Sharing your music.... When it's not very good

[eduardo_b]

If liking pudding is wrong then I don't want to be right.

Put...the...spoon...down.

[Sebastiantheseeker]

Prople have different styles. Some writers write quantity over quality, some like quality over quantity. If you get a writing teacher, ost likely they will be one way or the other.

[Fraggle]

To OP -- in the title "when its not very good" is what I want to address :-

I firmly believe that if you make music with a mind that is concerned about 'good and bad' , your music will be confused and passionless. What I mean is 'good and bad' should only matter as they apply to your own sense of quality, NEVER to what you think others will enjoy or hate.

[PatchAdamz]

If you like it, share it, don't worry if its good enough.
You will learn from the experience.

[harryupbabble]

it's like that old saying...

"if you got nothing good to say, don't say anything"

on the other hand, i type crap here in kvr all the time.

[klavierr]

Whether other people's music is good or not isn't my concern. They can release it or not, I don't care. I don't feel "offended" that other people think it's fine to finish and release poorly-made music, because that would be a complete waste of my energy, and it has almost no effect on me. If you think musicianship has some inherent quality of integrity that needs to be defended from mediocre musicians because you're very passionate, alright cool, you do you, but that still feels like a vaguely unhealthy way of viewing things.

[jancivil]

wrong thread

[jancivil]

again

[jancivil]

*nothing is true, everything is permitted*

"So everything is false?"

(William S Burroughs in _The Western Lands_, repeating a legend 'from the deathbed of Hassan i Sabbah, Master of Assassins'). You give equal validity to all things, it's all a wash, there is no discernment available after a point. Everything is true = nothing is permitted.

"Not how things are in the world."

"What does that mean?"

"Well, everything is permitted, nothing is permitted don't actually translate to the actualities of life. There are -- to me -- no absolutes, so these two statements cannot functionally exist, and they certainly can't simultaneously co-exist. So, what do they mean?"

It's a dialectic. It requires a little more thought than this instant dismissal as though every statement must be read literally. Or the scrupulous reading of what one reacts to, instead. (And there was no "nothing is permitted" in the construction. Obviously those two opposite statements cannot be true at the same time.)

I am somewhat less hard-assed about the argument than >a decade ago, but the context was a prevalence 'round here of ad hom'ing people for having standards.
Elitist! j'accuse!


I recognize Ed has run down the curtain/an Ex-Parrot as it were but now this thing is dredged up. In addition, "Not how things are in the world" isn't an ambiguous statement. And no truism, since we have seen it rather exactly a number of times.

[Sebastiantheseeker]

"There are -- to me -- no absolutes, so these two statements cannot functionally exist, and they certainly can't simultaneously co-exist.”

Well, this statement is an absolute, so it contradicts itself.

[Sebastiantheseeker]

The idea of “no absolutes” is absolutist.

[jancivil]

"There are -- to me -- no absolutes, so these two statements cannot functionally exist, and they certainly can't simultaneously co-exist.”

Well, this statement is an absolute, so it contradicts itself.

it "isn't an ambiguous statement." - me
"Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares." - Simple English Wikipedia

Before we get to this, though, it's a kind of thought experiment, rhetorical, not literal.
It can be taken a number of ways. To an hashishin/assassin it may be this very laudatory sentiment, kind of Honey Badger don't give a shit.

[thecontrolcentre]

Should one share all their music, even if they don't think it's worth listening to?

No. Work harder, get better

[kritikon]

I'm not sure I even get why people want to share it out there. I do get it if you want to "make it" in any way, but personally I have no desire to put what I do out there. It's for me, was always for me, not for anyone else. Even my missus gets peeved when I get all non-committal about any recent tracks I've done - she wants to hear them and be all supportive etc. Generally I play them just to keep the peace, but she doesn't get it that I don't care what she thinks of it - even if it's shite. She sweetens it all up if she thinks it's shite - but just tell me it's shite. If I personally like it, then it doesn't matter, and if I agree it's shite...well it's going to get deleted anyway and I won't waste any further effort trying to make it less shite.

Actually, it was selling music decades ago that really decided for me that I hated that whole process. I easily own up to the fact I made far better music when I collaborated, but doing it to sell to a timetable, working with others in a different and frustrating way, having to consider markets and tastes and customers etc...hated every minute of it. It leached out all of the enjoyment. I have no intention of making it in music and actively don't want to. Consequently I don't even want an audience. It's a bit like wanking in public, I guess. Unless there's something wrong with you...it just doesn't feel right.

[whyterabbyt]

Before we get to this, though, it's a kind of thought experiment, rhetorical, not literal.
It can be taken a number of ways. To an hashishin/assassin it may be this very laudatory sentiment, kind of Honey Badger don't give a shit.

FWIW, I believe it was quoted by Burroughs, but more specifically revived by Robert Anton Wilson, so wound up re-permeated through internet-derived culture via the Discordians and Erisians et al that sprang up thereof. Seems to be embedded in some modern paganism via a certain degree of conflating it with Crowley's 'do what thou wilt' (because that already gets conflated with the Wiccan Rede 'An it harm none, do what thou wilt').
RAW wouldnt exactly have been blind to the inherent contradiction, in fact it was probably part of the point.

Also subsequently brought to the couch-based masses via the 'Assassin's Creed' series of games.