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

[Tj Shredder]

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.

And its more likely that someone who did not devote part of her life to a topic tells crap, than someone who did...
And if you did not yourself, better listen to an expert. Hopefully without stopping to think yourself.
If you surf on mainstream taste or conspiracy theories (I actually love them, especially their entertaining potential...; - ) like AngelCityOutlaw does, you just miss the majority of beauty in that world, instead of love you‘ll think kitsch is all what matters. You‘ll be completely controlled externally by implementing the idea all others are...

[Gamma-UT]

well he was known to be a bit "shagtastic"

Well, some people like to pick up girls and get called assholes
That never happened to Pablo Picasso.
The girls would turn the color of a juicy avacado.
When he would drive down their street in his El Dorado

[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.

And its more likely that someone who did not devote part of her life to a topic tells crap, than someone who did...
And if you did not yourself, better listen to an expert. Hopefully without stopping to think yourself.
If you surf on mainstream taste or conspiracy theories (I actually love them, especially their entertaining potential...; - ) like AngelCityOutlaw does, you just miss the majority of beauty in that world, instead of love you‘ll think kitsch is all what matters. You‘ll be completely controlled externally by implementing the idea all others are...

I've devoted all of my life pretty much since I was 6 years old to learning how to write and play music. Got my first composing job at the age of 17, passed both a performance and written exam for entry into college music studies despite being (up to that point) entirely self-taught, and was also selected as one of ten candidates by my country's composer's guild to learn from established composers.

I do know a thing or two about what I'm talking about, and I'm always trying to give the advice I wish I was given back when...the tough truth one needs to accept and push one needs to be better.

You'll never trust what I say, but here's a quote from music expert Mike Verta; he's had a pretty impressive career. I'll bold the most-important bits:

Despite the tragically tortured wishes of no shortage of people, we are not living in a musical age defined by choice, skill, or talent, but by ignorance and abysmally low ability. We are hearing a style of music written not by choice, but by lack of ability to do otherwise. It's not as though your average, successful, working composer could write symphonically structured works, like Jerry Goldsmith did effortlessly for the Twilight Zone series, or for Star Trek the Motion Picture, and just chooses not to. He/she can't do it, period. They haven't the training, skill, experience, or interest. "I do not want what I have not got." They are not in control. It is not complicated.

The "causal relationship" dynamic is likewise neither complicated nor debateable. Over the last several decades, the most developed of nations have abandoned production and have become entirely consumption based. As has happened countless times in history, the empires are sustained by lower-class/lower-wage peoples, but the empires decreasingly provide for themselves. This is the same dynamic that happens when people become overly dependent on machines or robots or whatever - they stop doing the work, others do it for them, and thus their ability to create for themselves plummets. As the mean threshold for production drops overall, so too does the mean threshold for competence in any field. Being expert at something is more than a little related to the importance of "doing things" in the first place. We don't do things/create things. Mostly, we buy things. And take pictures of/exaggerate the significance of banal and inane things to compensate. The fact that you can be a successful composer today without possessing a fraction of what John Williams needed to just have an entry-level job in his era is proof of the dynamic. Why do standards plummet? Because they can. Because you don't need to be good; we aren't defined by production. We are defined by consumption. Being good is hard. Most people, being not good, are predisposed to encourage the lowering of standards and expectations so they can play, too. How fun! We can expect to have the same job John Williams has, only without having to do 40 years of work! And that's what's happened.

But all of this is academic. The only question we face as individuals is whether or not we're to be a part of it. If you're on Redbanned, you've signaled a path already. But even then, notice the number of members, and the number of active members. The number of members in ANY group who are truly trying to excel and improve has been the minority since merely a minority of monkeys decided to leave the trees.

As I've learned the hard way: If one wants to try and actually excel at this music stuff, or indeed anything in life, then they must accept that there is objective value judgement to be made; ideas and techniques (a craft) developed by our ancestors which have proven their validity even after centuries and it is that you have to seek to understand and master.

Because no amount of "originality" will ever make up for poor craftsmanship. If you want to join me in the journey to "leave the trees" as Mike puts it, then you'll have to accept this reality too instead of seeking to make excuses for mediocrity.

"Without craftsmanship, inspiration is a mere reed shaken in the wind." as Brahms once said. I think he was a guy who devoted his life to this topic and is regarded as something of an expert.

[Gamma-UT]

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.

Another irrelevant point from the master of irrelevant points and diversions. Humans are good at elucidating behaviour from things they don't fully understand and working with it anyway - at a variety of levels. Physicists still don't know why gravity and quantum mechanics don't get along, but that doesn't stop anyone detecting gravity ways with semiconductors.

The guy who invented SMS had the idea it would only be used for network operators to issue status updates - mostly to their own engineers. He knew exactly how it works but that knowledge had no bearing on what happened. It turned out that a poorly chosen character limit didn't affect the public's own desire to use some kind of asynchronous messaging service (ie you don't have to connect with someone immediately). It just happened because the public understood enough of the service's function to apply it. As they don't have to fix the message routers, not knowing its mechanics is no hindrance.

Understanding the ins and outs of quantum mechanics is not fundamental to understanding how to design an amplifier, though the latter strongly depends on the former to actually work. Again, understanding of the behaviour of transistors rather than their inner workings has provided us with a rich range of amplification circuits that a pure theoretical approach probably wouldn't elicit.

Several centuries earlier, the discovery that using oil as a medium rather than egg whites drove a revolution in (your favourite) art. It took a while to get the mix right but the Flemish artists who embraced it first drove a revolution across Europe while the Italian artists persisted with the irritations of tempera (it dries really frickin' fast and doesn't give you a lot of covering power, which is why you can now see the construction lines in a number of early Renaissance pieces) and held firm to fixed beliefs on perspective that were theoretically correct but which the Flemish often ignored for the sake of effect (which also meant their works weren't sitting on a bunch of construction lines). Have a good look at van Eyck's Betrothal of Arnolfini - the perspective is all over the place but you hardly notice it, largely because the richer colours of the oils take over. Again, no-one had to understand the different properties of oil vs egg whites more than their behaviour on a canvas.

As an aside, Jan van Eyck was something of a revolutionary of his time. Just compare his works with those of his brother, which are way, way more traditional. But I guess you like them anyway 'cos like they look purty, just like a real pikcha.

[Gamma-UT]

I've devoted all of my life pretty much since I was 6 years old to learning how to write and play music. Got my first composing job at the age of 17, passed both a performance and written exam for entry into college music studies despite being (up to that point) entirely self-taught, and was also selected as one of ten candidates by my country's composer's guild to learn from established composers.

I do know a thing or two about what I'm talking about, and I'm always trying to give the advice I wish I was given back when...the tough truth one needs to accept and push one needs to be better.

You'll never trust what I say, but here's a quote from music expert Mike Verta; he's had a pretty impressive career. I'll bold the most-important bits:

> Decries appeals to authority and "experts"

> Makes repeated appeals to authority and "experts".

[Gamma-UT]

Also "scientism" has been present in music since medieval times - modernity is a lot less hobbled by that thinking rather than being the cause of ACO's perceived "corruption". Much of what developed into the tonal theory of music was the result of a somewhat misguided attempt to make music fit predefined mathematical concepts, and managed at times to ensnare Newton, Kepler and others.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I've devoted all of my life pretty much since I was 6 years old to learning how to write and play music. Got my first composing job at the age of 17, passed both a performance and written exam for entry into college music studies despite being (up to that point) entirely self-taught, and was also selected as one of ten candidates by my country's composer's guild to learn from established composers.

I do know a thing or two about what I'm talking about, and I'm always trying to give the advice I wish I was given back when...the tough truth one needs to accept and push one needs to be better.

You'll never trust what I say, but here's a quote from music expert Mike Verta; he's had a pretty impressive career. I'll bold the most-important bits:

> Decries appeals to authority and "experts"

> Makes repeated appeals to authority and "experts".

"Expert" opinions only matter when you agree with them, don't they?

[Gamma-UT]

Expert opinions only matter when you agree with them, don't they?

I don't believe I've made any mention of expert opinions other than maybe the SMS guy, who was not exactly bigging himself up over the matter.

Appeals to authority seem to be your province. But I see you accept the idea that you think experts only matter when you agree with them.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Expert opinions only matter when you agree with them, don't they?

I don't believe I've made any mention of expert opinions other than maybe the SMS guy, who was not exactly bigging himself up over the matter.

Appeals to authority seem to be your province. But I see you accept the idea that you think experts only matter when you agree with them.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention, then. I don't care about what "experts" say.

I care if what someone is saying actually makes sense or not and if the person's own abilities are worthy of envy and therefore learning from because they obviously know what they're doing.

That's why engaging in discussion with you — a guy who makes ambient synth and minimalist electronic music — about things like whether or not certain orchestral libraries are actually worth their price tag, is largely a wasted effort.

[Gamma-UT]

That's why engaging in discussion with you — a guy who makes ambient synth and minimalist electronic music — about things like whether or not certain orchestral libraries are actually worth their price tag, is largely a wasted effort.

Oh, the stuff I happened to have linked in the sig? Oh, OK. I'm not sure much of that short selection is ambient by any known definition, but whatever.

I shall continue to enjoy the various renditions of 4'33" you have so copiously linked.

[kelvyn]

The OP’s point of view as an all encompassing statement of his truth is totally legitimate but ultimately moot. I’m excited by the new as concept and manifest tangible object. So what! Art, music, whatever is ultimately subjective, each of us as individuals understands and is moved differently for different reasons. Art in itself is a dialogue one either wants to be involved in or not. Move along! Nothing to see here!

[AngelCityOutlaw]

That's why engaging in discussion with you — a guy who makes ambient synth and minimalist electronic music — about things like whether or not certain orchestral libraries are actually worth their price tag, is largely a wasted effort.

Oh, the stuff I happened to have linked in the sig? Oh, OK. I'm not sure much of that short selection is ambient by any known definition, but whatever.

I shall continue to enjoy the various renditions of 4'33" you have so copiously linked.

Well, I don't know — that's what you tag some of it as, and that's what it sounds like so...

I link renditions on here all the time in the music cafe — the most recent was my rendition of a Roxette song you can go shit on if it makes you feel better.

Art, music, whatever is ultimately subjective

But if it's all subjective, how is "improvement" possible?

Why even bother trying then? Isn't the music that you were writing when you first started then just as good as what you do now?

[DJ Warmonger]

Art, music, whatever is ultimately subjective, each of us as individuals understands and is moved differently for different reasons

Individually, yes. But statistically, there are some trends. If 95% people want to listen to your music or 95% don't want to, this might indicate that the music is good or not. And there will always be some outliers.

And personally, I'd like my music to reach wider audience rather than some geeks here on KVR.

[Gamma-UT]

I link renditions on here all the time in the music cafe — the most recent was my rendition of a Roxette song you can go shit on if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't. That seems to be your thing.

[BONES]

Chopin absolutely doesn't pre-date modernism because the idea that "modernist" and "post-modernist" eras are separate "movements" that can be dated specifically in the 20th Century or so is nonsense.

The whole exercise is nonsense, it is trying to fit art into boxes created by science. It's irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. An abstract concept to make some people feel like they have a handle on something that doesn't require handles. If people like Picasso, and a lot of people do, that's all that matters. I quite like Picassos, I don't care what it's supposed to mean or anything else, as long as it is aesthetically pleasing. Because it's a painting, I hang it on the wall to make my home look nicer, not so I can stare at it and contemplate the deepness of its meaning. That shit's for wankers.

With something like Shishkin's work, one doesn't need to attempt to rationalize or explain why it's actually really good via some convoluted explanation — "obscurantism".
Their beauty and the craftsmanship behind them, is obvious and I'm forced to doubt anyone who says they'd settle with Van Gogh's ability when Shishkin's is possible.

Who cares about ability? I'd choose Van Gogh because Starry Night will brighten up my living room much more than any of that Shishkin shizz.

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.

Why, will it help me to know what I like? In any event, I only read fiction. Science fiction.

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.

Then you'll understand completely why we have no interest in what you have to say.

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.

Then don't you think you should get in there and learn about that stuff instead of worrying about esoteric krap that doesn't mean anything or help anyone? I know how the things I use every day work in sufficient detail to diagnose and rectify problems. I have rebuilt car engines, I've designed and built a bridge with an 8 ton load limit that has been in use for 38 years. I have enough carpentry skills that I could build a place to live if I needed to. I know what night to put the bins out, too. I can hunt food and I can grow food. I am confident I could survive indefinitely on a deserted island if it had sufficient resources to support a human life. It's all just part of being a man.

The same is true of art and music.

Yeah but you don't need to. You just need to know what you like and where to find it. Knowing how it works tends to spoil it more than somewhat, because you look at it differently to the way that was intended. e.g. If you're a visual effects artist like me, you go to se the latest Star Wars so you can work out how they do all the special effects. You don't even notice that it has no story and the acting is terrible.

Their "original" works that "broke the mold" are not as good as Da Vinci;

But they tend to be a lot more interesting to look at. Seriously, the Mona Lisa is rubbish - a boring picture of a stupid, dull looking imbecile wearing boring clothes. I'm sure he was taking the piss when he painted it, or he did it on a drunken dare. Or maybe that's what revenge porn looked like back then?

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.

Compared to what?

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.

You're into semantics again. Your friend is right and he has given you the proof of it - you don't need a full symphony orchestra on a sound stage to provide an emotional accompaniment to a scene in a movie. It's a simple fact. The only argument is over whether the definition of the word "melody" can be enlarged to include that. It's a semantic argument, not a musical one.

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

No, I'm pretty sure it was elitism. Just look at the circles within which those people moved.