What is meant by "academic"

    When I say "academic", I mean valuing somewhat quantifiable skill (IE that can more easily be "graded") rather than emotional connection (and, yes, to an extent entertainment).

  For example, any piece you feel compelled to dance to in free form fashion is likely "non-academic", while the type that requires very precise moves to dance to without looking out of place (IE the type of classical music figure skaters often use) is more "academic".

   Music focused more on art than entertainment certainly has it's place...  But my greater point is that if the entire microtonal scene can't seem to produce anything (even, say, from 5 artists out of hundreds) that doesn't sound painstakingly serious/"non-entertaining"...we have an unbalanced art.  And as
long as we have an unbalanced art, we can expect not to be taken seriously by not just a slight majority, but a huge majority of people...and there's nothing particularly honorable about that (in fact, I don't think it helps the "artsy/experimental" side of our art get taken more seriously either).    

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

[facepalm]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>     When I say "academic", I mean valuing somewhat quantifiable skill (IE that can more easily be "graded") rather than emotional connection (and, yes, to an extent entertainment).
>
>   For example, any piece you feel compelled to dance to in free form fashion is likely "non-academic", while the type that requires very precise moves to dance to without looking out of place (IE the type of classical music figure skaters often use) is more "academic".
>
>    Music focused more on art than entertainment certainly has it's place...  But my greater point is that if the entire microtonal scene can't seem to produce anything (even, say, from 5 artists out of hundreds) that doesn't sound painstakingly serious/"non-entertaining"...we have an unbalanced art.  And as
> long as we have an unbalanced art, we can expect not to be taken seriously by not just a slight majority, but a huge majority of people...and there's nothing particularly honorable about that (in fact, I don't think it helps the "artsy/experimental" side of our art get taken more seriously either).    
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Rather funny to divide music to academic and non-academic. If you mean art music and pop, then there's a lot of art music work which are simple and entertaining, and some pop artists did pretty complex and artistic things.

Art and entertainment are not antagonistic. Art music can be entertaining, and entertaining music can be artistic. Both can inspire to free dancing or mechanically repeated movements - this depends on listener, not on music itself. It has even nothing to do with complexity of music, simple or complex music can be same entertaining and artistic in different balance. Besides there's also some art music without any art inside, and non-entertaining, boring entertaining music.

It's difficult to program such cathegories intentionally before starting the composition. Result comes after publishing the finished work. And it's unpredictable, and depending on many things - target consumer group, promotion, education and experience od listeners... In many cases it depends on listener how /s/he will understand the balance of art and entertainment in some music work. For somebody Ligeti or Varese works are entertaining, for somebody Beatles are too complex.

Using term "unbalanced art" in this connection is strange. If there's a certain balance between form and contents, brain construction and emotions, "what" and "how" (and few more...) then work is good, and automatically it's a piece of art, and of course it can be entertaining as well. This can happen in any music style.

I don't see any necessity to try to get huge majority of people to microtonal music, why. You can't program it, and do it intentionally. And it's vanity, because it needs educated consumers. Educated consumers will never be majority. Problem is not on the side of composers. If some listener's top achievement is to accept some popular easy pieces by Mozart, how you can make him to listen experimental microtonal music? And most of listeners are even not so "advanced". Each music style has its fans, microtonal music as well. We educate our consumers with each new composition. But I don't think they will ever become majority.

Daniel Forro

On 3 Feb 2011, at 5:17 PM, Michael wrote:

> When I say "academic", I mean valuing somewhat quantifiable > skill (IE that can more easily be "graded") rather than emotional > connection (and, yes, to an extent entertainment).
>
> For example, any piece you feel compelled to dance to in free > form fashion is likely "non-academic", while the type that requires > very precise moves to dance to without looking out of place (IE the > type of classical music figure skaters often use) is more "academic".
>
> Music focused more on art than entertainment certainly has it's > place... But my greater point is that if the entire microtonal > scene can't seem to produce anything (even, say, from 5 artists out > of hundreds) that doesn't sound painstakingly serious/"non-> entertaining"...we have an unbalanced art. And as
> long as we have an unbalanced art, we can expect not to be taken > seriously by not just a slight majority, but a huge majority of > people...and there's nothing particularly honorable about that (in > fact, I don't think it helps the "artsy/experimental" side of our > art get taken more seriously either).

...................
I think you guys are all taking this the wrong way.
I'm not saying there's an absolute for art vs. entertainment far as music...but
a continuum...and that most of the stuff that comes out of here is so far toward
the art side people often thing we microtonalists are a bit crazy. As Brian Eno
put it "microtonality, that just produces a lot of good theory and a lot of bad
music". What I'm advocating is a balance between entertainment and art in the
style of music...not a siding against art.

>"I don't see any necessity to try to get huge majority of people to microtonal
>music, why. "
There is no necessity. The necessity is to get them to the point where many
people respect it, not are crazy about it. Take the average musician who has
heard anything microtonal and they will likely give a statement like what Brian
Eno gives above. IMVHO, this is a reflecting of the community's having
virtually no stress on entertainment and almost completely on complexity of art.

Now we have some artists like Sevish who does a lot of stuff middle of the
spectrum (IE artistic and entertaining to a fair share of listeners on and off
the microtonal community)...but they get no where in competitions and rarely
even mentioned in discussions. I'm saying we should at least have a few such
"middle of the road" ambassadors for microtonality who are allowed to be praised
for their contributions toward entertainment without being somewhat
"ex-communicated" for being "anti-art" just because they somewhat focus on
entertainment as well.
Again the problem seems to be, even middle of the road music (both focused
on "art" and "entertainment") doesn't get taken seriously most of the time here,
only much more avant-garde music.

What would happen if the community was at least respected by most
professional musicians and a fair share of listeners? Likely an influx of
microtonal instruments at decent/"non-custom-made" prices, many more gigs for
microtonal musicians, much more microtonal music to listen to, many more forums
to discuss microtonal music on....in short, a broader community.

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

you need to listen to what I just posted if you think posts here are
too artsy :-)

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...................
> I think you guys are all taking this the wrong way.
> I'm not saying there's an absolute for art vs. entertainment far as music...but
> a continuum...and that most of the stuff that comes out of here is so far toward
> the art side people often thing we microtonalists are a bit crazy.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> ...................
> I think you guys are all taking this the wrong way.
> I'm not saying there's an absolute for art vs. entertainment far as music...but
> a continuum...and that most of the stuff that comes out of here is so far toward
> the art side people often thing we microtonalists are a bit crazy. As Brian Eno
> put it "microtonality, that just produces a lot of good theory and a lot of bad
> music". What I'm advocating is a balance between entertainment and art in the
> style of music...not a siding against art.

I suggest

1) Get microtuning to work in Ableton live
2) Load up kleismic
3) Replicate deadmau5

or

1) Get microtuning to work in some other DAW with good instruments
2) Load up blackwood
3) Replicate D'angelo

or

1) Get a microtuned acoustic guitar
2) Also make sure blackwood's on it
3) Sing simple-minded yet forward thinking folk songs

or

1) Get a microtuned electric guitar
2) Put 22-tet on it and lots of distortion
3) Play near-just 11-limit distorted power chords while singing about
the intricacies of the philosophy of Carl Jung and/or whatever they
sing about in Tool

Feel free to do any of the above immediately.

-Mike

Well put, Daniel!

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forr� <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Rather funny to divide music to academic and non-academic. If you
> mean art music and pop, then there's a lot of art music work which
> are simple and entertaining, and some pop artists did pretty complex
> and artistic things.
>
> Art and entertainment are not antagonistic. Art music can be
> entertaining, and entertaining music can be artistic. Both can
> inspire to free dancing or mechanically repeated movements - this
> depends on listener, not on music itself. It has even nothing to do
> with complexity of music, simple or complex music can be same
> entertaining and artistic in different balance. Besides there's also
> some art music without any art inside, and non-entertaining, boring
> entertaining music.
>
> It's difficult to program such cathegories intentionally before
> starting the composition. Result comes after publishing the finished
> work. And it's unpredictable, and depending on many things - target
> consumer group, promotion, education and experience od listeners...
> In many cases it depends on listener how /s/he will understand the
> balance of art and entertainment in some music work. For somebody
> Ligeti or Varese works are entertaining, for somebody Beatles are too
> complex.
>
> Using term "unbalanced art" in this connection is strange. If there's
> a certain balance between form and contents, brain construction and
> emotions, "what" and "how" (and few more...) then work is good, and
> automatically it's a piece of art, and of course it can be
> entertaining as well. This can happen in any music style.
>
> I don't see any necessity to try to get huge majority of people to
> microtonal music, why. You can't program it, and do it intentionally.
> And it's vanity, because it needs educated consumers. Educated
> consumers will never be majority. Problem is not on the side of
> composers. If some listener's top achievement is to accept some
> popular easy pieces by Mozart, how you can make him to listen
> experimental microtonal music? And most of listeners are even not so
> "advanced". Each music style has its fans, microtonal music as well.
> We educate our consumers with each new composition. But I don't think
> they will ever become majority.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 3 Feb 2011, at 5:17 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> > When I say "academic", I mean valuing somewhat quantifiable
> > skill (IE that can more easily be "graded") rather than emotional
> > connection (and, yes, to an extent entertainment).
> >
> > For example, any piece you feel compelled to dance to in free
> > form fashion is likely "non-academic", while the type that requires
> > very precise moves to dance to without looking out of place (IE the
> > type of classical music figure skaters often use) is more "academic".
> >
> > Music focused more on art than entertainment certainly has it's
> > place... But my greater point is that if the entire microtonal
> > scene can't seem to produce anything (even, say, from 5 artists out
> > of hundreds) that doesn't sound painstakingly serious/"non-
> > entertaining"...we have an unbalanced art. And as
> > long as we have an unbalanced art, we can expect not to be taken
> > seriously by not just a slight majority, but a huge majority of
> > people...and there's nothing particularly honorable about that (in
> > fact, I don't think it helps the "artsy/experimental" side of our
> > art get taken more seriously either).
>

Cool...but these posts are flooded...could you give me a direct link so I can
listen? :-)

________________________________
From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 11:35:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] What is meant by "academic"

you need to listen to what I just posted if you think posts here are
too artsy :-)

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...................
> I think you guys are all taking this the wrong way.
> I'm not saying there's an absolute for art vs. entertainment far as
music...but
> a continuum...and that most of the stuff that comes out of here is so far
>toward
> the art side people often thing we microtonalists are a bit crazy.

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

Sure

http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=780

online and download

"Kid's Garage Band in 17 Equal"

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cool...but these posts are flooded...could you give me a direct link so I
> can
> listen? :-)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 11:35:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] What is meant by "academic"
>
>
> you need to listen to what I just posted if you think posts here are
> too artsy :-)
>
>

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