Creativity and originality are the most important aspects of making music is a myth? (Article Excerpt)

[vurt]

how you supposed to tell time on a melted clock?
preposterous!

[donkey tugger]

how you supposed to tell time on a melted clock?
preposterous!

It's all a load of Jackson Pollocks.

[vurt]

how you supposed to tell time on a melted clock?
preposterous!

It's all a load of Jackson Pollocks.

if picasso and van gogh are "shite" im pretty sure the mere mention of pollock will give the poor lad an aneurysm.

[vurt]

i am interested in the notion that one cant create new forms without destroying the old?
why cant we enjoy both?

theres all kinds of "beauty" why is one something more than another?

[Forgotten]

how you supposed to tell time on a melted clock?
preposterous!

It's all a load of Jackson Pollocks.

if picasso and van gogh are "shite" im pretty sure the mere mention of pollock will give the poor lad an aneurysm.

Let’s not even mention Malevich’s ‘Black Square’ then...

[lobanov]

@AngelCityOutlaw

Picasso is our ancestor as well.

[vurt]

well he was known to be a bit "shagtastic"

[Forgotten]

well he was known to be a bit "shagtastic"

[CrystalWizard]

i am interested in the notion that one cant create new forms without destroying the old?
why cant we enjoy both?

theres all kinds of "beauty" why is one something more than another?

I’n not having any trouble, creating the new*, recreating the not new, mixing up the old, middle, and new.
* indeed, pulling things from the ether

[AngelCityOutlaw]

all experts agree, that the craftsmanship of Picasso is in the same league as Da Vinci...

You should really read "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis as it is a great work that warned us all that this exact kind of debate was coming; 75+ years ago.

I am not interested in what "experts" have to say as supposed "experts" are full of crap on a regular basis on every topic possible. Again this boils back down to modernity's scientism and the appeal to authority it creates that I talked about in my first post.

Most of us do not understand the mechanics of this unnatural environment and world that has been created by those who do or once did. I don't, and I suspect you don't either, know how or truly understand how the devices we are using to communicate work. That means that those who do understand it, or more accurately, those who have university credentials and such that make them appear "smarter" or more of an authority than you on the subject, are capable of manipulating public opinions about it.

The same is true of art and music.

I don't care what obscurantism trust-fund babies throw at Van Gogh or Picasso. Their "original" works that "broke the mold" are not as good as Da Vinci; I'm not blind and neither are billions of other people who've been around then and now.

Similarly, I don't care what architects say about how great Trump Tower or one of those ugly skyscrapers in Dubai are — they are hideous.

I also don't care what some self-proclaimed "Musicologist" or whatever from Berkley says about Shoenberg: His music was awful and is largely ignored today (even though everyone can access it) for good reason.

Perhaps I shouldn't publicly say this, but — I'm friends with a film composer, arranger and teacher who has worked on many big name films we've all seen; I respect him and his works of course, and appreciate his opinions and advice he has given me.

However, he's presently writing his PhD. He has told me of his plans of this before, in which he intends to make a case that a guy turning a knob on a filter on a synth is "melody" because as films supposedly prove, that is enough to evoke "emotional responses" in the listener/viewer.

I of course said "very interesting" and I do wish him luck with it. However, it's obvious that a modulating synth drone is not melody, and the only reason that he is making this argument is standards of music compositions in film have plummeted so far that the inane is now the norm. Rather than do as I and many others have, and acknowledge that this is the case, an esteemed teacher and arranger is now trying to defend this modern mediocrity and spin a case for it being of equal value.

[herodotus]

I am not interested in what "experts" have to say as supposed "experts" are full of crap on a regular basis on every topic possible.

Actually, people who aren't "experts" can also be full of crap.

There's no need to engage in elitism. There's crap enough for everyone.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I am not interested in what "experts" have to say as supposed "experts" are full of crap on a regular basis on every topic possible.

Actually, people who aren't "experts" can also be full of crap.

There's no need to engage in elitism. There's crap enough for everyone.

What you call "elitism" was once better known as "standards".

[imrae]

Most of us do not understand the mechanics of this unnatural environment and world that has been created by those who do or once did. I don't, and I suspect you don't either, know how or truly understand how the devices we are using to communicate work. That means that those who do understand it, or more accurately, those who have university credentials and such that make them appear "smarter" or more of an authority than you on the subject, are capable of manipulating public opinions about it.

Ah yes, those blasted scientists and their *checks notes* monopoly on knowledge and credibility. That's why they refuse to teach other people, promote understanding of the underlying principles or openly publish their findings, right?

Do you actually know any academics? Ask them how much influence they think they have on public opinion.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Most of us do not understand the mechanics of this unnatural environment and world that has been created by those who do or once did. I don't, and I suspect you don't either, know how or truly understand how the devices we are using to communicate work. That means that those who do understand it, or more accurately, those who have university credentials and such that make them appear "smarter" or more of an authority than you on the subject, are capable of manipulating public opinions about it.

Ah yes, those blasted scientists and their *checks notes* monopoly on knowledge and credibility. That's why they refuse to teach other people, promote understanding of the underlying principles or openly publish their findings, right?

Do you actually know any academics? Ask them how much influence they think they have on public opinion.

Yeah, I literally just talked about at least one.

They clearly have a fair amount of influence over your opinions.

[DJ Warmonger]

Very good essay, and on point. Sadly it's also true.

From my point of view, labels don't want to sign "original" tracks (even if they're not avant-garde or hell knows what), however they signed cliche tunes right away.

And people don't want to hear your "original" modular endeavours either, they want to hear more love songs like the ones on the radio.

Art - every art - needs a balance of new and familiar. Mixing too many "original" ideas - or any ideas at all - make it just a pile of a mess not digestible by anyone. Believe me, I tried it too many times already. So many great "ideas" go to waste.