Symphony #1498 "Line in Woooooow!"

Jose must think we are all too "plebian" to hear his music

So we're all in agreement that jose's work is horseshit then?

Also, what type of graphical score WOULD be appropriate? And why is it that in one picture it's apparent that the composer is musically well-versed, whereas in others (like this), you claim it's obviously a mockery? Or another way, which pictures convey musical knowledge?

At best, I think he was trying to satirically point out Dev's point - that any no-talent hack could produce results passable to the untrained eye.

We've all seen paintings in museums and thought "I could do that"...

...

Same thing.

So we're all in agreement that jose's work is horseshit then?

Also, what type of graphical score WOULD be appropriate? And why is it that in one picture it's apparent that the composer is musically well-versed, whereas in others (like this), you claim it's obviously a mockery? Or another way, which pictures convey musical knowledge?

It's the way it was presented. Honest and serious improvisors or composers working in this medium simply wouldn't have gone about it this way...GENERALLY. Perhaps he is some really pretentious genius. But I doubt it.

It's the way it was presented. Honest and serious improvisors or composers working in this medium simply wouldn't have gone about it this way...GENERALLY. Perhaps he is some really pretentious genius. But I doubt it.

So you're saying, if jose had posted this and along with it explained his notation system or provided some instruction with it pertaining to how it should be played, you would then consider this a score and him a composer (perhaps not a good one but a composer nonetheless)?

Isn't that what I've been saying?

So you're saying, if jose had posted this and along with it explained his notation system or provided some instruction with it pertaining to how it should be played, you would then consider this a score and him a composer (perhaps not a good one but a composer nonetheless)?

Isn't that what I've been saying?

No...He needn't have explained a system, nor given any instructions...remember, there doesn't necessarily need to be any system. Perhaps if he had simply been nicer, and explained himself and the intent behind his "compositions".

No...He needn't have explained a system, nor given any instructions...remember, there doesn't necessarily need to be any system. Perhaps if he had simply been nicer, and explained himself and the intent behind his "compositions".

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, it is simply art that can be interpreted by a performer if he or she so chooses.

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

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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. :hmmm:

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

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....

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 scraggy if John Q. Public can recognize it as a "score" or as "sheet-music", but that the musicians can draw something meaningful from it.

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.

...

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

It's often not about improvisation being 'inspired' by something visual; the visual IS the notated music.

Again, I'd never call it "sheet-music".

So...I think I've missed something here.

If the latter truly is your opinion then we've been in agreement the whole time, yet...a contradiction I see.

So...I think I've missed something here.

If the latter truly is your opinion then we've been in agreement the whole time, yet...a contradiction I see.

Fair enough. I suppose technically it's sheet music, however; I use the term "sheet music" to denote standard notation, in your recognizable form.

I just wouldn't use the words "sheet music" to describe it.

It's just sad (and a little ironic) that one of the most popular composition threads ever started on this forum is one without a single second of actual music.

My thoughts: If Jose wants us to take this seriously, he needs an audio file...which he'll probably never provide. Can we just close this thread?

Yeah, I second the idea of closing this thread. It's unhealthy, this thing.

Yeah, I second the idea of closing this thread. It's unhealthy, this thing.

Why? The original post was perhaps unhealthy, but I think the implications or it and the discussion that ensued were interesting...

Why? The original post was perhaps unhealthy, but I think the implications or it and the discussion that ensued were interesting...

I was thinking that this should at least be moved to off-topic. People have stopped really commenting on the original poster's piece, so it has sort of stopped being a thread that belongs in the uploads section, if you ask me.

Wait...

you mean you guys don't hear anything?:mellow:

*slowly fades out of conversation*