Composition/emotion

Cameron...I said emotional and spiritual DEPTH...I think there's a place for all sorts of expression in music (and any art). There's angry and joyous blues tunes, folk music about murder and suicide, political songs about tyrants and heroes, songs about horses and camels; there are no boundaries to what art can, or should, express. But, some folks are gonna be better at expressing things than others...a great artist can most likely write a better song about anger than a mediocre musician can. Yeah, the emotional content of art is one component...but for me, if I'm not telling a meaningful story with my music, I don't care to be doing it...not much point. I hear all sorts of musicians with good "technical" skills, such as very fast or complex playing techniques...but, without any emotional/spiritual depth, it's a waste of time for me. Bach dedicated many of his works to the glory of God...and I personally feel he was one of the deepest musicians, emotionally and spiritually, that ever lived...his music has profound meaning for me (and many others). And if an artist doesn't care to be involved with the deeper meanings of his/her art, ok by me. Not sure that quality can ever be "proved..." We are all at different levels of emotional/spiritual development as humans anyway, so the way we perceive life/art depends very heavily on who we are in the first place...some people ARE deeper/wiser/more profound than others...and that will be reflected in everything they do.

I thought the Sex Pistols were abominable as musicians, but they sure made an impression on a lot of folks. I knew a lady that went into tears over John Denver's music, but it's pretty superficial to me. And hearing Neil Young's "Harvest Moon" on the radio one night made me weep; incredibly "simple" tune, but boy, what a feeling he communicates. Marty Robbins's ballad "They're Hanging Me Tonight" is about a cowboy who murders his ex and her new lover...and it has 4 chords; but seeing as he was one of the all time great American singers, backed by the best musicians in the world, it is indeed a profound and moving experience to listen to it. Give me great artists playing/composing deep and profound music, that's where I live...best...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Depth" is once again about quantity. It's like "powerful" or "successful". How about a powerful stench, or a successful serial murderer? In and of themselves these are mechanical properties, devoid of any intrinsic "good" or "bad".

My music is ultimately all about emotion, and some people connect.
But that's true of ALL music. So you can't "rank" music without
either establishing agreed-upon technical/formal standards, or counting listeners. The validity of counting listeners can described with a simple question: "Welcome to McDonalds- may I take your order?"

Anyway these lingering fetid racist/sexist/classist concepts like treating emotion and thought like they are two different things rather than hopelessly-entangled/synaesthetic/contiuum etc. make me puke. How often do hear people talking about how intellectual African-American music is? A Love Supreme is a staggering intellectual achievement.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:
>
>
> Cameron...I said emotional and spiritual DEPTH...I think there's a place for all sorts of expression in music (and any art). There's angry and joyous blues tunes, folk music about murder and suicide, political songs about tyrants and heroes, songs about horses and camels; there are no boundaries to what art can, or should, express. But, some folks are gonna be better at expressing things than others...a great artist can most likely write a better song about anger than a mediocre musician can. Yeah, the emotional content of art is one component...but for me, if I'm not telling a meaningful story with my music, I don't care to be doing it...not much point. I hear all sorts of musicians with good "technical" skills, such as very fast or complex playing techniques...but, without any emotional/spiritual depth, it's a waste of time for me. Bach dedicated many of his works to the glory of God...and I personally feel he was one of the deepest musicians, emotionally and spiritually, that ever lived...his music has profound meaning for me (and many others). And if an artist doesn't care to be involved with the deeper meanings of his/her art, ok by me. Not sure that quality can ever be "proved..." We are all at different levels of emotional/spiritual development as humans anyway, so the way we perceive life/art depends very heavily on who we are in the first place...some people ARE deeper/wiser/more profound than others...and that will be reflected in everything they do.
>
> I thought the Sex Pistols were abominable as musicians, but they sure made an impression on a lot of folks. I knew a lady that went into tears over John Denver's music, but it's pretty superficial to me. And hearing Neil Young's "Harvest Moon" on the radio one night made me weep; incredibly "simple" tune, but boy, what a feeling he communicates. Marty Robbins's ballad "They're Hanging Me Tonight" is about a cowboy who murders his ex and her new lover...and it has 4 chords; but seeing as he was one of the all time great American singers, backed by the best musicians in the world, it is indeed a profound and moving experience to listen to it. Give me great artists playing/composing deep and profound music, that's where I live...best...Hstick
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

Neil Haverstick wrote:
> We are all at different levels of emotional/spiritual development as >humans anyway, so the way we perceive life/art depends very heavily >on >who we are in the first place...some people ARE deeper/wiser/more >profound than others...and that will be reflected in everything they >do.

Ancient civilizations were overflowing with profound and gorgeous art.
If there is any such thing as "proof" of relevence and quality, the art of these characters is the art that has stood the test.

Ancient civilizations also practiced slavery, genocide, and treating women like cattle, early and often. Would you say that these things are signs of some kind of higher spiritual development? I'd say not.

One of the most ancient human artforms is abstract patterns by anonymous authors. This tradition lives in the music of our times in the form of such things as algorithmic composition. I don't do algorithmic composition, but I have great respect for the ego-free carrying of an ancient torch. I perceive emotion in ALL music.

Don't forget cannibalism!
But I don't know, slavery and genocide, at least, haven't just plain disappeared, more like adapted to a new environment where they have to be camouflaged. You can't say inhumane things no longer happen. You can say people find them unpleasant and don't want to hear about them.
Also, the people creating that beautiful art weren't necessarily the same people impaling each other and so on.

-Chuckk

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Ancient civilizations also practiced slavery, genocide, and treating women like cattle, early and often. Would you say that these things are signs of some kind of higher spiritual development? I'd say not.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:
>
Neil:
>can ever be "proved..." We are all at different levels of emotional/spiritual development as humans anyway, so the way we perceive life/art depends very heavily on who we are in the first place...some people ARE deeper/wiser/more profound than others...and that will be reflected in everything they do.

Me:
This sounds a little weird to me. Are there levels of emotional development? Are some "higher" or "lower" than others? Is there a goal? Is there a contest to try to be deeper than others?
If you listen to him talk, Steve Vai can be pretty emotional and deep and profound, but to me his music doesn't convey any of that. Maybe John Lennon is an example of someone who was reportedly a *royal* asshole, but made music that profoundly affected millions with its emotional depth.
I tend to be with you on the point that some technically advanced music just doesn't do anything for me, but maybe that reflects the level of sophistication of the listener as well.

Neil:
> I thought the Sex Pistols were abominable as musicians, but they sure made an impression on a lot of folks. I knew a lady that went into tears over John Denver's music, but it's pretty superficial to me. And hearing Neil Young's "Harvest Moon" on the radio one night made me weep; incredibly "simple" tune, but boy, what a feeling he communicates. Marty Robbins's ballad "They're Hanging Me Tonight" is about a cowboy who murders his ex and her new lover...and it has 4 chords; but seeing as he was one of the all time great American singers, backed by the best musicians in the world, it is indeed a profound and moving experience to listen to it. Give me great artists playing/composing deep and profound music, that's where I live...best...Hstick
>

Me:
That's great, but when you start to suggest something universal based on your personal enjoyment of certain tunes, which is in fact largely influenced by what kind of day you're having, the weather, and what you had for breakfast, it starts to sound like you're discounting other people's wonderful profound emotional moments, which maybe happened with another soundtrack. I for one really like (but not love) John Denver. I've had some profound moments from his stuff. I also hated that "Hey There Delilah" song a couple years ago with all the passion I could muster, but it deeply moved millions of people. Should I conclude that I have a higher level of emotional development than they do, or vice-versa?

-Chuckk

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "touchedchuckk" <BadMuthaHubbard@...> wrote:
>
> Don't forget cannibalism!
> But I don't know, slavery and genocide, at least, haven't just plain disappeared, more like adapted to a new environment where they have to be camouflaged. You can't say inhumane things no longer happen. You can say people find them unpleasant and don't want to hear about them.
> Also, the people creating that beautiful art weren't necessarily the same people impaling each other and so on.

Certainly- inhumane, or, better said, sadly, "human", things happen all the time. Surely we all know excellent artists who are insufferable people. And we're all part and parcel of whatever goes on in our culture, whether we like it or not.

"Good art = higher spiritual development" is simply false.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:32 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> "Good art = higher spiritual development" is simply false.

Perhaps "good art = higher communicational ability" is more like it.

-Mike

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "touchedchuckk" <BadMuthaHubbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget cannibalism!
> > But I don't know, slavery and genocide, at least, haven't just plain disappeared, more like adapted to a new environment where they have to be camouflaged. You can't say inhumane things no longer happen. You can say people find them unpleasant and don't want to hear about them.
> > Also, the people creating that beautiful art weren't necessarily the same people impaling each other and so on.
>
> Certainly- inhumane, or, better said, sadly, "human", things happen all the time. Surely we all know excellent artists who are insufferable people. And we're all part and parcel of whatever goes on in our culture, whether we like it or not.
>
> "Good art = higher spiritual development" is simply false.
>

Agreed.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:32 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > "Good art = higher spiritual development" is simply false.
>
> Perhaps "good art = higher communicational ability" is more like it.
>
> -Mike
>

That is more sensible, but are you still judging by brute quantity? Would you rather bring profound and lasting joy to a lone individual, the only one on earth who made a connection with some crappy tune you made, or give a pleasant feeling to millions?

But mostly the danger is in confusing the "good" of "good art" with "good" in general, I think.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:31 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps "good art = higher communicational ability" is more like it.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>
> That is more sensible, but are you still judging by brute quantity? Would you rather bring profound and lasting joy to a lone individual, the only one on earth who made a connection with some crappy tune you made, or give a pleasant feeling to millions?

Those are simply two different ways of communication: shooting for
highly specialized targeting for a certain smaller group of people
("high brow" art; in your example, this group is a single lone
individual), vs shooting for the most broadly applicable targeting for
the largest group of people possible ("low brow" art; in your example,
millions, perhaps spanning different cultures and continents, etc).

Or maybe you end up building a work of art simply for yourself, to
elegantly represent a concept so as to establish it firmly in your
mind for later. Then your goal is to communicate most strongly to your
current or future self, or maybe even your past self if that's how
you're thinking about it, or maybe you want to communicate it to God,
if that's what you believe in. None of these things are "better," but
what is "better" is well you end up achieving what you're aiming for.

> But mostly the danger is in confusing the "good" of "good art" with "good" in general, I think.

On a related note, what's the point of being a great communicator if
you're a liar?

-Mike

I think a liar would be most concerned of all with "good communication". The "great dictators" of the 20th century
were downright obsessed with "good communication", and heaven
knows they were lying incessantly. It is good to note that they
all were insistent, even lethally so, that music must communicate with "the people" in order to qualify as music.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:31 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps "good art = higher communicational ability" is more like it.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> >
> > That is more sensible, but are you still judging by brute quantity? Would you rather bring profound and lasting joy to a lone individual, the only one on earth who made a connection with some crappy tune you made, or give a pleasant feeling to millions?
>
> Those are simply two different ways of communication: shooting for
> highly specialized targeting for a certain smaller group of people
> ("high brow" art; in your example, this group is a single lone
> individual), vs shooting for the most broadly applicable targeting for
> the largest group of people possible ("low brow" art; in your example,
> millions, perhaps spanning different cultures and continents, etc).
>
> Or maybe you end up building a work of art simply for yourself, to
> elegantly represent a concept so as to establish it firmly in your
> mind for later. Then your goal is to communicate most strongly to your
> current or future self, or maybe even your past self if that's how
> you're thinking about it, or maybe you want to communicate it to God,
> if that's what you believe in. None of these things are "better," but
> what is "better" is well you end up achieving what you're aiming for.
>
> > But mostly the danger is in confusing the "good" of "good art" with "good" in general, I think.
>
> On a related note, what's the point of being a great communicator if
> you're a liar?
>
> -Mike
>

Note that Bush was a 21st Century dictator, and didn't give a damn about good communication.

-Chuckk

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I think a liar would be most concerned of all with "good communication". The "great dictators" of the 20th century
> were downright obsessed with "good communication", and heaven
> knows they were lying incessantly. It is good to note that they
> all were insistent, even lethally so, that music must communicate with "the people" in order to qualify as music.
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:31 AM, cameron <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps "good art = higher communicational ability" is more like it.
> > > >
> > > > -Mike
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is more sensible, but are you still judging by brute quantity? Would you rather bring profound and lasting joy to a lone individual, the only one on earth who made a connection with some crappy tune you made, or give a pleasant feeling to millions?
> >
> > Those are simply two different ways of communication: shooting for
> > highly specialized targeting for a certain smaller group of people
> > ("high brow" art; in your example, this group is a single lone
> > individual), vs shooting for the most broadly applicable targeting for
> > the largest group of people possible ("low brow" art; in your example,
> > millions, perhaps spanning different cultures and continents, etc).
> >
> > Or maybe you end up building a work of art simply for yourself, to
> > elegantly represent a concept so as to establish it firmly in your
> > mind for later. Then your goal is to communicate most strongly to your
> > current or future self, or maybe even your past self if that's how
> > you're thinking about it, or maybe you want to communicate it to God,
> > if that's what you believe in. None of these things are "better," but
> > what is "better" is well you end up achieving what you're aiming for.
> >
> > > But mostly the danger is in confusing the "good" of "good art" with "good" in general, I think.
> >
> > On a related note, what's the point of being a great communicator if
> > you're a liar?
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:11 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I think a liar would be most concerned of all with "good communication". The "great dictators" of the 20th century
> were downright obsessed with "good communication", and heaven
> knows they were lying incessantly. It is good to note that they
> all were insistent, even lethally so, that music must communicate with "the people" in order to qualify as music.

I've noticed that Godwin's law applies to you more than to other
people on this list.

-Mike

And I've noticed that few people seem to have a high enough opinion of music to even consider the idea that it is far greater than all this stuff about communication and emotion and technique, and is something that simply IS. Like a force of nature. All these nice side-effects and McGuffins don't define music. It is defined by itself. Ineffable. Or, effable only in music itself.

Therefore you should get your synth problems solved post haste and this conversation be continued in music.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:11 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
've noticed that Godwin's law applies to you more than to other
> people on this list.
>
> -Mike
>

OK, OK. We heard it. Now can we get back to music, please?

> ... Godwin's law