The other was made fecklessly, let's say. Cynically. It's there to gratify people with a shallow impulse.

The opinions of that audience are supposed to be "important" through the argument to popularity. A fallacy.

The thing that one should note in the post where I did that is: 1) the "good" has lasted for centuries; 2) the "bad" has no lasting value. I would bet anything on it.

Some things are built shoddily. You want to deny that for some reason. Your main tack is to attack snobbery as though this makes an argument to knowledge suspect, and this works to flatten objectivity. What it does really is strain to ignore it.

The 'that' in this sentence: "I would call that good." is not music, it's people's response. Ok, let's deal in *that* for a moment. People responded w. wild enthusiasm to Hitler. So all gratification of emotion or a successful execution of intention are equally good, then?

Mod Edit

Jancivil, I have had "discussions" with you here before, and I'm not going to do so again. It isn't worth it, I am generally of the assumption that the last two syllables of your user name are an act of the utmost irony, but I digress. Simply put, your representation of my point, and the point that I am actually making are 2 completely different things.

Purity of purpose in the history of music is very limited, the music that we rightfully love 300 years after its creation was largely created in an attempt to pander to the egos of the aristocracy and the renaissance church who were paying for it. And no, I am not saying that all music is equivalent in quality, what I am saying is that the process of critiquing it is inherently NOT objective, as it is a function of our biases as well as our sensibilities. I also dont look at subjectivity as being subjectively "bad". I will though vehemently argue against any "art police" mentality.

I still remember taking my then seven year old daughter to the Smithsonian art museum and the carnegie exhibits. Seeing the look of mild disdain on her face as we toured some of the modern paintings, and she whispered "daddy, I could do that". She was right, she could have, and that sort of art is not to my taste either, but who am I to judge? Similarly, I generally dislike EDM, but I'm not going to call it "not music". It just isn't made for me.

keep it civil, I deleted your comment but trust me, use such a reference again toward another member and you can expect a very quick suspension...totally uncalled for.

[experimental.crow]

I would judge a skill by how far removed it is from average human ability (relative to the intelligence of the person in question).
Playing guitar like some guitar virtuoso takes a huge amount of effort even for the most gifted.
Banging two rocks together can be done by any 2 year old.
Which of those outcomes/actions pushes objective human ability to its limits? Which requires more objective skill?
If you could find an audience dumb enough to enjoy watching some dude bang rocks together then for that audience it would be something "good" but objectively it would be of very low musical/technical standards. (An extreme example I know).

There ARE solid objective yardsticks by which we can measure our progress.
Some need more difficult, high-brow challenges, some have problems with basic human function. IQ and intelligence levels are a real thing. The question is, who sets the standard? The rock-bangers or the guitar virtuosos?
A post-modernist dismantling of the subject may lead to a situation where a guy banging two rocks together is held in the same high regard as a guitar virtuoso. The outcome of such a dismantling would of course be a result of the rock-banging artist being more popular, a result of some kind of emotional mob-rule rather than a logical analysis of objective reality.
Commercialism and Marketing would play a huge part in this situation. Our world is run by suits and lawyers and bankers who only care about profit margins. If the rock-banging fans outnumber the guitar virtuoso fans 1000 to 1 then who will the suits and bankers pander to? MTV/YouTube would be no doubt flooded with rock-banging artists spreading the dumb-downedness far and wide.
"He is so good!!" they all said and in increasing numbers. But they would all be objectively wrong.
Why?
Because it's a guy banging f**king rocks together.

hmmph ...
guess i can stop working on my latest project , then ...
working title : " guy banging f**king rocks together " ...

[ghettosynth]

I'm not saying one style of music is better then another, I'm saying within a particular style and genre you are writing in, then you can compare apples to apples, learning why some apples are better then others, and improve your music making craft. That's the objective side. But you must compare apples to apples and not Bach to hip hop, etc.

that's what i was saying about context, that we cannot anymore judge music as one entity.
intent of the artist has to come in to account.

not that once we break it down to genres there wont be examples of good and bad there in.

rap/hip hop for example.
good - rappers delight - sugarhill gang.
bad - ice ice baby - vanilla ice.

What! GTFOH, ice ice baby is my JAM! Ok, no, not really, but, I really liked what he had to say about that. Even he laughs at it today, but, he has commented that he wrote it at sixteen and asks how we would feel if our high school scribbles were known the world over?

I mean, how many people have had their high school scribbles honored by the Smithsonian?

https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/th ... 330744.php

[vurt]

im not having a go at him as a person, im actually happy the guy got his dream for a bit
plus cant help but congratulate him for the smithsonian business

but im guessing its not getting played much at actual rap/hip hop events.
maybe at those school disco partys 40 plus year olds embaress themselves at. no the uniform isn't sexy, in fact its kind of off putting dressing as a schoolgirl

[fluffy_little_something]

Do people still "write" songs?

Since most of what humans do is emulate others, it must be hard to make a good song when one is not used to good songs.