] [Thread Prev
Re: the diatonic-chromatic-noise paradigm
Makes me remember last year when I was reminded (by the advertising
at a festival I was attending) that "some music is interesting
because it sounds unpleasant". That line really made me stop and
think for a while. Now, related to Kris' post you should not forget
that some people listen to music to gain feelings of well being,
while others may also listen to music as a way of undertaking a risky
somewhat painful journey to explore unknown territories.
According to your definitions, Kris, I guess I'm the kind of person
that don't care much about how some music was created.
Of course an exception is conceptual arts, but then it's up to the
artist to make any important concept explicit to the consumer.
Greetings from Sweden
---> iTunes Music Store (digital)
On Jul 18, 2005, at 13:21, Hartung, Kris wrote:
> I know, it's crazy how far, complex, and off the deep end one can
> go, yet still do something that might appeal to world. I supposed
> I could learn how to play the guitar, but finger every single note
> up or down exactly 1/4 of a tone, just to keep busy for another 10
> years, yet make music that has some popular appeal.
> You make me think of something someone once said to me about my
> music that made me step back and re-evaluate what I was doing
> artistically...and it applies to looping and improvisation. It has
> to do with the "process" involved with creating music vs. the just
> the output by and in itself. It must be how peoples' brains work
> when they try to understand music, but I have met some people who
> are only interested in the nature of the final sonic output of a
> composition, and not "how" or the process by which it was created.
> For example, one of us in this discussion group could create a
> totally improvised looping composition that has multiple layers and
> take several minutes to build, or someone else could possibly have
> created the same composition, or something very similar, by writing
> out all the parts in advance, scoring it out, and then recording it
> via traditional multi-tracking technology. In contrast, someone
> could use some compositional method to create a piece of music, one
> that involves some complex mathematics or playing approach, and
> someone else could possibly perform a similar piece off the top of
> their head with no methodology. These are extreme examples, of
> course, but for me, the process is very important, just as
> important as the emotion that arises from the final output, and has
> a lot to do with how I frame a piece of music and understand it.
> Others are more interested in how the final output makes them
> feel....they are not interested in the non-tangible aspects of the
> final song and how it was created, as if that doesn't really add
> anything significant to the final output...that has to be added or
> tacked on "conceptually" to the composition by the listener, and
> factored into the evaluation. I think that is really interesting -
> how people combine inherent and non-inherent characteristics to
> define an object....it can get so wonderfully complicated and
> fuzzy, and generate all sorts of contradictory conceptions of
> things...I love contradictions, anything and everything that forces
> us to re-evaluate the so-called truth of the matter.
> In any event, if I recall my interaction with this reviewer
> correctly, I was raving about the process by which I created some
> tune of mine, and the other person basically didn't care...it was
> all about the final output...they didn't like it (how it made him/
> her feel), and no amount of information regarding "how" the
> composition was created would change his/her feelings. I don't
> think there is anything right or wrong with this way of thinking/
> feeling...it is just a facet of the diversity of human emotion and
> the thought (or lack thereof) that goes into liking music. Again,
> I think it is just how peoples' brains are wired. I have to remind
> myself of this frequently when people try to understand or react to
> anything I compose that involves looping and improvisation. Some
> people just aren't concerned with the process of the composition,
> but the inherent properties of the composition itself. We can't
> force or obligate anyone include the non-intrinsic characteristics
> of a a piece of music in their emotional judgement of the music.
> And if you think about it, if someone, many years from now (or an
> alien from another world) were to find a CD that had a bunch of our
> looping music on it, but there was no literature that explained the
> process by which we created the music, all this being might be have
> to base their affinity or lack of affinity with the music IS the
> output itself and the raw, intrinsic characteristics of the music.
> We wouldn't have the luxury of them knowing how we created the
> music to appreciate the process and hard work involved in that
> facet of the composition. So it appears to me that there are
> intrinsic and non-intrinsic characteristics that we can pack, or
> not pack into a concept that defines a piece of music....or any
> "thing" for that matter. Sometimes we grow so fond of the non-
> intrinsic characteristics of music, that we begin to believe
> ourselves that they are really intrinsic properties of the music...
> or at least we talk in a way that implies this; whereas
> philosophically, we can't really maintain this position.
> Thanks for providing the spring-board for me to wander, Monica. :)