KVR Audio

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:05 pm

pHz wrote:
visa tapani wrote: However, if you are saying you need to have a good tone-ear to be a good musician, then you are seriously narrow-minded.
You don't need to have a melody of any sort in a piece of music to make it "good", and this should be obvious.
thank f**k for that ...

slainte rob

he said f**k
hehehehehehehehe

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:07 pm

hi bobby ...

slainte

rob

opiadream · Post by **opiadream** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:11 pm

Robert Randolph wrote:
pHz wrote:
visa tapani wrote: However, if you are saying you need to have a good tone-ear to be a good musician, then you are seriously narrow-minded.
You don't need to have a melody of any sort in a piece of music to make it "good", and this should be obvious.
thank f**k for that ...

slainte rob
he said f**k
hehehehehehehehe

hehehe hehe hehehehe

Muff Wiggler · Post by **Muff Wiggler** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:12 pm

thats exactly the point I was trying to make

saying something is 'good' is meaningless

(it's one reason i never really read music or movie or art 'reviews', at least until after I've had the impression myself of the 'work')

if, whatever you have done, speaks to just one person, and they are taken by it to stop, listen and consider what they are experiencing, what you have done is valid. in fact, arguably as valid as anything else

it doesn't matter for shit if someone else rates it as 'good' or not in relation to i.e. Mozart, Miles Davis, etc.

Now if you want to abandon the concept 'good', and ask an entirely different question - i.e. which trumpet player has the most insane chops, miles davis or, say trent reznor trying a trumpet - well you can make qualitative judgements and find answers.

But, 'why is DJ Shadow more good than Roni Size?'

pfft. you can't even ask that question. You could ask 'Why does he sell more records than roni size', but this has nothing to do with 'good' either.

DJ Shadow bores the pants off me. Doesn't mean you shouldn't like him, or that he's good or bad or relavant or not. Doesn't matter.

If you connect to something, good, and that's all the validation something needs.

Deranger604 · Post by **Deranger604** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:28 pm

I say 'no'. Music is about emotion, and creativity. It doesn't matter what you use, or how you use.

Of course there are the tradional ways, and the more abstract ways. Traditional being the "I'm a songwritter" way, and abstract crossing over to the music + art area of music.

Respect sound as a whole...

visa tapani · Post by **visa tapani** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:58 pm

Muff Wiggler wrote: You could ask 'Why does he sell more records than roni size'

He doesn't

So you couldn't

No seriously, I think Dj Shadow canes.

And even more relevantly, I think there's a danger in going too far into the pc direction of abandoning value-judgements. In real life (as opposed in a discussion of theorethical philosophy) it is remarkably often rather easy to assess the success of a piece of music within given bounds. It is also remarkable how often people actually agree. It's just in discussions like these that the disagreements get more attention...

kaden · Post by **kaden** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:58 pm

A 'musical ear' (however you want to define it) is what allows people with no formal training or innate instrumental skill to actually be musicians.

Even noise artists.

Don't be stupid enough to disagree.

K

visa tapani · Post by **visa tapani** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:02 pm

kaden wrote:Don't be stupid enough to disagree.

Surely I'm not stupid enough to disagree with an eccentric genious.

visa tapani · Post by **visa tapani** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:08 pm

kaden wrote:A 'musical ear' (however you want to define it) is what allows people with no formal training or innate instrumental skill to actually be musicians.

Even noise artists.

Don't be stupid enough to disagree.

K

Shit, I can't refuse. This concept of musical ear you are talking about is complete nonsense - a similarly nondescript and vague term as concepts like inspiration or intuition. I can't believe you are seriously bringing something as ambiguous as that to the debate.

It should also be very obvious that this whatever mystical 'musical ear' -concept you are trying to invent here is very different from the tonal ear I was discussing earlier.

Muff Wiggler · Post by **Muff Wiggler** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:13 pm

visa tapani wrote: He doesn't
So you couldn't

you lost me on one thing though, what does it mean to 'cane'?

I gotta be careful with stuff like that. I went around for ages thinking to say that something was 'pants' meant that it was good!

kaden · Post by **kaden** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:20 pm

Ok...I give up. All you need is creativity and emotion and you're a good musician.

Your parents WERE hippies.

K

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:28 pm

visa tapani wrote:
kaden wrote:A 'musical ear' (however you want to define it) is what allows people with no formal training or innate instrumental skill to actually be musicians.

Even noise artists.

Don't be stupid enough to disagree.

K
Shit, I can't refuse. This concept of musical ear you are talking about is complete nonsense - a similarly nondescript and vague term as concepts like inspiration or intuition. I can't believe you are seriously bringing something as ambiguous as that to the debate.

It should also be very obvious that this whatever mystical 'musical ear' -concept you are trying to invent here is very different from the tonal ear I was discussing earlier.

I think a musical ear is basically the opposite of tone deaf. As there are people who are tone deaf I think musical ear is a suitabe description for those who are not tone deaf. A musical ear does have levels and does improve in it's note recognition, key recognition and overall peerception of the music (harmonies, dissonance ect).

That is not to be confused with perfect pitch which about 1 in 50 of those who claim to have perfect pitch in fact do. However someone with a musical ear (as opposed to tone deaf) can nurture and train it to near perfection if not perfection itself.

However it's still more a part of brain perception then it is about the ear so change the term musical ear to musically perceptive, that's what I consider a musical ear...

Deranger604 · Post by **Deranger604** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:33 pm

kaden wrote:Ok...I give up. All you need is creativity and emotion and you're a good musician.

Your parents WERE hippies.

K

You're an idiot if you don't read between the lines of that sentence about creativity.

kaden · Post by **kaden** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:45 pm

I've played with guys with outlandishly world-class chops, and not even the smallest amount of musicality, and I've played with guys who could barely find middle C on a piano but who were so musical their farts woulda made somebody's end-of-year top ten (Mark Spybey from DVOA springs to mind immediately).

It's nothing to do with pitch, or tonal awareness, and it is *absolutely* a vague and nebulous quality, but this basal, innate *understanding* of what makes a combination of sounds 'musical' is an essential thing nonetheless. It's how noise becomes music.

Creativity has nothing to do with it. Neither does emotion. Or instrumental ability. Or ear training. Or theory.

K

Deranger604 · Post by **Deranger604** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:53 pm

First off I said... Music IS ABOUT emotion and creativity.

According to you being a good musician is nothing.

Creativity has nothing to do with it. Neither does emotion. Or instrumental ability. Or ear training. Or theory.

If your so damn smart, and only one here allowed an opinion... Then enlighten us. Please.

Do you have to play an instrument?