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

[bmanic]

your command is my wish or somesuch

pussy.

you owe me.

I do!

[vurt]

[donkey tugger]

I can handle one Bones.. not his twin!

The resistable force vs the moveable object?

[vurt]

I can handle one Bones.. not his twin!

The resistable force vs the moveable object?

poor bones.
the comparison is a little unfair

[polarsky]

I really shouldn't be telling you this as I was given this secret knowledge by the Purple Bishop of the Order of the Golden Shower but according to Enlightenment Reason there are 3 kinds of people, those that have been through musical puberty, those that haven't and those that got stuck, these tend to like soft rock and have had either a mullet, a ponytail or both at some point in their life. This is indisputable truth.

i don't like fish...

Could have a been a trout on his head or a minnow in pants, we were on a milking holiday and it was a dark night. Even if its wrong doesn't mean its not right.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

As your definition of "pro-modernist" includes everyone from Chopin (and perhaps a bit before that) and is not focused on musical output purely from select corners of Europe, I think the evidence is clear.

Unsurprisingly, you have failed to answer the question because you don't actually have an answer.

I raised, in my first post, that Chopin was one of these dicks who was angry that people preferred Strauss's waltzes over his music...

[Gamma-UT]

As your definition of "pro-modernist" includes everyone from Chopin (and perhaps a bit before that) and is not focused on musical output purely from select corners of Europe, I think the evidence is clear.

Unsurprisingly, you have failed to answer the question because you don't actually have an answer.

I raised, in my first post, that Chopin was one of these dicks who was angry that people preferred Strauss's waltzes over his music...

It's not my fault you trolled yourself into a corner:

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.

These things are ideological and born of the enlightenment. "Modern" and "Post-Modern" thinking and approach has been around since the enlightenment and in force since the industrial revolution.

Chopin's opinion of who preferred what is irrelevant to a point about some supposed relaxation of standards you imagined into your head.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Most people tend to think the best artists are the most popular too: Mozart, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin... because people always seem to need to look for "the best" everywhere. But time has showed us that you can be popular also without being a great musician. So that made me think if artists like the ones mentioned in the linked article were really original or just the most popular at their time? Are we really praising their talent as musicians or painters or their talent as social influencers from the past?

Most people in his day would not have even heard Mozart's music.

This part of your post illustrates probably the greatest difficulty everyone has in conversation of this topic: The inability to see beyond individuals — because these people are almost universally hardcore "individualists" — and look at what works created across vast distances in time, but maintain widespread appeal, have in common.

On the other side I'd say originality is a good thing but often not really well understood, people tend to think original artists get ideas out of nowhere but they don't, they never did, they always acted like some kind of filter that absorbed a lot of art and ideas from elsewhere and just put their own part to mix them together giving them some special flavor, but I'm quite sure in most cases 90% or even more of their creations aren't original at all but taken from elsewhere, and I'm not talking about plagiarism but about communication again.

It is not actually possible to NOT be "original" — as in having your own signature — unless you voluntarily suppress it by trying to literally sound like something else.

To use film composers as an example again, Silvestri, Williams and Goldsmith's sound is largely rooted in the Romantic era. Yet, they all are still great composers who don't sound like clones of each other; masters of their craft with different "handwriting" and it all can hold up to standards of composition set before them.

Schoenberg's "serialism" was original and different. It also sucked and the technique did not produce better music than techniques established before it — that's why it's been abandoned.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". "Different" can not make up for "bad'.

If originality is important or not is also subjective. There you have bands like AC/DC writing songs in the same style for 40 years and for most of their fans it is better they do that than start to experiment and put some reggae or EDM elements into their music.

Their fans would no doubt not like the change.

However it is possible to have a reggae song that is just as good or better as an AC/DC song and vice versa.

One might look to Metallica for examples. A lot of their fans lost their minds when the Black Album came out. Yet, you'd be hard-pressed to find many people outside of those fans who don't think that songs like "Enter Sandman" (which even your grandma loves) or "Sad But True" weren't far more listenable and better songs (and they were less-technical) simply because they had better production values, riffs that had an actual sense of groove to them, etc.

You can follow standards or not, you can learn music theory or not, you can practice a lot with your(s) instrument(s) or not, everything is possible

You can do the same with beauty standards, speaking and writing, and fitness too; totally throw standards and everything to the wind and try to force a revolution.

Then you can become one of those fat chicks demanding that we agree with her that she's as attractive as an Amazonian Playboy model, and when we don't, seek to tear everyone who is better down to her level and demand she get to be a centerfold too because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

That's what all these "it's subjective" or similar types with music and art are: Angry, illiterate fat chicks.

All of this is just "crab bucket" mentality. Where there are standards, there will be judgement. If some works of art or music really are better, then ours may be judged to be inferior.

So instead of accepting that Da Vinci really was a better artist than Van Gogh, we tear Da Vinci down to Van Gogh's level and use the fact that Van Gogh was radically different as a mask for his lesser ability. This also means we can tear Van Gogh down too; our random blotches of colour on canvas are just as good as Van Gogh now because "subjectivity" and "originality". The fact is that this stuff really only becomes "subjective" after a threshold of craftsmanship has already been crossed. Many of these "original" works, never crossed that threshold to begin with.

Most people here would not accept the notion that someone who comes in 5th in a race is just as much a winner as who first crossed the line, they wouldn't agree that broken English is as good as fluent English, they wouldn't agree that McDonald's is the same quality as homegrown and prepared meals, but when it comes to music and art "it's all subjective" — for no reason other than because it is something they personally can be judged on.

[Gamma-UT]

So instead of accepting that Da Vinci really was a better artist than Van Gogh, we tear Da Vinci down to Van Gogh's level and use the fact that Van Gogh was radically different as a mask for his lesser ability. This also means we can tear Van Gogh down too; our random blotches of colour on canvas are just as good as Van Gogh now because "subjectivity" and "originality". The fact is that this stuff really only becomes "subjective" after a threshold of craftsmanship has already been crossed. Many of these "original" works, never crossed that threshold to begin with.

What is this threshold of craftsmanship? How is it defined objectively?

[Gamma-UT]

To use film composers as an example again, Silvestri, Williams and Goldsmith's sound is largely rooted in the Romantic era. Yet, they all are still great composers who don't sound like clones of each other; masters of their craft with different "handwriting" and it all can hold up to standards of composition set before them.

Schoenberg's "serialism" was original and different. It also sucked and the technique did not produce better music than techniques established before it — that's why it's been abandoned.

It sucked so badly that Goldsmith loved using it and composed a number of pieces using it including several very famous film scores.

[fairlyclose]

oops wrong forum

[AngelCityOutlaw]

To use film composers as an example again, Silvestri, Williams and Goldsmith's sound is largely rooted in the Romantic era. Yet, they all are still great composers who don't sound like clones of each other; masters of their craft with different "handwriting" and it all can hold up to standards of composition set before them.

Schoenberg's "serialism" was original and different. It also sucked and the technique did not produce better music than techniques established before it — that's why it's been abandoned.

It sucked so badly that Goldsmith loved using it and composed a number of pieces using it including several very famous film scores.

Lol yeah. Couple things there: 1 is that Goldsmith was often doing that in the time Schoenberg's twelve-tones was a new concept. 2. I really doubt "Planet of The Apes" is a preferred or even known score among the average film fan who would recognize Goldsmith's work.

What is this threshold of craftsmanship? How is it defined objectively?

The bare-minimum of competency one needs to create a piece of music that will sound good and like what most humans will recognize as "Music" is

1. A tune. Now right there, we can write off a lot of "music" because many composers today can't write one for shit. Should be at least mostly-singable in phrasing, should be a complete phrase unto itself (generally in multiples of 8 bars), clearly and coherently structured among repetition and forward development.

2. Appropriate harmonic choices that work with the notes of the melody; not exclusively consonant, not too dissonant either.

3. Rhythm. We can cross a lot of modern "orchestral" stuff off here too, as so many only seem to know how to write whole notes, even in the bass.

4. Balance and cohesion. Background parts aren't blaring over the melody, the music is in time, minimal screw-ups, pleasant timbres, on pitch, etc.

The tune can cover parts 1 - 3.

Meet at least that criteria and everyone from the hippy on the beach with an acoustic guitar to someone writing their first piano piece can create something at least "good".

Unfortunately, many today lack even that basic amount of competency, and we get stuff like this. Starts around 1:46





Go ahead and tell us you honestly believe that those two banging some sticks together and mumbling is not inferior to something like this:



or even "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" is a better piece of music.

If we follow the ideas you are defending, which is that such cannot be objectively determined, then we'd have to believe that the stick mumblers are of equal skill and equal value to the latter examples.

No serious, reasonably-intelligent person will believe as such.

I am arguing for people to become the best they can be, and learn and master everything about what they seek to do. I'm not saying that Van Gogh and drone music has no right to exist; merely that it is not as good as others and should not be seen as the standard.

You are defending laziness, mediocrity, narcissism and complacency — there is just simply no other reason to oppose what I suggest other than a fear of being judged inferior.

Yes yes, now cry about it at me some more and hurl accusations of "strawmen", "moving the goalposts" and other terminology you don't understand — it's not going to change the fact that defending mediocrity and elevating the inane and undeserving to the status of greatness is the end result of (post)modernism and I've already wasted too much time entertaining this bullshit.

[Gamma-UT]

Lol yeah. Couple things there: 1 is that Goldsmith was often doing that in the time Schoenberg's twelve-tones was a new concept. 2. I really doubt "Planet of The Apes" is a preferred or even known score among the average film fan who would recognize Goldsmith's work.

ROFL.

You know this is the Goldsmith score that actually got a book written about it, right?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268 ... -serialism

Also serialism had been around for decades. It just so happened that the late 60s provided an environment when directors and producers would take a chance on riskier scores.

It's brilliant how you pull these assertions out of your arse. Please continue, senator.

What is this threshold of craftsmanship? How is it defined objectively?

The question was in respect to a post about visual arts. Maybe you could try answering it.

[Gamma-UT]

But in the meantime, while we're here...

1. A tune. Now right there, we can write off a lot of "music" because many composers today can't write one for shit. Should be at least mostly-singable in phrasing, should be a complete phrase unto itself (generally in multiples of 8 bars), clearly and coherently structured among repetition and forward development.

Singable by whom? Is there is an ISO standard for singability?

The Taking of Pelham 123 main theme has a recognisable pattern, is coherently structured and is singable (if you're good) but breaks just about every "standard" melody rule because it's derived from a 12-tone row.

However, I suspect you've formulated stylistic conventions into a set of benchmarks. (And it's worth noting that David Huron and others have found that composers often break those rules).

Also, the idea that a multiple of eight or even x bars is a requirement is...novel.

2. Appropriate harmonic choices that work with the notes of the melody; not exclusively consonant, not too dissonant either.

Appropriate? Sounds likes a stylistic convention. Dissonant? A subjective assessment. Fans of Palestrina and jazz-heads have strongly different views on what constitutes "inside" and "outside" or "consonant" vs "dissonant".

Did I not ask for objective criteria? What are they?

3. Rhythm. We can cross a lot of modern "orchestral" stuff off here too, as so many only seem to know how to write whole notes, even in the bass.

Citation needed. Seems unlikely. The use of smaller divisions does not seem to constitute a solid measure of "craft" for rhythm to me. But I suppose "must use other notes than whole notes" could be considered objective.

4. Balance and cohesion. Background parts aren't blaring over the melody, the music is in time, minimal screw-ups, pleasant timbres, on pitch, etc.

Are we not dealing with composition here? One might assume that a performance of work might at least be competent (ie follows the notation).

Pleasant timbres? A subjective assessment. How are you defining pleasant such that it can be measured?

Balance? Does this judgment not depend on the intentions of the composer?

Cohesion? A subjective assessment, though perhaps a bit less so than the others. Again, please provide a definition of how cohesion might be measured objectively.

[Gamma-UT]

Yes, let's laugh at the funny brown people. I'm sure it makes you feel superior. Maybe even getting a little supremacist vibe going on what with that and the "fat chicks" stuff.

And it's funny how you skip over a bit that conforms to your rules - the verse structure has elements of parlando so presumably isn't "proper melody" in your view but the I Am Your Sister chorus is a melody that surely fits, even if it's not your bag.

But please carry on, you're doing just great. I'm sure it'll be a nice big hole once you're done.