What

Why does music have to always be placed side by side with language?

There is a communicative process in music. I think it's more indirect than anything we might typically call a "language". It's close enough that I really don't see the point in arguing the semantics of it.

I think some *kids* are just too lazy to study everything that they can.

It basically works like this

"If I don't understand something' date=' it isn't good"[/quote']

I think you have a good point, but I'm a firm believer in the fact that education today is nothing but memorization and regurgitation until one gets to higher levels in college. By then, what's the point? Your brain is malnourished from a lack of any intelligent thought process for almost 20 years. An environment like that rarely establishes any kind of interest in the unknown.

I think that it more often works like this:

"If I don't understand something, I'm too exhausted from being force fed all the other crap for the last 20 years that I'll probably never use. It just isn't worth it."

I think that's the mentality behind the "laziness" if you ask me.

I don't believe there should be much more communicative in music other than just sounds. I write down instructions for other people to produce a sound which I want you to hear. That's as far as communication in composition goes, in my opinion.

I don't believe music naturally has a "sad" or "happy" feeling to it, or that a composer "means" something when he writes something.

But that's just me.

And I also think that, although you are right in challenging the educational system of many countries (let me remind you that it's not the same in all countries, or even within the same country in different areas of that country, or in fact within different cities of that area, or different schools of that city) (and it all boils down to the teacher and the individuals, and the education they've had in terms of family environment), I think it's more of a western thing, we're generally afraid of change. And change is involved in anything trying to shake what we already know or take for granted, whether in terms of what we consider "nice sounding" music, religion, beliefs, or just life.

And as always,

"[...] you have to choose between what is right and what is easy... because what is easy is often not right." -Albus Dumbledore

Why does music have to always be placed side by side with language?

I think there are some obvious parallels between language and music, that help people explain concepts using analogies. I think language is the closest medium to music, especially spoken word, as it is just as temporal and similarly easy to reinterpret.

Additionally, there are rules to language, grammar and such, and those rules can easily be broken for artistic effect - likewise for music. I think the language = music analogy is less effective the closer we get to the present, though.

I don't believe there should be much more communicative in music other than just sounds. I write down instructions for other people to produce a sound which I want you to hear. That's as far as communication in composition goes, in my opinion.

I don't believe music naturally has a "sad" or "happy" feeling to it, or that a composer "means" something when he writes something.

But that's just me.

"Sad" and "Happy" aren't ways I'd describe most of the music I hear either. I think Ancient Voices of Children by Crumb is a good example. He could have chosen to do just about anything "creepy" or "frightening", but the emotive expression I might use to describe it is "Terrified Mourning" based on what I hear. Of course the lyrics/poems Crumb uses (by Frederico Garcia Lorca) clue us into the content of the piece, but even taking this away, the ambiance of the work creates this sensation of terror and horrible sadness. I don't describe the elements of the piece as "happy" or "sad." I think the overall work's emotive intent is blatantly obvious, though.

And that was Lorca's intent as well, channeling the sorrow of children dying into the political climate of the regimes in his country during the Spanish Civil War (where he was murdered by the fascist political group, the Falange). The whole work is about the freedoms that were infringed upon by the political climate he was immersed in. So, I think Crumb had every intent of bringing out this tragic reality in the work. There is also a very pluralistic role in this work. At first listen, one might hear this as a sacred work, but the reality is this piece is highly secular as well. Both of these traits are highly supported by the music.

In short, I think music CAN be nothing more than the sounds the composer decides to use, but I think a composer who thinks in this way sells themselves very, very short. That's just MY opinion, and you can take it for what it's worth.

And I also think that, although you are right in challenging the educational system of many countries (let me remind you that it's not the same in all countries, or even within the same country in different areas of that country, or in fact within different cities of that area, or different schools of that city) (and it all boils down to the teacher and the individuals, and the education they've had in terms of family environment), I think it's more of a western thing, we're generally afraid of change. And change is involved in anything trying to shake what we already know or take for granted, whether in terms of what we consider "nice sounding" music, religion, beliefs, or just life.

And as always,

"[...] you have to choose between what is right and what is easy... because what is easy is often not right." -Albus Dumbledore

Interesting. Who is doing what is right and who is doing what is easy? No offense, but I think the "easy" thing to do in this world is more like how you describe music - not communicative beyond the sounds you choose to use. I believe what is more difficult is to take art to that "next" level and accept its communicative value. Does that make me anymore "right" because of it? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter what I think, but there it is.

That was a nice overview of that piece by Crumb - but it still means nothing as I gave you my opinion and you're trying to prove me something with facts. Which are, in fact, simply interpretations. I find these pieces very beautiful and strong, but not necessarilly terribly emotional. And social comments is a different topic. Some composers are highly motivated by social/cultural events, some others are not. Cardew's latest pieces were written when he got a lot more interested in the student movement of the time - I really think they're horrible in relation to his previous output, though.

And I never said that music "can't" be anything. I just said what *I* believe music should be, and that's why I'm writing *my* music and not someone elses. And I think that's where it ends. I don't see any reason why you should continue argueing against my opinion and aesthetics of music, it seems irrelevant.

In regards to the second part of your reply, I think "easy" is different than "simple". Cage's 4'33" is certainly a simple piece, but I don't think he found it easy to write. And that piece has a lot of extra musical ideas attached to it, but also musical (according to Cage) (and others).

Personally I believe it takes a lot more effort to get out of yourself, out of your habits, out of context, and try to hear sounds for what they are, just simply sounds without any connotations (it's the same with a lot of things, like everyday physical materials - it's a lot harder to see marble as anything else other than a material for sculptures, buildings, or utensils, and people will usually note its functional properties instead of its physical ones, the ones they see and feel when they experience marble for marble's sake) than just take things as they have been imposed upon you and use them/write around them. I find it a lot more difficult to move out of your comfort zone rather than establish yourself more into it.

And when I'm quoting Dumbledore on what's right and easy, I'm just saying that people do a lot of things because it's easier for them, without that meaning it's best for them. And usually, the better things for you (or the world) are the ones that require a bit more effort. Recycling requires effort, losing weight requires effort, working requires effort, reading books require effort (more so than, say, audio books) etc. People don't cook because it requires effort, and because it's easier to just have take-aways or order something or eat pre-cooked food from a supermarket. People don't go to the markets because it's easier to just go around the corner at the local supermarket. And so on, and so on.

I feel like I'm being a little bit misinterpreted here, especially on the issue of opinion which I've stated very clearly in my previous posts, yet you seem to have a tendency to just counter everything a person whom you disagree with says, even if that's just their opinion :X

just compose whatever that makes you happy. i wouldnt even think about: "oh, i should compose something 'new' cus i should." or something.

I don't believe there should be much more communicative in music other than just sounds. I write down instructions for other people to produce a sound which I want you to hear. That's as far as communication in composition goes, in my opinion.

I don't believe music naturally has a "sad" or "happy" feeling to it, or that a composer "means" something when he writes something.

I would think that, as far as that goes, the idea of music is to communicate that which cannot be communicated otherwise? :thumbsup:

I don't aim to communicate anything in my music.

That was a nice overview of that piece by Crumb - but it still means nothing as I gave you my opinion and you're trying to prove me something with facts. Which are, in fact, simply interpretations. I find these pieces very beautiful and strong, but not necessarily terribly emotional. And social comments is a different topic. Some composers are highly motivated by social/cultural events, some others are not. Cardew's latest pieces were written when he got a lot more interested in the student movement of the time - I really think they're horrible in relation to his previous output, though.

And I never said that music "can't" be anything. I just said what *I* believe music should be, and that's why I'm writing *my* music and not someone elses. And I think that's where it ends. I don't see any reason why you should continue arguing against my opinion and aesthetics of music, it seems irrelevant.

Backpedaling for the win, eh?

Look, you said you don't understand why people place music and language side by side. You said music doesn't communicate anything. I point to an example where music clearly communicates a pretty specific emotive kind of idea. It's well-supported in the context of the work as well as some of the writings about the work by others.

So, I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Seems to me like you're backpedaling. "Well, it's my opinion and aesthetics of music, so your opinion is irrelevant." Please... spare me.

In regards to the second part of your reply, I think "easy" is different than "simple". Cage's 4'33" is certainly a simple piece, but I don't think he found it easy to write. And that piece has a lot of extra musical ideas attached to it, but also musical (according to Cage) (and others).

Many of the ideas in Cage's 4'33" happened after-the-fact. All this "philosophical" discussion about what it means came much, much later. The only thing Cage had to formulate in this work was the form, which he did quite "easily" or "simply" using mathematics (I don't know what calculations he used, but I don't really care either). There's no deeper meaning for me in this work. It's a philosophical meandering through the nature of sound and silence. Glad you like it though.

Personally I believe it takes a lot more effort to get out of yourself, out of your habits, out of context, and try to hear sounds for what they are, just simply sounds without any connotations (it's the same with a lot of things, like everyday physical materials - it's a lot harder to see marble as anything else other than a material for sculptures, buildings, or utensils, and people will usually note its functional properties instead of its physical ones, the ones they see and feel when they experience marble for marble's sake) than just take things as they have been imposed upon you and use them/write around them. I find it a lot more difficult to move out of your comfort zone rather than establish yourself more into it.

I can see where the effort goes into this, but one of the things I find most troubling is this idea of a "comfort zone" and "getting out of it." Look, there's no zone for me in music. I'll use just about anything that inspires me. I imagine this holds true for others as well. It's not about being afraid to go outside the mold, even for composers like Cage, Varese, Feldman, and others, because anything goes today. But obviously, these composers found their comfort zone in a different type of aesthetic because that's where their inspiration comes from. I see no sense in referring to "comfort zones" in today's artistic climate. Like I said, anything goes.

And when I'm quoting Dumbledore on what's right and easy, I'm just saying that people do a lot of things because it's easier for them, without that meaning it's best for them. And usually, the better things for you (or the world) are the ones that require a bit more effort. Recycling requires effort, losing weight requires effort, working requires effort, reading books require effort (more so than, say, audio books) etc. People don't cook because it requires effort, and because it's easier to just have take-aways or order something or eat pre-cooked food from a supermarket. People don't go to the markets because it's easier to just go around the corner at the local supermarket. And so on, and so on.

I understood exactly what you meant.

I feel like I'm being a little bit misinterpreted here, especially on the issue of opinion which I've stated very clearly in my previous posts, yet you seem to have a tendency to just counter everything a person whom you disagree with says, even if that's just their opinion :X

Yeah, I feel like I'm being misinterpreted as well. I'm quite often misinterpreted on this forum, because people tend not to think about what I say before they get all angry about it. Most responses I receive are emotively driven. Thanks for at least putting thought into your responses, though. That is very much appreciated :)

I'll disappoint you, but I'm not a huge fan of quote wars. What's more, I don't plan on spending Christmas eve argueing over the internet about opinions.

So, you win. It seems your facts are better than my opinion. :)

I would think that, as far as that goes, the idea of music is to communicate that which cannot be communicated otherwise? :thumbsup:

It's always very dangerous (and often erroneous) to give such simple explanations of what the "idea" or "point" of something is - even more so, if it's about something as many-sided and ambiguous as music (or arts in general). There probably are as many "ideas of music" as there are people creating, or listening to music. For one person a communicative aspect may be central to composing, for another it might be something completely different.

I can see where the effort goes into this, but one of the things I find most troubling is this idea of a "comfort zone" and "getting out of it." Look, there's no zone for me in music. I'll use just about anything that inspires me. I imagine this holds true for others as well. It's not about being afraid to go outside the mold, even for composers like Cage, Varese, Feldman, and others, because anything goes today. But obviously, these composers found their comfort zone in a different type of aesthetic because that's where their inspiration comes from. I see no sense in referring to "comfort zones" in today's artistic climate. Like I said, anything goes.

I don't want to get in the whole "composition and language" discussion, so I will just comment on this. If you don't have any "comfort zones", that's fine and great, but I certainly don't agree that they don't exist in "today's artistic climate". "Anything goes" may be true from a generalised cultural/sociological standpoint, but most of the time it doesn't totally apply to the individual case. Living in a world where it's not "forbidden" to write any kind of music doesn't mean it's all just equal on a smaller scale. All people have some sort of opinions, tastes, prejudices and orientations, influenced by their surroundings, education, personal experiences etc. And since "no man is an island", we are influenced by the tastes of others, in some way. And even without that, we are influenced by what we know and by how well we know it. There are always some musical ideas we are more familiar with, we can relate to better, we have a feeling of "understanding" to some degree. And most of us do have inhibitions, fears, insecurities and blockades of some sort. "Anything goes" sounds nice, but I think in individual practice, the contrary applies much more often to a composer. Even if you don't know any comfort zones, lots (I'd say most) of composers do, whether they are self-imposed or imposed by social circles (often a mixture). I for one have very often found myself not "daring" to compose a certain thing, and probably even more often I have unconsciously done "what I knew would work" without realizing how much I was limiting myself, or in other words: stayed in my comfort zone.

In short: I don't think todays "artistic climate" is quite as indifferent as it's often made out to be. Which has it's positive and negative sides.

I don't want to get in the whole "composition and language" discussion, so I will just comment on this. If you don't have any "comfort zones", that's fine and great, but I certainly don't agree that they don't exist in "today's artistic climate". "Anything goes" may be true from a generalised cultural/sociological standpoint, but most of the time it doesn't totally apply to the individual case. Living in a world where it's not "forbidden" to write any kind of music doesn't mean it's all just equal on a smaller scale. All people have some sort of opinions, tastes, prejudices and orientations, influenced by their surroundings, education, personal experiences etc. And since "no man is an island", we are influenced by the tastes of others, in some way. And even without that, we are influenced by what we know and by how well we know it. There are always some musical ideas we are more familiar with, we can relate to better, we have a feeling of "understanding" to some degree. And most of us do have inhibitions, fears, insecurities and blockades of some sort. "Anything goes" sounds nice, but I think in individual practice, the contrary applies much more often to a composer. Even if you don't know any comfort zones, lots (I'd say most) of composers do, whether they are self-imposed or imposed by social circles (often a mixture). I for one have very often found myself not "daring" to compose a certain thing, and probably even more often I have unconsciously done "what I knew would work" without realizing how much I was limiting myself, or in other words: stayed in my comfort zone.

In short: I don't think todays "artistic climate" is quite as indifferent as it's often made out to be. Which has it's positive and negative sides.

I think today's artistic climate is polarized, sure, and in many different directions... but that polarization is sort of leveling everything out as well, so it's not AS bad as it was 50 years ago either. Just my opinion, but I think people give this "comfort zone" issue a little too much credit. Obviously, in areas where government and authority sets certain musical standards, this isn't going to apply. But by and large, the free societies have no real problems.

Also, if composers are "imposing" a comfort zone on themselves, what is wrong with this? Obviously, some intuitive process is at work. Sure, we have to account for maturity and exposure to different types of music (and schools do this), but when you're past that point and composing what you want to write, this comfort zone need not apply. You reach a grayer area here were it may be a composer's intuition at work that's telling him, "Yeah, this will work and THAT won't work." For the composer, that's realistic and there should be nothing wrong with that. I guess perspective matters in this case. Hopefully, if student composers are exposed to enough different styles, then the comfort zone discussion becomes a moot point.

Oh, I definitely agree it was "worse" 50 years ago. (I'm not meaning this as a qualitative judgement, mind you.)

The problem with your point about there being nothing wrong with your own "comfort zones" after reaching a certain point is that I don't think there is such a specific point. Is a composer ever fully "matured"? Should it even be the aim of a composer to be "mature"? I don't think any critical composer ever reaches the point where she or he "knows how to compose". Some may think they have arrived at such a point, but interestingly that's often where their music starts losing appeal to me.

I really don't want to make any claims of "what composing should be like". I can only speak of my own experiences, of what music I like and why I think that is the case. And from this perspective, I've always felt more attracted to music that went in some way beyond what the composer did previously, beyond the practices she or he had established for himself, beyond the stable ground into more "risky" areas where success (both from a personal point of view or an external one) was not guaranteed. That doesn't mean I can't also enjoy some more "complacent" or "safe" music, I actually often enjoy listening to such music too, but I find it less inspiring artistically and it is not what interests me as a composer.

Because for me, composing always has to do with a search for something which I can never perfectly reach, but merely approach from different angles. That's why I appreciate it if a composer tries out something new, something unknown, and it really doesn't have to be "revolutionary", it can be something really small.

I simply don't think we are ever "complete", neither as composers, nor as humans. I think taking comfort in your "personal style" is a way of denying this fact, because it's easier and less risky that way. But learning and personal development never stops, exposure to different types of music (or other experiences) never stops, and I don't think it's ever sufficient to just trust your intution blindly, no matter how good the schooling was you received, no matter how many concerts you've been to, no matter how many pieces you have written.

But again, I can't claim that these are universal truths. Those are my personal views on this matter and a composer who creates music for different reason than I do may not find this applicable to her or him at all.

Because for me, composing always has to do with a search for something which I can never perfectly reach, but merely approach from different angles. That's why I appreciate it if a composer tries out something new, something unknown, and it really doesn't have to be "revolutionary", it can be something really small.

I simply don't think we are ever "complete", neither as composers, nor as humans. I think taking comfort in your "personal style" is a way of denying this fact, because it's easier and less risky that way. But learning and personal development never stops, exposure to different types of music (or other experiences) never stops, and I don't think it's ever sufficient to just trust your intution blindly, no matter how good the schooling was you received, no matter how many concerts you've been to, no matter how many pieces you have written.

But again, I can't claim that these are universal truths. Those are my personal views on this matter and a composer who creates music for different reason than I do may not find this applicable to her or him at all.

i like the thought in these paragraphs.

now, about bold statements.

i don't think anyone would have to even try to put 'truth' and 'personal' as opossitions.

it's very simple to see truth as subjective AND universal (or infinite). every subject becomes open for some things (she/he cannot be open for all things because of space and time limitations and because probably there is no set of all things). it doesn't make those things less universal or infinite in character. if you take the universe of thought as infinitely open and endless, so you must take subject's thought (or thought in subject) to be part of that infinity and a piece of it with no essential difference in quality and character.

so, where, your point must make and makes the biggest sense is in ethics deriving from it - knowing that any particular thought (musical, poetical, philosophical) is a part of open infinity, one must (and simply cannot not do so) be faithful to openness and not succumb to any ideology. one must fight for the right to do what he wants to do as long as he understands that all plethora of different thoughts exist and will exist and he must not force them to dissapear. and mustn't force his own thought to become a single one power, because in this he betrays that what gave him the subjective thought in the first place - the infinite thought.

so, while loving what you've been doing for long years, it's almost esssential and refreshing to try to just sort of start anew. from zero (there are lots of zeros). of course it doesn't deny that some can stay in love with one thing forever, it's that they risk of making their love their habit, their one and only, their master, their law, their power and grave.

Oh, I definitely agree it was "worse" 50 years ago. (I'm not meaning this as a qualitative judgement, mind you.)

Certainly not a qualitative judgment on my part either. Just an observation of the environment.

The problem with your point about there being nothing wrong with your own "comfort zones" after reaching a certain point is that I don't think there is such a specific point. Is a composer ever fully "matured"? Should it even be the aim of a composer to be "mature"? I don't think any critical composer ever reaches the point where she or he "knows how to compose". Some may think they have arrived at such a point, but interestingly that's often where their music starts losing appeal to me.

Well, "fully matured" and "matured" are different. I think it's safe to say that a mature composer knows that they have other options but makes certain decisions based on their musical intent. So, while I agree that we should always be "open" to new things, at some point we come to accept what inspires us as legitimate and worthwhile. Forget about "knowing how to compose." There's no mystical boundary that exists anymore between the lay person that wants to write music vs the educated composer that has the knowledge to execute what sounds they intend to reproduce. Both are mutually accepted as artistic renderings of music.

I really don't want to make any claims of "what composing should be like". I can only speak of my own experiences, of what music I like and why I think that is the case. And from this perspective, I've always felt more attracted to music that went in some way beyond what the composer did previously, beyond the practices she or he had established for himself, beyond the stable ground into more "risky" areas where success (both from a personal point of view or an external one) was not guaranteed. That doesn't mean I can't also enjoy some more "complacent" or "safe" music, I actually often enjoy listening to such music too, but I find it less inspiring artistically and it is not what interests me as a composer.

Sure, I respect that there are certain things which interest you that may not interest me. The 'risky' areas just don't seem all that risky to me, knowing what I know now. If we were in the Classical period, I would be more inclined to agree with you. It's just that now an audience, namely composers and other music specialists, exists as an audience for works that might otherwise carry no interest among listeners. I really don't see the point of looking at music as a safe/not-safe kind of medium. It's sound. Composers manipulate sound to express themselves. The end.

Because for me, composing always has to do with a search for something which I can never perfectly reach, but merely approach from different angles. That's why I appreciate it if a composer tries out something new, something unknown, and it really doesn't have to be "revolutionary", it can be something really small.

I appreciate this as well, but probably for different reasons and in a different context that you probably understand by now. I just can't really see anything, ANYTHING in music being "revolutionary" now... simply because what revolutionized music in the past is not what revolutionizes music today. It sounds redundant, but the truth in all of this is simple. Music doesn't really change anymore. It's a melting pot. It's like the good 'ole US of A with its portion of immigrants and its diversity of culture. No criticisms, though. It's great to have the kind of diversity we have. It's just that nothing really surprises me anymore. It's all just the same old, same old.

I simply don't think we are ever "complete", neither as composers, nor as humans. I think taking comfort in your "personal style" is a way of denying this fact, because it's easier and less risky that way. But learning and personal development never stops, exposure to different types of music (or other experiences) never stops, and I don't think it's ever sufficient to just trust your intution blindly, no matter how good the schooling was you received, no matter how many concerts you've been to, no matter how many pieces you have written.

But again, I can't claim that these are universal truths. Those are my personal views on this matter and a composer who creates music for different reason than I do may not find this applicable to her or him at all.

Where is the risk? What is the consequence of feeling "complete" in one's abilities to manipulate sound, especially when said individual has been exposed to the styles that s/he might not otherwise have known about? At some point, composers have to reach that point where they are satisfied that they know enough to express themselves as artists.

Where is the risk? What is the consequence of feeling "complete" in one's abilities to manipulate sound, especially when said individual has been exposed to the styles that s/he might not otherwise have known about? At some point, composers have to reach that point where they are satisfied that they know enough to express themselves as artists.

Well, I look at jazz artists with this. The "complete" ideal means that there is no further progress. Miles Davis vs. Ornette Coleman is a perfect comparison. While Miles incessantly was bouncing around every decade (and less, really), he released key album after key album. Now, Ornette, bless his soul, has released more albums, and had even higher control over them, yet they all "sound like" Ornette. Comparing Kind of Blue to Miles Smiles to scallopes Brew to On The Corner, you see a flux of ideas, a movement. Comparing Something Else to New York is Now to James Blood Ulmer's Tales of Captain Black shows a seeming personal stagnation, at least in playing and compositional style, and instead of a plethora of groundbreaking and important records, one or two easily suffices.

Now you might disagree with the opinions, but the idea holds: if you see yourself as already the ideal, the end of artistic movement, then you won't continue to explore, you'll retread, you'll stop being an artist and start being a machine of commodification, supplying the demand for a particular aspect of you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that in a cosmic sense, just a personal take on things.

Well, I look at jazz artists with this. The "complete" ideal means that there is no further progress. Miles Davis vs. Ornette Coleman is a perfect comparison. While Miles incessantly was bouncing around every decade (and less, really), he released key album after key album. Now, Ornette, bless his soul, has released more albums, and had even higher control over them, yet they all "sound like" Ornette. Comparing Kind of Blue to Miles Smiles to scallopes Brew to On The Corner, you see a flux of ideas, a movement. Comparing Something Else to New York is Now to James Blood Ulmer's Tales of Captain Black shows a seeming personal stagnation, at least in playing and compositional style, and instead of a plethora of groundbreaking and important records, one or two easily suffices.

Now you might disagree with the opinions, but the idea holds: if you see yourself as already the ideal, the end of artistic movement, then you won't continue to explore, you'll retread, you'll stop being an artist and start being a machine of commodification, supplying the demand for a particular aspect of you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that in a cosmic sense, just a personal take on things.

Here is my take on this, because you make a really good point. I just ask myself, "Where does this come from?"

You mention commodity as something a composer becomes as an artist who continues writing similar types of works over and over again, or "retreading" as you apply the term to this condition. I have to wonder why it's all that bad for a composer to reach such a point.

Think of the culinary arts. A chef creates one or more dishes, perfects them, then builds a restaurant around them and sells them as items on a menu. This is just the way it works. Over time, the chef might freshen that menu, adding or removing a dish or two, replacing them with more enticing meals. It's a gradual process that proves itself in every case.

It's still an art form, though. Just because the chef stops creating dishes doesn't mean he stops participating in his art form by reproducing his masterpieces for the public in different settings, with slight variations. People still appreciate the dish, the chef, and the art form over all.

Why should it be any different for composers? I'm not saying a composer SHOULD contribute to his art form in the same way a chef contributes to his, but I'm saying there should be NO difference in the way one composer might continue creating new "recipes" for music while another composer "perfects" the recipes they are satisfied with using.

If that makes any sense to you...

Well, now you're getting into something different. What the chef is doing is more like recordings of performances (if you're just talking about one dish), or seeing the same piece or show performed over and over again (if you're talking about a linked menu).

Now, I tend not to go to the same restaurants over and over again, except for cheapie places for when I'm just hungry. When I'm looking for a gourmet meal, I want something new.

But I think the analogy is more than a little strained here, so I'll go to plastic arts.

There's an artist, George Rodrigue, whose main subject is this folksy-designed blue dog (it's supposedly a loup-garou, but I don't see it). He also has two other main series, one of bayou trees and one of cajuns, but both are internally similar. The only problem is that his works are nearly carbon copies of themselves within these groupings.

I would argue that whichever is the most "representative," the "completed concept," of the series, however you want to subjectively gauge that, is the only piece that is necessary for study and the "highest" art of the series; all the rest are less artistic and more of other things, such as marketing or commodification or whatever.

In the same way, I'd argue that the only culinary art is done when the cook is trying random stuff out in his own kitchen for himself. Once you start selling (moreso marketing or mass-producing, but they're closely linked) it, you start to move away from art and towards not-art, which I subjectively place lower than art.

Getting back on topic, that's the reasoning for thinking that period recreations are a bit iffy in my book: it has a very low chance of being representative for that style, so it's lesser. But as I said, using older ideas in a novel way is totally fine.

And before anyone starts in: Yeah I know my fascination with hyper-dissonance, algorithmic stuff, and serialism are all throwbacks, and could fall under period recreations. Never said I make good music/art.

In the same way, I'd argue that the only culinary art is done when the cook is trying random stuff out in his own kitchen for himself. Once you start selling (moreso marketing or mass-producing, but they're closely linked) it, you start to move away from art and towards not-art, which I subjectively place lower than art.

This really brings to question where the creative process ends in composition. See, culinary arts suffer the same situation (I subjectively think) composers face. They have to perfect their recipes while making them unique to their own artistic tastes. You can say that the "artistic" level ends when the chef just recreates his own dishes, but the subtleties that go into each dish are just as artistic, and it doesn't end with the ingredients. There's also presentation and originality that can be considered.

I think composers are driven/educated to be more concerned about originality than anything else. Who cares about taste? That's "subjective". Who cares about presentation? If it can be performed, then so what? I mean, beyond the simple, basic notation and playable aspects of a work, composers really aren't held to the kind of standards that maybe they should be held to.

But one thing is extremely clear. Once a composer finds that syntax they can work within to create their own music, there's nothing wrong with perfecting that and working with it further. If that means improving on a style with elements from other styles (like improving on a recipe using different ingredients), then I don't see how reproducing more music within that syntax can be considered a "lower form of art."

You're unfairly and quite broadly applying "style copy" or "commodity" to what many (and I might add very well-known) contemporary and traditional composers did to be what they are to us today.

Getting back on topic, that's the reasoning for thinking that period recreations are a bit iffy in my book: it has a very low chance of being representative for that style, so it's lesser. But as I said, using older ideas in a novel way is totally fine.

I think you've confused my position on this entirely, because this is exactly what I've been saying now for about three pages or more.

I waited to address this so I could find the exact quotes I wanted...

Well, I look at jazz artists with this. The "complete" ideal means that there is no further progress. Miles Davis vs. Ornette Coleman is a perfect comparison. ...

...if you see yourself as already the ideal, the end of artistic movement, then you won't continue to explore, you'll retread, you'll stop being an artist and start being a machine of commodification...

VERY good points from Ferk. Miles NEVER stood still...always pushing, always moving. By the time anyone caught on to what Miles was doing, he was on to something else. The consummate musical explorer. On the other hand, Ornette - always lauded as a wildly progressive artist; pushing the boundaries of jazz and music has remained steadfast in his style from the beginning! (ignoring his weird foray into fusion)... Shape of Jazz To Come (1959) and Sound Grammer (2006) show very little in the way of "progression"...

Anyway...here's the quotes which Ferk's post brought to mind:

"My playing is spontaneous, not a style. A style happens when your phrasing hardens" ~ Ornette Coleman

"Free is not a style. It's a personal ability. Playing free is not having to have a style." ~ Ornette Coleman

:hmmm:

Strange words coming from the guy whom I saw play 'Lonely Woman' a couple years ago, sounding virtually identical to the Shape of Jazz to Come version...

"My playing is spontaneous, not a style. A style happens when your phrasing hardens" ~ Ornette Coleman

"Free is not a style. It's a personal ability. Playing free is not having to have a style." ~ Ornette Coleman

:hmmm:

Strange words coming from the guy whom I saw play 'Lonely Woman' a couple years ago, sounding virtually identical to the Shape of Jazz to Come version...

Again, what is with the "progress" or "progressive" mindset in music? It's nothing more than "creative grandstanding" as far as I'm concerned. What I find more ironic about it is that Coleman received the Pulitzer in Music for his music.

What's even more interesting is the amount of criticism he and the Pulitzer selection board received for it from the music community overall (not even for his "lack of progress"). It's laughable. He can't win for losing in the world of music, at least the way I see it. He's criticized for being awarded the Pulitzer as a progressive jazz artist by those who adore tradition (I don't agree with this, but there it is), and he's criticized here for being too traditionally-minded (I guess that's the word for it - being that he's not "progressive enough"). Jeez!

If you compose well, regardless of your originality or the innovations you bring to the table, you're an accomplished artist. Let's just leave it at that, because this is starting to give me a headache. :huh:

Again, what is with the "progress" or "progressive" mindset in music? It's nothing more than "creative grandstanding" as far as I'm concerned. What I find more ironic about it is that Coleman received the Pulitzer in Music for his music.

What's even more interesting is the amount of criticism he and the Pulitzer selection board received for it from the music community overall (not even for his "lack of progress"). It's laughable. He can't win for losing in the world of music, at least the way I see it. He's criticized for being awarded the Pulitzer as a progressive jazz artist by those who adore tradition (I don't agree with this, but there it is), and he's criticized here for being too traditionally-minded (I guess that's the word for it - being that he's not "progressive enough"). Jeez!

If you compose well, regardless of your originality or the innovations you bring to the table, you're an accomplished artist. Let's just leave it at that, because this is starting to give me a headache. :huh:

You misunderstand me.

Perhaps "progress" is the wrong term. Ornette certainly IS progressive in that his music is STILL ahead of it's time; he's been pushing the boundaries of music for a long time, and few musicians have caught up to him. The difference is, that he has a singular vision within which he progresses. While guys like Miles had a more omnidirectional momentum...

Kinda hard to explain... :whistling:

You misunderstand me.

Perhaps "progress" is the wrong term. Ornette certainly IS progressive in that his music is STILL ahead of it's time; he's been pushing the boundaries of music for a long time, and few musicians have caught up to him. The difference is, that he has a singular vision within which he progresses. While guys like Miles had a more omnidirectional momentum...

Kinda hard to explain... :whistling:

Are you saying that Coleman is less progressive because of his more linear vision than guys like Davis? Or are you making any value judgments based on this at all? I'm a bit confused on whether or not you're agreeing or disagreeing with Ferk where it concerns the kind of direction an artist takes... you said you thought Ferk made some excellent points (I'm left to assume that you agree with them). Was this point...

Once you start selling (moreso marketing or mass-producing, but they're closely linked) it, you start to move away from art and towards not-art, [b']which I subjectively place lower than art.[/b]

... one of those points you agreed with? Just wondering.

Are you saying that Coleman is less progressive because of his more linear vision than guys like Davis?

No. I guess it's a different type of progression. Guys like Ornette focus on the microscopic details, refining and defining their style which gets more and more detailed as they go on; Miles focused on the macroscopic, the 360

I just thought it funny that someone with so recognizable a style, would be so outspoken against Style, per se.

:whistling:

Derek Bailey runs into the same problems like that.

AA, don't get me (and probably robin) wrong; I love Ornette, I have a lot of his albums. In the same way, I love AC/DC, and have a lot of their albums; they haven't made a significant style change since For Those About to Rock, and many say even earlier than that.

More to the topic, I'm not a big fan of Jet, who might as well be an AC/DC cover band. Same with Queen vs. The Darkness, or the Melvins and Sonic Youth vs. Nirvana, or 80's NWOBHM vs. 90s and later power-metal groups... It just seems a bit unnecessary.