Let the music play

Delance

Victory, you say?
Edx said:
Where are the Da Vincies, or Michelangelos or Picassos?
Da Vinci is not a name. It means "from the city of Vinci". The artist's name is Leonardo.

ace said:
If there are Mozarts and Beethoven's being born then I think they're either being handicapped by a lack of knowledge or held back because people no longer see value in intellectualizing music. The availability of technology is not replacing the fact that music is undervalued.
That's right, even if we had a Mozart today, and even if he had the available knowledge, he would simply not be appreciated.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Delance said:
Da Vinci is not a name. It means "from the city of Vinci". The artist's name is Leonardo.
How many times do we have to tell you not to nitpick over stupid semantic crap? It always turns into stupid bickering and you usually get it wrong to begin with. Stop it.
 

Halman

PSY-YI-YI
Delance said:
Da Vinci is not a name. It means "from the city of Vinci". The artist's name is Leonardo.
Describing where someone was from? A surname would never, ever do that ever.
 

Edx

Spaceman
ChrisReid said:
How many times do we have to tell you not to nitpick over stupid semantic crap? It always turns into stupid bickering and you usually get it wrong to begin with. Stop it.
No its a good point Chris. I really should be more specific, I mean how is anyone going to know who I mean when I talk of about "Da Vinci" in relation to art! ;) ;)
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Well let's not forget the oft overshadowed Bob Da Vinci who's great contributions to the art world left the rest of the world gasping at his innovative toilet seat designs...
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Halman said:
Describing where someone was from? A surname would never, ever do that ever.
Leonardo did not have a surname, as most people during his day. Joan of Arc was not "Miss Of Arc".

There's no such a thing as "Mr. Da Vinci". It's like calling Lawrence of Arabia as "Mr. Of Arabia". I will say no more.
 

Edx

Spaceman
ace said:
I meant that he should spend time figuring out the basics himself before he worried about buying elaborate programs. I really didn't mean that he should go to college or anything, just that he should experiment and learn how to write music before worrying about how to make it sound good.
I know you didnt mean he should go to college, but you did tell him he should learn to write music before he tries any of this stuff. Maybe in your mind you cannot seperate making music, and writing it down. To me its just as silly as saying you cant write a rock song unless you learn to write guitar tabs first. Some people are really good at learning the guitar by ear, in fact I did know someone very good that did just that.


I just don't see the point in not learning the basics in a traditional way.
This is an important point. I think this is why you find it hard to understand where Im coming from. I strongly disliked the idea of learning music theory, becuase I thought it was boring but more importantly it didnt make sence and I couldnt get my head around it. If I was told I had to learn how to write music before I even started to write my own music like you did to the topic poster, well, I just would have given up and done something else if I really believed that. Music academia can often appear stuffy and snobbish and the theory and notation as very scary and difficult. Some people just dont get into orchestral music like that, and whats the wrong with that? Its a very uninspiring way to get into music if your brain just doesnt like the mathematical approach to music that really exemplifies the "traditional" way.

If someone tries hard you really can get quite far doing things by ear, and if they cant they can always go learn it the "traditional" or just give up completely. Those that do give up completly probably didnt have enough drive or inspiration to begin with anyway. If they want to learn it later, then thats fine too. But like I keep telling you, even if you have a degree in music that isnt any guarantee you will make music people will want to listen to or be sucessfull at.

I like to listen to music the makes me feel something. I dont care if the composer had a degree, studied with a great master, or just did it by ear. Regularly those with a ridgid music education dont make me feel anything at all. But the composers I like and listen to that do, and those that dont have a formal music education have talent, ideas and inspiration. Thats what they have in commen. I also know those which did take a degree in music and they say it can take a while to break out of the ridgid mindset they were taught in. One guy told me it took many months before he could even write a note of his own music! But this is something those that start by ear have in abundance, since thats how and why the started in the first place.

In the end those that dont have the drive or the talent wont make it, an education or not.


I think the way that a person crafts their music is a big determiner of its quality. So if the person that has never had any training and doesn't know how to read or write music writes a really great piece of music, would it have been an even better piece of music if he had had more training? Did that person put the maximum amount of effort into that piece of music? If the person with the music degree writes a really bad piece of music, did he put the maximum amount of effort into that piece of music or is he just a bad composer?
What a strange question! :D Because theres always more someone can learn? You really think any composer would tell you they know it all?

As to the second question, I think it was Spielberg who said art is never finished, only abandoned. I dont know anyone that thinks differently, and I heard a seminiar by John Williams where he quotes the same phrase so even he thinks his music isnt as good as it can be. But most of us are never going to be as good as John Willams. If we waited to do music, make a film or paint a picture until we had learnt everything that was possible to learn about the subject to the best of our ability we would literally never start. ;) John Willams certianly didnt start out knowing everything he does now and you could easily say of his old music that it could have been better if only he knew more. So Im not really sure where you were going with this.

Not quite. I'm not saying that classical music is suffocating from a flood of mediocrity. The concert halls certainly aren't being abandoned because orchestras are stuck playing a new composer's poorly written work. They're still playing Mozart and Beethoven. If there are Mozarts and Beethoven's being born then I think they're either being handicapped by a lack of knowledge or held back because people no longer see value in intellectualizing music. The availability of technology is not replacing the fact that music is undervalued.
Personally I dont think Mozart and Beethoven being born today would really make any difference. I think really we are living in a different time, and you bemoaning the lack of Mozarts and Beethovens is just like someone bemoaning the lack Da Vinci's and Picasso's. I think you can certianly say that people dont see art education as important for becoming an artist anymore, dont you think? In fact its even worse considering the bad reputation of 'modern art' and "art students".

I have my own feelings on why concert halls are being abandoned, but I think the orchestras future is in the media. Ie. Thats how it will survive. I really think theres no question that the big film and game projects are really one of the only institutions that can regually afford to spend tens of thosuands for a full professional orchestra. While you blame modern society for not seeing any value in "intellectualizing music", yet Ive heard the same thing said about technology making essentially the same argument again.

Ed
 

ace

Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
Edx said:
I know you didnt mean he should go to college, but you did tell him he should learn to write music before he tries any of this stuff. Maybe in your mind you cannot seperate making music, and writing it down. To me its just as silly as saying you cant write a rock song unless you learn to write guitar tabs first.
It is true that I do see value in knowing how to write music down. I don't think it is difficult for anyone to learn and I don't see a reason to abandon the basic way that music has been recorded and communicated for centuries. It's even especially easy to learn when you've got a program that plays the music you've written as you go along. It's at least as easy as staring at a keyboard and pressing keys.

This is an important point. I think this is why you find it hard to understand where Im coming from. I strongly disliked the idea of learning music theory, becuase I thought it was boring but more importantly it didnt make sence and I couldnt get my head around it. If I was told I had to learn how to write music before I even started to write my own music like you did to the topic poster, well, I just would have given up and done something else if I really believed that. Music academia can often appear stuffy and snobbish and the theory and notation as very scary and difficult. Some people just dont get into orchestral music like that, and whats the wrong with that? Its a very uninspiring way to get into music if your brain just doesnt like the mathematical approach to music that really exemplifies the "traditional" way.
The difference here is that I, like everybody else, was once at a point where I was unfamiliar with the more structured "traditional" way, but I've experienced both sides of the coin. What I think you're doing is what I had described in my third post: You're demonizing music theory. Is telling someone that they should "learn how to write music" before they spend money really that bad? Learning basic things, even on your own, shouldn't be seen as something oppressive. Music academia is stuffy, snobbish and full of really big jerks. I think we've all witnessed that. I just don't blame the centuries of music evolution, that has brought us to this very point, for the actions of jerks.

Music Theory isn't a magic pass to good composition. It also is not a hinderence to good composition. Knowing things about music will not somehow make you a worse musician. It really doesn't make sense.

What a strange question! :D Because theres always more someone can learn? You really think any composer would tell you they know it all?
Of course there's always something more to learn, but people with drive and talent don't sit alone in their rooms thumbing their noses at knowledge that could make them better at what they do. It really doesn't make sense. People don't have to know everything before they begin writing music, but people who stop trying to learn more aren't achieving their full potential. That's what my point is: Someone who refuses to write music to their full potential by intentionally remaining ignorant is not crafting their music with great quality.

Personally I dont think Mozart and Beethoven being born today would really make any difference. I think really we are living in a different time, and you bemoaning the lack of Mozarts and Beethovens is just like someone bemoaning the lack Da Vinci's and Picasso's. I think you can certianly say that people dont see art education as important for becoming an artist anymore, dont you think? In fact its even worse considering the bad reputation of 'modern art' and "art students".
I think Mozart or Beethoven being born today would be incredibly successful because they built upon the centuries of music that came before them to become great. They didn't just wake up as children and start writing classical music in their distinctive styles. I also think it's a damn shame that people don't see art education as important, how can you not? Is anybody really proud when they compare the achievements of 20th century music with that of the 19th?

I have my own feelings on why concert halls are being abandoned, but I think the orchestras future is in the media. Ie. Thats how it will survive. I really think theres no question that the big film and game projects are really one of the only institutions that can afford to spend tens of thosuands for a full professional orchestra. While you blame modern society for not seeing any value in "intellectualizing music", yet Ive heard the same thing said about technology making essentially the same argument again.
I don't really think concert halls are doing that bad. I think they're stagnant, but their potential is still unmatched. Ticket prices and donations are still doing a good job at keeping things going, I just wish there was more "good" new music being played in them.
 

Edx

Spaceman
ace said:
It is true that I do see value in knowing how to write music down. I don't think it is difficult for anyone to learn and I don't see a reason to abandon the basic way that music has been recorded and communicated for centuries. It's even especially easy to learn when you've got a program that plays the music you've written as you go along. It's at least as easy as staring at a keyboard and pressing keys.
I disagree. I think a piano is able to be learn't far quicker than just writing music. For a start those that arent very mathematially minded just have a really hard time with notation. You know the kids that just really werent good at maths, but were good at art and more creative sujects? Well, thats like me, and a lot of other people. If you are mathematically minded you tend to grasp notation easier, if you're not, it really is quite difficult. From my experience now, its all a matter how HOW notation is taught. And "traditionally", it doesnt favour those from a more creative mindset. Now there are other ways to teach it, but traditonally theres only one way and if you dont get it tough.

Is telling someone that they should "learn how to write music" before they spend money really that bad?
In can be, because it seems to me that when someone comes to music the way he appeared to he is likely going to be instantly put off by someone telling him to learn notation before he can start composing. Just because you cant read music doesnt mean you cant get great results by ear. And if he likes his resultsthen what difference does it make? He can always learn notation and deeper theory later or if he is disapointed or frustrated with his lack of knowledge. Or you could put him off completely straight away, I just thought it wasnt best to.

Learning basic things, even on your own, shouldn't be seen as something oppressive. Music academia is stuffy, snobbish and full of really big jerks. I think we've all witnessed that. I just don't blame the centuries of music evolution, that has brought us to this very point, for the actions of jerks.

Music Theory isn't a magic pass to good composition. It also is not a hinderence to good composition. Knowing things about music will not somehow make you a worse musician. It really doesn't make sense.
I dont understand. I agree with this. I dont know how you get this impression from what Ive said. Ive never argued against music theory being important, In fact in several occasions Ive said its extremly important and that sooner or later you really have to learn it!


Of course there's always something more to learn, but people with drive and talent don't sit alone in their rooms thumbing their noses at knowledge that could make them better at what they do. It really doesn't make sense. People don't have to know everything before they begin writing music, but people who stop trying to learn more aren't achieving their full potential. That's what my point is: Someone who refuses to write music to their full potential by intentionally remaining ignorant is not crafting their music with great quality.
Once again, I agree with this. I dont understand how you can keep thinking Im saying something Im not?

I also think it's a damn shame that people don't see art education as important, how can you not? Is anybody really proud when they compare the achievements of 20th century music with that of the 19th?
Im going to be honest with you, most "classical" music doesnt do anything for me. Technically brilliant they may be. But to me, thats it.

I don't really think concert halls are doing that bad. I think they're stagnant, but their potential is still unmatched. Ticket prices and donations are still doing a good job at keeping things going, I just wish there was more "good" new music being played in them.
Most really good composers arent writing concert music they sort of gravitate to film music. And if you're good, theres plenty of reasons to.

Ed
 

ace

Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
Edx said:
I disagree. I think a piano is able to be learn't far quicker than just writing music. For a start those that arent very mathematially minded just have a really hard time with notation. You know the kids that just really werent good at maths, but were good at art and more creative sujects? Well, thats like me, and a lot of other people. If you are mathematically minded you tend to grasp notation easier, if you're not, it really is quite difficult. From my experience now, its all a matter how HOW notation is taught. And "traditionally", it doesnt favour those from a more creative mindset. Now there are other ways to teach it, but traditonally theres only one way and if you dont get it tough.
It sounds like you went to Hell to learn notation.

I dont understand. I agree with this. I dont know how you get this impression from what Ive said. Ive never argued against music theory being important, In fact in several occasions Ive said its extremly important and that sooner or later you really have to learn it!
You seemed very angry at the Music Establishment and all for a "do it yourself" anarchy. I'm glad we both agree that it's important, but you also made it sound like everyone you met with a music education was worse off because of it.

Once again, I agree with this. I dont understand how you can keep thinking Im saying something Im not?
I was just explaining my questions. I don't think that someone who wrote a great piece of music while purposefully ignorant is an artist.

Im going to be honest with you, most "classical" music doesnt do anything for me. Technically brilliant they may be. But to me, thats it.
I don't think the average person knows how to listen to Classical music. I'm not saying that in a negative way, just that it's so different than current music.

Most really good composers arent writing concert music they sort of gravitate to film music. And if you're good, theres plenty of reasons to.
I can't say if that's true or not because I honestly don't know of many modern composers. I'm sure the reason we think the really good ones are writing film music is because they get the most exposure. I think film music on the whole is substantially 'cheaper' than concert music if only for the fact that it wasn't meant to stand alone.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
There's no such a thing as "Mr. Da Vinci". It's like calling Lawrence of Arabia as "Mr. Of Arabia". I will say no more.
Because you're goddamn banned. What did Chris *just* tell you? How did you get so freaking stupid?
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
ace said:
I don't think the average person knows how to listen to Classical music. I'm not saying that in a negative way, just that it's so different than current music.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "how to listen to classical music".

(Funny I should return to this thread. I was actually thinking of ace just the other day while looking for someone named... David Diamond(?) in the classical section.)
 

ace

Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
LeHah said:
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "how to listen to classical music".
I only mean that listening to classical music shouldn't be a passive activity. When people usually listen to music they let it wash over them and fill the gaps in their thoughts. With classical music this will generally lead to an unfullfilling experience since sitting back and enjoying the emotions the sounds evoke is only part of the purpose.

Instead, the majority of the appeal of classical music comes from a conscious recognition of form and structure as well as the identification of the various motives or fixed ideas. I know this all sounds very stupid, but I do believe that the conscious identification of the composer's use of form and structure was one of the driving evolutionary forces in early Western music. The level of complexity of form that arose from the Classical period, and gave birth to the Symphony, freed music from the reliance on the artistry of the performer and elevated the music itself to a higher art by providing it with a greater level of depth and intricacy. This new quality of music now gave the listener a different experience by providing them with themes and phrases that changed and repeated in more varied and interesting ways.

As to how to actually listen to classical music, I'm probably not the best teacher. I think that if you just concentrate more on the themes and ideas that the composer is trying to convey you'll not only get by just fine but you'll discover new things every time you listen. Part of the reason that this music is still performed every year is because of its depth and the fact that there's still so much to hear.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
This subject interests me greatly. While I greatly enjoy symphonic work, I find that classical music as a whole to be somewhat daunting. Theres a lot of history to cover and I have a hard enough time following John Williams, let alone the hundreds of composers that influenced him and his art for decades - centuries! - prior.

I think you and I have discussed music once or twice and I find you exceedingly apt in your discussions on the subject. Is there anything you can suggest that might broaden my horizons a little more? I think I understood your meaning with "conscious identification of the composer's use of form and structure" - yet my spectrum of music is usually kept narrow by film score composers (something Goldsmith or Herrmann would yell at me for saying), so I feel like while I understand something like "question and answer" brass writing - it feels like a cheap learning experience. Despite some intelligent compositions / orchestrations (Don Davis inserted the Tristan Chord during one of the bigger moments in the Matrix Trilogy, Goldenthal's more "Polish avant garde" moments ala Alien3), I feel like I'm still missing something. It's not enough to know which notes, I feel the need to know why they need to be played.
 

ace

Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
If you have $40 then I think the best thing you can do is buy Leonard Bernstein's 1953 American Decca Recordings. It has around two hours of Bernstein lectures about great symphonic works that are tremendously insightful and enjoyable. The included recordings of the symphonies aren't of the best sound quality but they're wonderfully performed. Overall I think it'd be exactly what you're looking for.

That's probably my best advice at the moment. Currently I'm reading "Sonata Forms" by Charles Rosen, but that might be overkill for you at this point. I'm always on the look out for more interesting things to listen to and read so I'll let you know if I come across anything else.
 
Top