Symphony #1498 "Line in Woooooow!"

Originally Posted by Dev

That's just where I can't agree with you at all - the system MUST be explained. If there's no instruction, no explanation for how to read this as a musical score, then it isn't a score...

Even if the "system" is just the sentence "interpret this however you like," though that's not MUCH better...

Fair enough, disagree all you want!

To improvisors, the 'system' is ingrained, inferred and implied - and needs no explaining. To solidify it into a rigid 'system' goes against the whole idea. The composer doesn't want to specify "yellow means play fast"...we want to allow the musicians to extract it, and apply their own 'system' and personality so the music can flow organically and simply exist in the moment.

---------------------------------------------------

I'm just trying to get you to see things from a different angle, here. Now, you glazed over this before, so I'll show it to you again:

Can you see how someone might perform differently to each of these images?




I assume you can...

The 'system' in already naturally ingrained in us as human beings...in spontaneous improvisations from graphical scores, we simply allow the music to be; to happen, following the visual cues with regards to whatever we may infer from the images. Every person is going to react differently from another - even from themselves in one moment to the next. BUT, the point is, that the 'system' you so desperately seek is already there...you just can't see it because it's not in the form you're used to seeing.

Now, I don't really want to keep saying the same thing over and over again, so let's just stop.

Again, I'll say (in the nicest, gentlest, and least offensive manner): I hope perhaps someday you understand.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

The 'system' in already naturally ingrained in us as human beings...in spontaneous improvisations from graphical scores, we simply allow the music to be; to happen, following the visual cues with regards to whatever we may infer from the images.

Yes, I can obviously see how those images may elicit some emotion. But just as you say everyone will see it differently, so do I claim that, since only a select few will see a musical idea in it, it can't universally be considered a piece of music. To me, seeing this as music is just one interpretation - which means it can't be called "sheet music" because, just as many WILL see it that way, many will NOT.

On the other hand, sheet music with standard notation, or nonstandard notation with obvious and apparent instruction cannot be interpreted as NOT music because it fits the definition of music - that is, there is some clear instructions on what sounds to produce. That is not the case with this and similar pieces, and the excuse "you should just know it's music already" is as ludicrous as asking me to read your mind.

My thoughts on this.....

There are NO written rules for music (and I mean none, there's nothing in stone anywhere about things like this)

Dev, look dude, you're not God, you never will be, you need to be more willing to learn things, be open to the fact that something you don't get, might actually make sense to someone

I have some personal experience with such things, I have looked at a simple photograph (posted below) and written a piece just by LOOKING at it, it's not like I had a score or was going off of something previous, I was just playing what I felt when I looked at it and that was it, voila



Annnnd....

Here's the piece I wrote, at 2 AM no less, while looking at it

SoundClick artist: William Daniel Kirkland - A steel string playing classical guitarist

So seriously, nobody is in any position to say that one form of inspiration is better than another (and I mean NO one)

EDIT: Bugger that picture's huge...

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

So seriously, nobody is in any position to say that one form of inspiration is better than another (and I mean NO one)

I wish I could underline your post in marker:

FORM
OF
INSPIRATION

This is precisely what I'm arguing. For you, what would you say is the music? The sound file (or to get technical, the sound you produced) or the picture itself? Will you give your composition's credit to the photographer? Would a painter give credit for his painting to a tree? An author, credit to every human on the planet for interacting and providing a basis on which to create believable characters? To all those who are arguing that credit is unimportant in the world, well, good for you. But for the others, when it comes down to it, did YOU compose the piece, or did the person who made a PICTURE?

Originally Posted by Dev

I wish I could underline your post in marker:

FORM
OF
INSPIRATION

This is precisely what I'm arguing. For you, what would you say is the music? The sound file (or to get technical, the sound you produced) or the picture itself? Will you give your composition's credit to the photographer? Would a painter give credit for his painting to a tree? An author, credit to every human on the planet for interacting and providing a basis on which to create believable characters? To all those who are arguing that credit is unimportant in the world, well, good for you. But for the others, when it comes down to it, did YOU compose the piece, or did the person who made a PICTURE?

Absolutely, I was the photographer, so why mention it?

Well OBVIOUSLY I composed it, it was INSPIRED by a photograph that I MYSELF took, you lack any real solid argument here

Almost every single composer and artist I have EVER studied, almost always gave credit to someone or something (A close family member, a painting etc..) for giving them the inspiration for this piece.

now... Did the family member or painting actually WRITE or COMPOSE the piece?

NO, they were INdirectly responsible for it, the only person who is responsible for doing something is the person that does it. For example, if a girl is mad because a boy she liked pissed her off, and she goes and smacks a wall in her anger and hurts her hand, is it the boy's fault?

No it's not, she was still in control and did it herself

The same with inspiration, the inspiration is not responsible for the final creation, the creator is

Will immensely enjoyable piece btw. However, lets say I wanted to play the piece, and I couldn't play by ear; the picture wouldn't suffice really would it?

I see Robin's point now, it is a score if it can be interpreted as music. However, I guess this just comes down to personal taste, but such a score is just too ambiguous for my liking. If I wanted to play Will's piece, I'd need a conventional score. Regardless of whether the picture is a score or not, it's technically not a very good one if it doesn't allow anybody to play the resulting composition.

The point being not that you were or were not "inspired by the image" to create the music that you did.

The point being that the image is not "the notation of the music that you performed".

There is a distinction to be made.

While graphical notation has its place, I believe part of the argument "against" it in this particular case (ol' Pablo, here) is rather that no frame of reference is given from which to begin.

I don't think ANYONE is arguing that an image cannot inspire music.

Let us at least not go off on an unrelated and indefencible tangent.

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

Absolutely, I was the photographer, so why mention it?

Well OBVIOUSLY I composed it, it was INSPIRED by a photograph that I MYSELF took, you lack any real solid argument here

Almost every single composer and artist I have EVER studied, almost always gave credit to someone or something (A close family member, a painting etc..) for giving them the inspiration for this piece.

now... Did the family member or painting actually WRITE or COMPOSE the piece?

NO, they were INdirectly responsible for it, the only person who is responsible for doing something is the person that does it. For example, if a girl is mad because a boy she liked pissed her off, and she goes and smacks a wall in her anger and hurts her hand, is it the boy's fault?

No it's not, she was still in control and did it herself

The same with inspiration, the inspiration is not responsible for the final creation, the creator is

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

The same with inspiration, the inspiration is not responsible for the final creation, the creator is

You realize, you're agreeing with me here. I call the picture inspiration. Other people call the picture the actual piece of music.

Some interesting points brought up by Will, and QCC.

But, I'll keep poking at Dev 'cause it's more fun(ny)

Originally Posted by Dev

Yes, I can obviously see how those images may elicit some emotion. But just as you say everyone will see it differently, so do I claim that, since only a select few will see a musical idea in it, it can't universally be considered a piece of music.

I am in NO way talking universally here - there are no absolutes in music anymore. I'm specifically saying that were I to place those images on a music stand in front of seasoned improvisors, the images would be interpreted musically. Also, as in standard notation, there is a language; of course different performers will interpret differently, but there will be remarkable similarities in their interpretations....

Originally Posted by Dev

To me, seeing this as music is just one interpretation - which means it can't be called "sheet music" because, just as many WILL see it that way, many will NOT.

Again, I'd never call it "sheet-music". I don't give a shit if John Q. Public can recognize it as a "score" or as "sheet-music", but that the musicians can draw something meaningful from it.

Originally Posted by Dev

On the other hand, sheet music with standard notation, or nonstandard notation with obvious and apparent instruction cannot be interpreted as NOT music because it fits the definition of music - that is, there is some clear instructions on what sounds to produce. That is not the case with this and similar pieces, and the excuse "you should just know it's music already" is as ludicrous as asking me to read your mind.

[to someone performing this piece] I don't want you to read my mind...I want you to read your own. It doesn't NEED to fit your definition of music - and this is the whole reason I'm arguing with you!!!:

I want you to realize that there are other perspectives out there. All I want is for one of you kids to admit that PERHAPS your perspective isn't the be-all and end-all of musical interpretation.

...

Originally Posted by Dev

You realize, you're agreeing with me here. I call the picture inspiration. Other people call the picture the actual piece of music.

The photograph, along with the performer, make the music, so you couldn't in this case have one without the other, so I'd say that the photograph is PART of the music

I would call it a piece of music to a certain extent, not to the point of being a "Written Score" since that's something completely different, but like I said earlier, I'd definitely call it a major component of the music

I would be willing to say that the picture could be used in concert, simply just give the artists a copy of the photograph and say "Here's an idea, let's all look at this and turn it into a piece of music, it's not exactly a score, but we can turn it into something cool if we try" That's what I'd be willing to do wit