Follower or Leader?

[whyterabbyt]

It was an excellent setup.

but atrocious grammar. i really should have learned the rules of linguistics, literature, and, of course, calligraphy, before typing....

[vespers75]

It was an excellent setup.

but atrocious grammar. i really should have learned the rules of linguistics, literature, and, of course, calligraphy, before typing....

Well, eduardo is an expert at typing.

[Sascha Franck]

on the other hand you had "proper musicians" jumping on the punk and especially "new wave" bandwagon in an attempt to cash in...[...]

Of course they did. And as you mentioned The Police, it's been quite a clever move from them.

Really, to make that absolutely clear: I don't have *anything* against musicians without formal knowledge. Heck, working with such folks (which I did for many years) has teached me a lot about how traditional skills could as well just limit your creativity (resorting to standard "established" chord progressions, grooves and the likes...). For me, it looks as if the best thing to achieve would be a balance between certain knowledge (not necessarily traditional knowledge but "aquired by testing" knowledge, too) and pure trial and error, for a maximized creativity boost.

All I was saying is that some people just don't seem to want going through the efforts it takes to create some music. As an example, there's another thread I'm just participating in, someone asked for a list of chords for all scales in all keys, because he/she apparently wants to compose tunes in some sort of jazzy house genre. This, to me, is just plain wrong (ok, let's better say the "wrong approach"). The folks producing such music have never ever resorted to a chord spread sheet or anything like that. Even if their jazz theory knowledge might be limited, they either played their chords themselves or hired someone to do the job for them.
Asking for a tool to accomplish the task for you is pretty much like asking for a virtual Charlie Parker or so.
All this is just a lack of will to go through some efforts. And really, a little basic jazz theory is nothing that'd take ages to learn. In case I had students willing to really follow my explanations, they were able to learn such things in a matter of a month or two (with some additional time to practice and have it "sink in" of course). How much is that? Almost nothing.
Now, let's assume there'd be a plugin or program doing the job for you. It'd either be as complicated to master as the theory behind it or completely randomized - the latter not exactly being someting which would make you sound original or anything.
As said, it's all about the efforts. Doing something well, regardless wether you learn it in a traditional way or by simply fooling around, hence making up your own set of "rules", requires time and effort. It's as easy as that. You may not be able to tune your guitar and call the result of your recordings "microtonal", but in that case it's surely not what you had in mind in the first place,
Another example: When I first watched some cubic art, certain Bauhaus things and what not, I always thought that I could just do such things as well. But once I've read something about the artists background, I was sure that even if I may still come up with a "lookalike", it'd never be any original at all. Pretty much the same with music. Sure, you can produce a killer jazzy house track without knowing anything about jazz theory, but it'd always just be like "borrowing" things, lacking artistic freedom. And that's what knowledge (regardless of how you aquired things) and efforts are all about IMO. You just *know* what you're doing (or using, in case of, say, a loop or MIDI pattern) rather than simply pasting things together.

that's fine, but some people have a habit of making their usual blanket statements that, although not aimed at any individuals, certainly attack genres that some people work in without displaying any knowledge of these genres or the skill sets these people possess...

Personally, I'd never do so (had to learn this for myself, I've been a lot more rude some years ago). In case it's about music, the first thing I do is to listen to it. The second thing is listening as well. Same with the 3rd, 4th or whatever thing. In the end, I might ask or suggest something, but that might even be irrelevant already.

- Sascha

[debra1rlo]

It was an excellent setup.

but atrocious grammar. i really should have learned the rules of linguistics, literature, and, of course, calligraphy, before typing....

Well, eduardo is an expert at typing.

at both

[Lunatique]

I had a bet on with myself, that you'd turn up in this thread with the same old musical fascisms as ever. I win.

I don't think you're being fair. You picked one point out of multiple points I made. Why did you ignore these other points I made?

So, as I stated, I DO listen to soundscape/noise/ambient stuff, and I DO think there are good ones and bad ones in that genre. So NO, I'm NOT belittling an entire genre of music--I'm merely saying that particular genre is a great hiding place for people who do not possess the knowledge/ability that is commonly associated with established musical conventions (and whether that's a good or bad thing is subjective to the goals of each musician). Whether my idea of really good soundscape/noise/ambient stuff is the same as other people's is a whole different matter.

An interesting point--I'm a huge fan of Sakamoto Ryuichi because he's a genius and a musical chameleon. He's one of those very rare people who possess the knowledge and skill to compose a very wide range of styles with a sense of authority and authenticity--from classical, electronic, jazz, ethnic, operas, avant-garde, to rock/pop, and so on. He's respected by musical artists from various genres--be it cutting edge DJ's and electronic musicians, or classical and jazz and pop musicians, and that is a hard feat to pull off. But here's the interesting point I wanted to make--he does experimental ambient stuff too, and I really don't care much for his ambient stuff--I think it's the weakest among all the styles he works in. There are other ambient artists out there who probably can't hold a candle to his knowledge/skill in general as composers, but they make far more interesting ambient stuff than Sakamoto does. You see the point I'm making here? An extremely talented and authoritative figure like Sakamoto should be able to impress me with his ambient works, since I'm such an elitist bastard, right? But it doesn't work that way. Having achieved excellence in the established conventions or even other experimentations in avant-garde like Sakamoto has is no guarantee that he'll be able to pull off really compelling ambient works--at least not to me.

I think these others points I made makes it obvious that I'm not as close-minded as you think I am. In fact, I'm the kind of person that constantly reassesses myself and analyze and critique myself--be it how I conduct myself socially, how I approach creative endeavors, how I feel about the world in general, and how I give back to the creative community. I'm learning and growing just like everyone else, and one of the main things I'm striving for is to be as open-minded as possible and embrace all that I can. I've already made a lot of progress of the years. I used to be someone who hated abstract/conceptual/modern art, but I made an effort to understand and appreciate it and now I can see what they have to offer and how embracing them can even help more traditional artists working in representational art--it's a different kind of mentality. I'm doing that with music too. I used to write off genres like hip-hop because it didn't seem to contain enough musical merit to warrant my attention, but as I dug deeper into the genre I could see why it draws a lot of people in, and how its vibe and attitude and form of expression is unique and cannot be replicated in other styles of music. I'm now also able to sit down and analyze and appreciate soundscapes/ambient--something I really couldn't force myself to do years ago. So yes, I'm making progress. I'm trying to be as versatile and open-minded as I can. I want to be one of those guys who can compose a symphony and jam in a jazz ensemble, but then turn around and write a wicked breakbeat and rock out on the guitar, and then compose an IDM/ambient soundscape that's perfect for exploring a video game level...etc. I've learned to embrace everything--but there's still one catch--I still have my own personal standard for excellence.

I've tried really hard to embrace the kind of "live and let live" philosophy you live by, but it's harder for me because my personality just isn't like that. Sure, I can live and let live--I'm not going to start some shady organization that sends "talent/skill police" around to arrest people who shouldn't be creating but tries anyway. BUT, if I'm asked for my opinion on whether creative endeavors have some form of standard for excellence, then I'm going to say yes and explain what and why those standards are to me personally. I have the freedom to do that. It does not make me a fascist. Human beings have always had standards for excellence in every endeavor we do. If we didn't, there wouldn't be any competitions or awards. Shut down the Olympics. Cancel the Pulitzer Prize. Stop all the film festivals. f**k all the music awards (well, those tend to be kind of stupid anyway). Maybe in a perfect world, there would be no awards and competitions--is that what you envision as utopia? I'd be curious to live in a world like that and see if it really is better than our current world. If it is, why not?

I can understand and appreciate your way of thinking--that "everything can be art." It's all about context--a train engine running with perfect mechanical precision can be art in of itself--it took expert design, mechanical engineering skills, and creative thinking to make such a thing. If there was a competition held on the "best train engine award," people will all of a sudden stop thinking of train engines as simply a mechanical tool but a form of art, and the train engine designers will get elevated to a different status--all of a sudden they take on a special aura they didn't have before. I can appreciate that. I have no problem with that. But let's say if some people started to join in on the fun and designed engines that don't quite match the specs of a good engine, and used unconventional methods that do not contribute to a good engine, and they are told they need to live up to certain expectation if they were to be considered good train engine designers. These guys will become indignant and call everyone fascist and that what they do is just a valid and they are just as talented and skilled. Well, yeah, they are probably right when applying that thinking in the context of their own philosophy, but it still doesn't mean they'll ever win the annual train engine design competition. Now, you might say that why should there be these rules about what a train engine should be? Here's where a functional piece of art differs from one that's purely expressive, but there are still degrees of it. Soundscape/ambient are not held to the same scrutiny as let's say a string quartet or a progressive house track, because the style itself does away with many, or even all conventions associated with music as we commonly know it. It's not a stretch of imagination to see why certain kinds of people gravitate towards it, but as I already mentioned, there are also those who fair well in conventional music who also work in that genre. I never said only people who don't fair well in established conventions work in that style--just that it's a style that's a lot more friendly towards that type of musician. I never said if it's a good or bad thing that some musicians don't fair well in established conventions--it's a matter of each musician's personal creative goal.

Now, let's say if there was a competition for soundscape/noise/ambient. If everything is music and everything is art, then how would you even establish some kind of parameter for judging excellence? Maybe you'd say that in your idea of a perfect world, humans will not compete against one another and we'd all live in perfect harmony. Fine, I'll accept that. How about if someone simply asks, "Hey guys, can you name your top 3 soundscape/noise/ambient artists? I'd really like to check them out." Uh oh. Now he's gone and done it--he's destroyed this utopian mentality that art cannot be judged and there's no such thing is a set of parameters for judging excellence! Kill him! He's destroyed our perfect utopia! But seriously, when people try to answer his question, they'll naturally and automatically form some set of standard in their own mind as they mentally sort through the list of soundscape/noise/ambient artists to recommend. Now there's some internal struggle going on, isn't there? If we're not allowed to judge unless we want to be branded as fascists, we can't even form personal opinions about what we privately think is excellent, because as soon as we do, we've betrayed that utopian ideal that anything and everything is art and cannot be assessed and judged, and everyone is equally valid and talented and skilled. No more top 10 lists. No more desert island album lists. No more amazon.com recommendations. No more awards. No more competition. No more opinions. The world is a beautiful utopia where there's no opinion and no standard for excellence.

Anyway, I'm always striving to be better than I was yesterday, and I'm not a close-minded person. I try to embrace all genres of music, and I'm the one who's constantly preaching that classical guys with their noses up in the air could learn a thing or two from cutting edge musicians doing trendy and underground music, and that guys on the opposite end of the spectrum could do with learning some of the traditional musical knowledge that human beings have loved and prized for centuries. In fact, I'm probably one of the very few people at KVR who is constantly pushing that ideal--that we should embrace every genre and try to be as versatile as we can be, without prejudice and without reservation. If the fact that I feel there is some kind of standard for excellence in music regardless of genre makes me a fascist, then I think it's just unfair. Seriously, if I asked you to name your top 3 soundscape/noise/ambient artists, how would you go about making that choice? What parameter for excellence would you use to judge? Are you now a fascist now that you've applied that kind to thinking into your utopian world?

Once again, I remind you to re-read what I wrote about Sakamoto. It shows that I'm not who you think I am. He's the musician I respect the most on this planet yet I think his experiment/ambient/soundscape work is mediocre and nothing I'd care to listen to, while there are musicians without an ounce of his training and skill making better music in that genre than he does. Am I still a fascist?

[eduardo_b]

I've read the last few pages and see the thread has resumed, for the most part, a more civilized discussion. I'm not going to take on any of this because there's no point.

I do stand by my statement that originality is overrated. It's a comparative statement. Not about music skills, talent, training, genres or followers vs leaders, but about not assuming that anything not original is simply the same old thing, copying what others have already done. Anyone who loves the blues, rock, hip hop, electronica or whatever knows full well that very little of it is "original," because by definition a genre only exists on the basis of the similarities of the music within it. It's doubtful that those defending originality strongly actually create music that fits the concept of original in its purist sense. It's all borrowed and reused, whether consciously or not. Which is fine by me because a lot of great music emerges from each genre as a result of this process.

Finally, stop shooting the messenger. It's one thing to disagree, another thing to make it personal. Friends can and do disagree. But everyone can play nice at the same time.

Some nice posts by the way.

And, yes, I do like typing...or at least communicating.

[vurt]

Do you really choose who you are ?

so what you are saying is, i shouldnt be so down on the miserable wanker critics as its not their fault?

[dan_s]

isn't discussing if your music is original not that original?

[debra1rlo]

isn't discussing if your music is original not that original?

It's ok, we're discussing if everyone else's music is original, not yours or mine.

[ouroboros]

isn't discussing if your music is original not that original?

originally. Now it's hip to be square.

[dirty oscillators]

i don't think Lunatique posted a long enough insight into his mind.

[dirty oscillators]

isn't discussing if your music is original not that original?

It's ok, we're discussing if everyone else's music is original, not yours or mine.

gee Deb, that's original for you to refrain from a discussion about your music.


(kidding!)

[7kilo]

i suppose by posting in this topic one is automatically a follower

[whyterabbyt]

blah blah blah

I'm not going to take on any of this because there's no point.

I do stand by my statement that originality is overrated.

blah blah blah

Finally, stop shooting the messenger.

blah blah

And, yes, I do like typing...or at least communicating.

what a great display of 'communication'. here's a tip; saying something then running away when people challenge it isn't being 'the messenger'. its being 'the troll'.

[shamann]

Now, let's say if there was a competition for soundscape/noise/ambient.

Between music is a marketplace and music is a competition, some folk here sure have some puzzling ideas about music.