How far do you stray from your "Style"

[Proxima4]

Great debate, by the way, lovely to read everyone’s intelligent and thoughtful replies.

[jancivil]

So is that supposed to be a product of having the chops or a choice they make. Because it sounds like you have a disposition against technique there. Albeit 'highly technical' does not really clarify meaning very much IME.

It will depend. A highly technical (trained extensively in music theory) can also create their own personal compositions, like so many did before. They can develop their musical personality, their style, create their imprint. Of course. But not all do so. Many compose 'great' incidental music that will never leave any trace past their limited purpose, for instance.

Whereas as the other end of the knowledge spectrum there are people who are music from their guts. They do not have so much the flexibility of taking the personality of one style and then another: they just create. And as such can have more of a character imprint, if only by the abilities put forth. This is certainly my case, for instance.

Well, you are choosing to frame those with technique selectively with terms like 'incidental music' and stating some of the time originality may happen. While 'from the guts' = character and originality per se.

I think the dichotomy is false, as it's unnecessary.

[donkey tugger]

music from their guts.

Mine have been making some experimental noises (and smells) the last two days on these tablets.

[jancivil]

I think the whole thrust of saying 'music theory' like that is mistaken. If you notice that 12 bar blues has 12 bars and does I - IV - I - V, IV, I (E - A - E - B, A, E), or whatever variant you're doing, you're engaging the mechanics of the convention, which is what most music theory is.

The from the guts people: "they just create"
So do I. I assure you that knowing things is not in the way per se.

Yes, professional film composers might be able to cover a lot of ground. I suppose one can lose themselves doing what the director wants all the time and making music fit the picture and having to produce a known style on demand; but it strikes me that creativity is involved unless it's a blatant copy.

[mevla]

Well, you are choosing to frame those with technique selectively with terms like 'incidental music' and stating some of the time originality may happen. While 'from the guts' = character and originality per se. I think the dichotomy is false, as it's unnecessary.

Yes, there is a difference. When the leeway, the technical knowledge, is not there, then the expression is one out of 'the guts'. Unless one is trying to pantomime a well-known artist. W/o technical skills it's not possible to easily adopt any style to almost perfection, to personify any character at will. One remains close to its entity.

This said, this is certainly not a tirade 'against' people with skills. And as such the dichotmy does not exist. These are different expressions. Each can develop their own style, if they so wish. As I've mentioned there are highly skilled people with their own creative style. While there are skilled people writing incidental music. There are skilled people who anytime can play you a series of heart-touching chords because they know all of the principles behind them. While there are skilled people who go beyond their learning to reach inside and create their style.

So it comes down to, what is a style actually ? Does it come from the deep inside ? Can it be blantantly mimicked and if so, is it possible to feel the difference ?

[mevla]

I think the whole thrust of saying 'music theory' like that is mistaken. If you notice that 12 bar blues has 12 bars and does I - IV - I - V, IV, I (E - A - E - B, A, E), or whatever variant you're doing, you're engaging the mechanics of the convention, which is what most music theory is.

What is then to say in the exact same manner about the African Zulu Drum Music ?

It seems as if you are saying that no-one can create music that does not fit necessarily into a well-educated, well-learned, frame, even instinctively, nothwhitstanding any popularity that could be involved.

[sjm]

Whereas as the other end of the knowledge spectrum there are people who are music from their guts. They do not have so much the flexibility of taking the personality of one style and then another: they just create. And as such can have more of a character imprint, if only by the abilities put forth. This is certainly my case, for instance.

Well, you are choosing to frame those with technique selectively with terms like 'incidental music' and stating some of the time originality may happen. While 'from the guts' = character and originality per se.

I think the dichotomy is false, as it's unnecessary.

I would posit that the character imprint is in the music in either case. It's just that you are more likely to identify with music that matches your own character, and feeling that is more "true to the spirit or real music". Emotions, concepts and ideas that aren't your cup of tea are most likely not going to interest you the same way as something that speaks directly to your own personal world view.

[jancivil]

I think the whole thrust of saying 'music theory' like that is mistaken. If you notice that 12 bar blues has 12 bars and does I - IV - I - V, IV, I (E - A - E - B, A, E), or whatever variant you're doing, you're engaging the mechanics of the convention, which is what most music theory is.

What is then to say in the exact same manner about the African Zulu Drum Music ?

It seems as if you are saying that no-one can create music that does not fit necessarily into a well-educated, well-learned, frame, even instinctively, nothwhitstanding any popularity that could be involved.

I said nothing that even remotely resembles that. I think it seems that way to you because *

What is then to say about any music? Do you think there is no consistent methodology in its practice?
The chords in a 12 bar blues are conventional. *: You're pushing your disposition onto the discussion, as though you have a truth, one from which a preconceived value judgment follows.

What I get now is that being able to sort it out on paper or name the chords - let's keep going, to analyze the African rhythmic structure, to know what the tunings Slendro and Pelog are or to be able to tell Java from Bali in Gamelan traditions, to know anything about practice - is something to be suspicious of in favor of naivety or purity. I mean you are ascribing <fitting into the well-educated frame> as a pejorative or to dismiss. This is only a reiteration of your disposition, which I interrogated.

I didn't fit anything into anything other than put Roman numerals to the conventional chords in 12 bar blues. There is one reason for that, because it's the same relationship no matter the key. <But you play better blues not being burdened with all that> can look like a truth, but that will be some fallacy. There is no difference between knowing that just from experience and knowing how to write it. If you know it, and you know it because it consistently works in the way it does, that's music theory. I have already said that this conception of 'music theory' is a mistake. AGAIN: if you know E goes to A, back to E, then does a turnaround B A E, that's music theory. If you are confused when the basic chord is now G, you're not very good at it. Hence knowing it's the relationships, eg., I - IV - I; V, IV, I. You can be illiterate and have that concept sussed.

Do you actually believe 'African Zulu Drum' practice is a bunch of people acting instinctively? Might it not be that there is a certain way things are always done? A convention, a practice where everyone in the drum choir has their role, and with a way to convey to the new members what that is?

No, I think you're showing the problems of ignorance, not some problem inherent in understanding of a music on a technical basis.


You're deliberately ascribing things to me that aren't there in my statements. I said something about popularity, where? 12 bar blues is so esoteric, yeah? I'm done, there is no exchange when you twist what I say.

[ATS]

i don't think I am good enough to have my own style

[Tj Shredder]

You can‘t avoid to have your own style - and you shouldn‘t...

[jancivil]

I think actually the original post in the thread deals in <comfort zone> rather than markings of personal style.
So I can't help but be myself - and would argue in the affirmative that the more technique you bring to it the more personality is possible - but I get into a sameness after several tracks and make a decision to shock myself into something different, typically.

[DJ Warmonger]

I recently had a crysis, as over years I still couldn't get close to popular trance style. It's not about technique, or sound design, or patterns. It's about emotions and flow.

Suprisingly, using random sequence generators did the job. I was just overthinking the composition, while running arpeggiator over simple chord progressions was all that was needed.

[vurt]

in time or space?

[jancivil]

space _is_ time

[vurt]

mind. blown.