# Why do they want to be EPIC?



## Christof

I don't get it.
Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.

But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
Copy&paste from start to end.
I don't dare to talk about melodies and themes.

Sorry for the rant, but I get asked too often to listen to this stuff and give my feedback.

I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
Maybe 16 bars?


----------



## Resoded

Here we go.


----------



## TGV

Because it sells.

I feel your pain. You appreciate melody, harmony, inventive techniques, development, intellectual effort, and a well crafted orchestration, I guess. Well, I don't know if you do, but I do. And just when thousands of years of musical development can be applied by anyone with a decent PC, the new composers find four notes on their keyboard and let the a whole cello section play that over and over again, i-i-iv-v, spic., fff,.

I venture that people don't like complex music. They just want to tap their feet and not their head to the rhythm. They do like the sound of an orchestra (James Last!), and they like metal. Epic is orchestral's metal. Simple, good sounding, and loud.

Why most of it is bad? Because it's an easy thing to start with. It's hard to start writing a classical sonata of the tiniest interest, but it's easy to start pounding out rhythms and four note cello patterns. Since 95% of a group is not really good (and 50% of it is bad), most bad music will be epic.

Not all of it is bad, though. And it's fun to make (and good epic music is even hard). Try it for yourself, just to get a feel, and then "let it go". Or not: perhaps you'll discover your inner Zimmer or Bergersen.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Here's a wild, fantastical prediction - Epic has about 6 months left in it. Well, not that it will vanish entirely, but I have a pet theory that Star Wars 7 will change things in a big way. It'll be the biggest grossing film of all time, uniting old and young in blissful harmony. Folks will rediscover what fun is (the darkness and the light). They will fall in love with the Williams thing again, old will be new once more, global warming will be solved and there will be month-long street parties.


----------



## Ozymandias

Christof @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I don't get it.



You're not thinking superficially enough about things. You need to do that more for a start.

Also, try substituting the words _more morerer_ whenever you see the word _epic_.


----------



## Sebastianmu

Christof, try not to get too bitter about it. It is what it is: a current fashion, many people love this kind of music, and it is just a part of modern culture. And of course there are thousands of youngsters trying to replicate what they think is cool... Not a big deal. 
Cheers
Sebastian


----------



## Wibben

Can't speak for everyone, but being one of those people who quite often posts my adventures in "epic" music, I felt I needed to join in the discussion 

I'm not a professional composer but I've been a musician all my life, went to a musical high school and then re-focused my life towards Art and the video games business. 

A couple of years ago I re-evaluated what I'd like to do with my life. I've had 10 great years working myself to death in video games, but what I really want to do is write music, and produce it. As such, I've never had the chance to go to Berklee, or some other amazing college to learn how to orchestrate, or read/write music. I'm trying hard to do it, but with the little time I have for this I'd rather spend writing, producing and posting here, to get feedback. Which brings us back to your frustration over all the "hobbyists writing epic and wanting feedback" (sorry to put words in your mouth 

Trailer and Library music is pretty much the only option I see - or at least, the one I want. The only way for me to improve is to ask the opinions of all of you, the people I look up to, who knows what they're doing, and in very many cases, does this for a living.

The best way to learn, well, anything, is to copy. In art studies, this is called a master copy, where we'd try to copy the Mona Lisa, let's say, as close to the real thing as possible, and in so doing, learing How to do it, and then apply that knowledge to our own works. In engineering they deconstruct, look inside things, etc etc. Even for other jobs, like a chashier at a supermarket, get's to first observe how things are done, then copy them, then when the senior employee is satisfied the person knows how to do it, is left to do the work him/herself. 

Sorry for ranting.. And I DO understand your frustration. In my position in the games biz, I get overwhelmed by all the "copy/paste" artists straight out of school, contacting me for feedback etc. So I know the feeling 

But, keep in mind, there are plenty of non-professional composers here, like me, trying to absorb knowledge and seeking guidence, and we are fully aware that "Epic" trailer music is NOT the same thing as a Williams, but it's a start 

And also; 
Everyone who likes "epic" music are not terrible musicians, but all terrible musicians likes "epic" musik 

Cheers


----------



## Waywyn

Christof @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I don't get it.
> Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
> Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.
> 
> But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
> Copy&paste from start to end.
> I don't dare to talk about melodies and themes.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but I get asked too often to listen to this stuff and give my feedback.
> 
> I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
> Maybe 16 bars?



It is actually pretty easy to explain! As a kid, what did you want to become on day? A physiotherapist? A biology or math teacher? A nuclear physics professor?? No! You wanted to be an astronaut, a cowboy or a rockstar!

"Epic" is just impressive on its own! Fantasy worlds, dragons, space, aliens, huge things, huge sounds, huge everything! It is just stunning to look at and to listen to ... it is just like you as a kid was thinking: Wow, this is what I wanna do! Epic!

However, so many aspiring composers forget about what it's really like to get this stuff done right! ...
So many of them think that it can be easily achieved by buying a few libs and hitting keys only on velocity level 127! ... but we all know there is so much more to it! Additionally, if one never did sound design or more meaningful, sophisticated, deeper or whatever writing, one still won't get the easy things right and even by using ready made sound design libs, the "implementation" into one's track also may not sound right!

Another thing:
My father had a picture of an artist in our living room (sadly forgot the name of that artist).
As a little kid I remember spending a loooot of time just standing in front of this picture and thinking about it! It was just a picture with two lines, crossing each other. Nothing else, just these two lines!
Then one day I asked my dad about what's being so special about this picture. It is just two lines and nothing else? What is so special about taking a ruler and drawing two lines?
Then my dad said: But the artist didn't use a ruler. He did it with free hand!

... Then I understood!

It is the same with most epic music. On a theory level it can be easily understood and remembered, but on the level of sound and general construction - about writing something with just 3 or 4 notes in the main theme etc. - it can be very very tricky!


----------



## Christof

Don't get me wrong, I like epic tracks when they are well crafted, I like music without themes and melody when it is clever done.
Of course I have done epic tracks as well.Some good, some not.
What I don't like is musical fast food, it may taste good for a few minutes, but it has no timeless value.


----------



## Assa

Guy Rowland @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Here's a wild, fantastical prediction - Epic has about 6 months left in it. Well, not that it will vanish entirely, but I have a pet theory that Star Wars 7 will change things in a big way. It'll be the biggest grossing film of all time, uniting old and young in blissful harmony. Folks will rediscover what fun is (the darkness and the light). They will fall in love with the Williams thing again, old will be new once more, global warming will be solved and there will be month-long street parties.



What a beautiful thought that is! :D 

To Topic:
I personally totally agree with TGV and Sebastianmu. And if you don't like that kind of music, then just ignore it and listen to the stuff you enjoy  I do totally understand your point, but I think it's really not worth beeing angry about something like that.


----------



## lux

Well, it's considered one winning horse, so a huge bunch of people (expecially those who are starting now) place a bet on it. It's pretty common in the music realm. If you only knew how many RnB'ish tracks get produced every day for that same reason...

All in all, the more it continues, the more your music could earn a value as something that is produced by less people. It's not all about epic out there. So if I were you I'd be happy :D


----------



## Waywyn

Christof @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like epic tracks when they are well crafted, I like music without themes and melody when it is clever done.
> Of course I have done epic tracks as well.Some good, some not.
> What I don't like is musical fast food, it may taste good for a few minutes, but it has no timeless value.



Nono, I totally got you! I get so many of these messages and I feel the same. Too many just quickly throw together a few lines, loops and pads and then kick it out into the whole wide world of social media!


----------



## tokatila

Don't know about the music, but it would be EPIC to see a John Walker comment here.


----------



## Allegro

Producers and Loopestrators. 
Don't want to turn this discussion elsewhere but I think a part of the reason why we hear loopestrators so often is that directors and editors, (especially startups) encourage such style more and more. They want a 'pro' sound so to speak in a couple days worth of time and looping/overdubbing sections is the only option for a composers who are too Lazy to learn how the orchestra works, how themes work in general.

In my opinion (personal opinion), talking from the mind of general consumer, epic music can give your music a 'fake polish' so to speak in a short amount if time even if there is not much value in your composition. My 0.02$


----------



## Ryan

tokatila @ 11/6/2015 said:


> Don't know about the music, but it would be EPIC to see a John Walker comment here.



haaa.. Made my day!!!


----------



## lux

Waywyn @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Christof @ Thu Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like epic tracks when they are well crafted, I like music without themes and melody when it is clever done.
> Of course I have done epic tracks as well.Some good, some not.
> What I don't like is musical fast food, it may taste good for a few minutes, but it has no timeless value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nono, I totally got you! I get so many of these messages and I feel the same. Too many just quickly throw together a few lines, loops and pads and then kick it out into the whole wide world of social media!
Click to expand...


Yup, I remember the old days in mid 2000 when there was no Epic (well, not so prominent at least) and it was early days of the big exploit of sample based orchestras. Forums and such were totally overwhelmed by poor orchestral mockups (guilty, Your Honour). 

All in all things are about the same every time something earn a "it sells" aura. From pop to rock, electronica and even sometimes jazz and fusion.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

tokatila @ Thu 11 Jun said:


> Don't know about the music, but it would be EPIC to see a John Walker comment here.



Ahh the Local Legend. Where is he?


----------



## Lex

...meh



alex


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

It's like the return of the Romantic era. Man against dragons. When it's really humanity's battles/worries about death, raging hormones, income gaps, rape, war, addiction, bigotry, etc. Those dragons sure are real, but they come in tiny shapes now (white powder, plastic cards for eg). 

For many here, their first real connection with music was with video game soundtracks and fantasy movies. So Epic is heard daily, from a young age, and the love for it will hardly wane with age, as it achieves a feel-good/comfort food/nostalgia level. My video games were kick-the-can-while-on-bikes, share two smokes from a pack of menthols after school, baseball in the alley.

When I was kid, soundtracks of the stuff I watched featured jazz undertones/jams (Batman, Man From Uncle, Lost in Space, etc). Maybe if instead, the music had a medieval/renaissance quality to it, or if I had grown up with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, I would be more favorable to the Epic genre now.


----------



## Vin

I really admire quality, well-crafted "epic" music - Thomas Bergersen etc., although it's not the genre that I would listen at home for enjoyment.

However, in the last few years for me "epic" became the synonym for generic and predictable - it's same old, same old.


----------



## jcs88

EDIT: Not gonna get involved. Please delete!


----------



## KEnK

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> ...For many here, their first real connection with music was with video game soundtracks and fantasy movies...


Never thought about that as a possibility.
For me my 1st 'connection' w/ music 
was watching my Grandfather play jazz piano or guitar.
No wonder I have such a different perspective. 



Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> ...When I was kid, soundtracks of the stuff I watched featured jazz undertones/jams (Batman, Man From Uncle, Lost in Space, etc)...


We're from about the same era Ned- when musical complexity was the norm.
Also a big influence on my early development was those Warner Bros cartoons-
The Carl Stalling soundtracks are still incredible on many levels.

as to the topic-
I never listen to anything w/ epic, trailer, space, battle or zimmer in the title.
Not at all interested

k


----------



## Daniel James

I do it mostly because I like it. I love those tried and tested chord changes, I like hearing the big percussion, I like hearing the creative use of sound design. 

Now I understand totally where you are coming from but you have to step back and accept if it isnt for you it isnt for you. This is no different than not being able to understand why some people like dubstep, or thrash metal. You dont have the same emotional connection with the music or the mental context for how it fits into your life. And thats ok! 

It really gets to me sometimes when people look down on composers who like doing the epic style...as if they are lesser musicians or less creative....no they just like that type of music. There is shit epic and good epic (would like to see someone try to claim Thomas Bergesens epic music is poorly done) 

Like I said, there is shit and good epic....so please dont use the lazily created stuff represent the genre as a whole....the question should be why some music in general is shit...to which the answer is, the composer is lazy or doesnt know what they are doing (lol sort of like when a classical composer talks shit about Dubstep and how its just a bunch of synth presets and loops....but then fail hard when they try it themselves)

-DJ


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Because the wiser, the calmer…
And True Epicness is Diversity, i think...!
-A.S.-


----------



## Christof

You are totally right Daniel, and as I said before, I like good epic tracks, I enjoy them very much, yours included!


----------



## ed buller

Guy Rowland @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Here's a wild, fantastical prediction - Epic has about 6 months left in it. Well, not that it will vanish entirely, but I have a pet theory that Star Wars 7 will change things in a big way. It'll be the biggest grossing film of all time, uniting old and young in blissful harmony. Folks will rediscover what fun is (the darkness and the light). They will fall in love with the Williams thing again, old will be new once more, global warming will be solved and there will be month-long street parties.



Funny.......I have been saying exactly this ..........we will see.....


e


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Good post, Daniel.


----------



## Stephen Rees

Live and let live.


----------



## ryanstrong

Christof @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> You are totally right Daniel, and as I said before, I like good epic tracks, I enjoy them very much, yours included!



After reading Daniel's post and your response, is the question then... why is there so many amateur EPIC tracks floating around then good EPIC tracks?

If that's question then that's always going to be the case and shouldn't surprise anyone right? Especially here on the internet and forums where it's not a curated experience like the concert hall, stadium, theatre, museum etc. There is always going to be more apprentices then masters. And those apprentices are going to ask you to listen to their tracks more then a master will.


----------



## Kralc

Yeah, nice post Daniel.



KEnK @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I never listen to anything w/ epic, trailer, space, battle or zimmer in the title.
> Not at all interested
> 
> k



Ummm, you're missing out man... :mrgreen:


----------



## adam_lukas

Guy Rowland @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Here's a wild, fantastical prediction - Epic has about 6 months left in it. Well, not that it will vanish entirely, but I have a pet theory that Star Wars 7 will change things in a big way. It'll be the biggest grossing film of all time, uniting old and young in blissful harmony. Folks will rediscover what fun is (the darkness and the light). They will fall in love with the Williams thing again, old will be new once more, global warming will be solved and there will be month-long street parties.



I disagree. True Williams style will never be popular again. Film changed, and so it's music too, and this ain't a bad thing at all. In 2015, we do have endless possibilties of sound. 
Trailer music is a super-trend and might be replaced by something else very soon. You never know for sure. In the end, the music has to fit the film - and while the movies still are EPIC, DRAMATIC, HUGE, DARK, and whatsoever - the music won't change so fast too..

My personal opinion is:
My first rule in scoring is - don't score the obvious.
The composer should add another level to the film and not just overlapping one that is already there. In every 'epic' film i go, this happens! HUGE, DRAMATIC motion picture with music that does exactly the same - how boring! And this happens especially often with so called 'epic' music, I've experienced. 
It's somehow.. not really original, and often the first thing that comes in mind.


----------



## Waywyn

ryanstrong @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> After reading Daniel's post and your response, is the question then... why is there so many amateur EPIC tracks floating around then good EPIC tracks?



I kind of answered this in my initial post.


----------



## tokatila

adam_lukas @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> My personal opinion is:
> My first rule in scoring is - don't score the obvious.



Is this why I hear epic music in Kitchen shows regularly like in Masterchef? Damn, hold those surdos he only poured sugar not kill a dragon.


----------



## Guy Rowland

adam_lukas @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I disagree. True Williams style will never be popular again.



Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Let's reconvene in Feb 2016.

I sense a disturbance in the force. Soundtracks are part of a bigger picture. There's a general moving away from CG and towards practical stunts and effects again, for example. Of course even Star Wars 7 has plenty of CG in it (though it's peripheral... I've heard staggering tales of what was accomplished in-camera), and of course similarly we live in a world with an expanded sonic palette. But.... well, everything comes around....


----------



## Daryl

It's all nonsense. Epic is not really epic. It's just a name inappropriately attached to a particular music formula.

D


----------



## Waywyn

tokatila @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> adam_lukas @ Thu Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is:
> My first rule in scoring is - don't score the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this why I hear epic music in Kitchen shows regularly like in Masterchef? Damn, hold those surdos he only poured sugar not kill a dragon.
Click to expand...


Haha, but this is actually very interesting, because when you watch older tv shows such as Hart to Hart etc. you hear the most dramatic music even when someone is just opening a suitcase to check what's inside!


----------



## Dean

Christof @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I don't get it.
> Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
> Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.
> 
> But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
> Copy&paste from start to end.
> I don't dare to talk about melodies and themes.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but I get asked too often to listen to this stuff and give my feedback.
> 
> I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
> Maybe 16 bars?



I agree with Daniel and Waywyn,..I think alot of composers just write epic or trailer music because its just fun to do and more accessable than trying to copy JW,..as someone pointed out its no different from RnB,Hip Hop,Rock or Pop,..its easier to write a track in a certain style if it relies heavily on a standard formula that is basic enough and really fun to play.Everyone and their uncle knows that the playing field has been leveled significantly,we all use the same libraries more or less and using social media the right way you can pretty much reach anyone. 
I think if you dont like the standard of epic music just dont listen to it or do something about it,compose some incredible epic music and help raise the bar for the genre. Having said that I think Lex said it best,..'meh!' D


----------



## Jimbo 88

I think it's funny most producers will base their decision on which composer to use on how "epic" his/hers music sounds..... 

Then you get into the project and everyone wants the music small. "it's too big here", "make it smaller", "Don't let it interfere with the story"


----------



## Dean

Jimbo 88 @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I think it's funny most producers will base their decision on which composer to use on how "epic" his/hers music sounds.....
> 
> Then you get into the project and everyone wants the music small. "it's too big here", "make it smaller", "Don't let it interfere with the story"


yeah,most of our work is spent trying to impress the client (director,producer) then we start the actual scoring process which is usually completely different. D


----------



## Daniel James

Jimbo 88 @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I think it's funny most producers will base their decision on which composer to use on how "epic" his/hers music sounds.....
> 
> Then you get into the project and everyone wants the music small. "it's too big here", "make it smaller", "Don't let it interfere with the story"



Hahahaha so much this /\

-DJ


----------



## José Herring

I've long learned that there's the music that will get you the job and then the music that they really need.

The music that get's you the job sounds good on a demo reel. The music they need is something else entirely all together.

As for Star Wars saving filmscoring yet again one can only hope so. Because shit couldn't be more ridiculous than it is now and film makers need to be reminded yet again that the orchestra in its natural form is the best medium for communicating the variety of dramatic situations that a typically well made film goes through.

If stuff get's any more "Epic" you could just pump pink noise through the sound system and get the same effect. 

I kind of feel that the death of a style is when that style is no longer effective at delivering the intended effect. It's now to a point that music couldn't get any more artificially baddass, edgy or loud sounding. So it's a matter of time before something else takes its place. At least that's what I'm working on these days. The next thing.


----------



## rgames

To the OP: Mahler and Wagner and a few others have written the "Most Epic" music of all time.

And they're still in fashion. And it's great music. And it's copied to this day because it's an effective style.

Perhaps a bit of study in music history is warranted.

rgames


----------



## Jetzer

Aside from all the very true points I've read on this particular topic, I don't think JW style will come back. I think that is a defensive attitude. Let's move forward.


----------



## José Herring

JW never went anywhere. He's still one of the most copied composers. So...he doesn't have to come back. He never left.


----------



## Dracarys

I feel you, but I also think that epic can be done correctly, such as Brian Tyler, Trevor Morris, and a handful of tracks from Two Steps from Hell. It does get overwhelming, and I would love movies with more scores like Elfman, Silvestri, Williams, etc.

To the guy who said Williams music will become popular again, I think you have way too much confidence in the rectification of cultures down-ward spiral 

C


----------



## Peter Cavallo

o[])


----------



## re-peat

josejherring @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> JW never went anywhere. (...) He never left.


He sure did. Sometime around '92-'93 to be more precise, after finishing 'Hook', the moment when his Faustian contract with the devil seems to have expired. Hasn't written a single score, cue or melody since — in my opinion anyway — which has the same divine, out-of-this-world, self-confident, seemingly effortless, almost unbearable quality of inspiration which nearly all of his pre-Jurassic work has.

The two Williams-examples posted earlier in this thread may well provide some much welcomed musical depth in a thread that deals with (s)ep(t)ic music, but they pale to boring nothingness when compared to mid-season Williams' truly timeless musical achievements.

_


----------



## Vin

re-peat @ 12/6/2015 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JW never went anywhere. (...) He never left.
> 
> 
> 
> He sure did. Sometime around '92-'93 to be more precise, after finishing 'Hook', the moment when his Faustian contract with the devil seems to have expired. Hasn't written a single score, cue or melody since — in my opinion anyway — which has the same divine, out-of-this-world, self-confident, seemingly effortless, almost unbearable quality of inspiration which nearly all of his pre-Jurassic work has.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


What about _Schindler's List_, _Saving Private Ryan_, _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone_, _Memoirs of a Geisha_?


----------



## Guy Rowland

Before we all jump down that particular John Williams rabbit hole again, it's all rather off the point. That point is that conventional orchestral scores have fallen out of favour (I remember rctec saying here that he didn't know how to put conventional melodies into modern blockbusters, excuse the paraphrase). My contention is that its time is about to come back if not universally then at least to some degree, and that's because Star Wars 7 will make everything old seem new again. We already know JW has been asked by JJ to "just do your thing"- we won't be getting any braaaahms or dubstep beats over the battle scenes. It'll be ye olde JW storytelling and grand themes (many of which are beloved from his effortless era, even if he doesn't write anything new to quite match them). And because studios tend to want to ape the last big hit, I think we'll see a certain amount of trailing in its wake in general from studio pictures.

Epic has had a good run. But everything evolves. In the absence of something genuinely new appearing, going back is the most obvious next step (much as the biggest pop hits of the last few years - Happy, Get Lucky, Uptown Funk - have all nakedly and brilliantly plundered the music of the 60s-80s rather then bringing us anything truly new).

Its interesting to me that Lucas wanted a throwback to a more innocent escapist age when he made the first Star Wars movie, complaining that modern movies had become too jaded, bleak and cynical (with much made of living in a post-Vietnam malaise). Not hard to draw parallels with the present day.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

For me what gets lost is that so called Epic music CAN be written with good use of harmony, counterpoint, and melody but most of what I hear is by people who apparently simply lack the skills to do that. Certainly not true of Two Steps From Hell.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Rowland @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> (...) I remember rctec saying here that he didn't know how to put conventional melodies into modern blockbusters, excuse the paraphrase.(...)


Nobody does. Because it doesn’t work. Not anymore.
A few weeks ago there was a thread about ‘happy music’, which could have been the start of a great discussion that sadly never materialized and which I, for one, still want to have one day, but anyway, what I wanna say is this: there’s a certain cynicism which has crept into our world and also has infected the entire entertainment business over the past two decades — killing off all the sincere, if in hindsight often silly, post-war optimism and naïvité which was unmistakably there for quite a glorious while — which has made things like ‘happy music’ or the Williams-Spielberg formula of the 70s-80s no longer a truly believable proposition today. And it’s a clock that can’t be turned back. Not for some time anyway. The world needs to heal first.

If Williams’ contribution to the next Star Wars — are you *really* interested in this movie, Guy? — may be cause for excitement, it’ll be mostly for nostalgic reasons, and I very much doubt it’ll trigger a new period of lush, expertly crafted orchestral scores. Besides, who’s going to make them? There’s hardly anybody there who can.

I agree with Adam (previous page): film has changed. Profoundly so. And it is better served with today’s music than with yesterday’s. (Even if today’s music is, judged abstractly and personal-opinion-wise, much less interesting than yesterday’s).

In fact, the type of 70’s scoring I see re-emerging much sooner than Williams’ neo-operatic idiom, is the sort of scores that Michael Small wrote for the classic 70’s political thriller (and before that: Jerry Fielding): music which, in its bleak sparseness and arresting repetitiveness — yet always full of great musical ideas and sounds — very much announced the music that is in vogue, and works, today. (To my ears, there’s a direct line between Michael Small and someone like Dave Porter.)

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

+1, Piet, great analysis.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Great post Piet, though of course I don't agree - well, I don't agree with all of it. The hunger for a different kind of film is still there. I'm talking purely blockbusters here of course. Though there is a generation that have grown up with dark, that does not define the entire market (if my own teenage kids are anything to go by anyway - they are totally disinterested).

This is where JJ comes in, really. It's the darkness and the light - his Trek films are more amped up than the earlier cannon, but retain the levity and characterisation of the earlier series. I think that's where the blockbuster is heading (Guardians of the Galaxy another pointer). Its an acknowledgment that things have moved on (as indeed the world has), while celebrating earlier more carefree times - the proverbial having your cake and eating it. The darkness alone has become all-consuming and stifling. Even a world with ISIS in it can still have levity, some heroes to go with some villains. In the movies, anyway. I will forever remember watching The Dark Knight Rises during the euphoria of the 2012 Olympics - it was the film that seemed completely out of touch with what was happening around me, even if that itself was a bubble.

I appreciate this might all sound rather absurd starting from a thread about epic music, but its all wrapped up together somehow. If (as I hope and argue) movies do change, the music will necessarily change with them. And Williams is hardly the only composer able to turn in an orchestral score. Might make life harder for the wannabes of course.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Once again, for me it is less about the genre then the craft. There is only so much I-IV-V block chords at forte people should have to live exclusively with.


----------



## lux

I think in the animation realm I've heard nice "classic sounding" things in the recent years. Perhaps no game changers, but when I think to all the works by Randy Newman, there's lot of good stuff goin on. Big band, small ensemble strings writing, nice vintage electronica's.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Rowland @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> (...) and Williams is hardly the only composer able to turn in an orchestral score. (...)


No, but he’s the only one who could write _iconic_ — in the very literal sense of the word — themes which not only made for great film music but actually went on to become the soundtrack of America’s mythology (again, in the literal, academic sense of the word).
And the American film industry is, at its core, always a translation/interpretation of America’s mythology into images, words and music. Be it affirmative or denouncing, that connection is always there.

This is a rarely discussed aspect of Williams’ achievement — one that he only shares with Aaron Copland — which perhaps we needn’t go into now (but you can sense that I’d love to, can’t you?), but it is relevant in the sense that, precisely because that mythology (or, to be more precise: the socio-cultural and political manifestation of that mythology) has suffered a few devastating blows from which it hasn’t recovered yet (and may never do so again), any sort of expression (artistic, commercial or both) which relies on that mythology to be intrinsically healthy, is no longer believable either, in this day and age.

Indiana Jones or Superman, in their day, were superficial and ridiculous, yes, but somehow also childlike authentic and therefore genuinely captivating and believable as heroes (figures of myth). And they were born in a world that was the living affirmation of their metaphor. As such, they were embraced all over the world. 
Captain America, on the other hand, is just as superficial and ridiculous, but worse, and painfully so: he also makes for a sad, pathetic, preposterous and totally unbelievable symbol, tragically so, because the myth from which he is spawned is completely shattered. And the same goes for all of today’s superheroes: they may be victorious when fighting fictious villains, but they fail miserably when fighting today’s global endarkenment and cynicism. Tellingly: this new breed of superheroes, and the idea which they're trying to sell, is no longer embraced globally, but often causes profound irritation and even anger in many parts of the world.

I don’t know if this resonates with anyone, but if you listen today to all the great fanfares which Williams wrote (“Superman”, “Star Wars”, “Indy”, …) or his sweeping themes which express so perfectly everything that makes the idea of ‘America’ as great as it is (or was, anyway), and if you don’t listen to these pieces as abstract music — which is what I usually do — but as musical evocations of the American mythology, there is something extremely, almost Arcadianially, sad about this music because the very thing which it captures and evokes so well, no longer exists. Or only exists in a very battered, bruised and corrupted state.

If asked why traditional melodies no longer have as prominent a place in today’s film music as they used to, or why the golden, neo-operatic tradition of film music had to make room for today’s musical language (anything from simplistic epic, or some variation of minimalism, to stark sounddesign-oriented textures), my answer, or at least a big part of it, would be: the beliefs, ideas and mythology on which the former thrived are no longer there. And thinking men no longer accept it when someone wants to create the illusion that they still are.

_


----------



## Guy Rowland

Well I could just say you're over-thinking it, but...

America, surely, was severely bruised in the 70s, and nothing felt like it would be the same again. Vietnam and Watergate did that. And yet in rushed Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones to open arms. And significantly - as a Brit - in neither case do I associate those movies with America (in both cases I think of them as half British actually). But for me they pass right over it into something more universal and - surely - timeless. Their primary connection is with childhood, and its notions of simple good vs evil. The magic trick is that, done right, that activates the childhood part of adults brains too.

As to Williams' role in all that... well yeah I think you're over thinking it.

Can anyone else write tunes that good? Powell, for one...


----------



## re-peat

Not even a hundred Powells joined together at the hip are capable of a single bar of the Indy march. I’m sorry.
With respect and, I hope, without any hint of sounding patronizing, it seems to me you’re not quite understanding what I’m getting at: I’m not just talking decent tunes or effective film music, I’m talking culture-defining, iconic melodic material. “Ode an Die Freude”-type of stuff, yes. Melodies which transcend being mere melody. Melodies which become engraved in the human DNA. That, Guy, is the exclusive territory of composers like Williams (who, miraculously, wrote several) and people like John Barry and Morricone. It’s a special and rare gift, which only a tiny handful of composers have. John Powell, outstanding film composer that he may be, has no place at _that_ table, I’m afraid.

As for America’s bit of misfortune in the 70’s: I knew you were going to say that, and it’s true of course, but there is a fundamental difference: wounded as the American idea may have been in the 70’s — and not forgetting the severe beating it took in the 60’s (Kennedy, King, …) — its mythology remained unharmed, and the interpretation of that mythology remained believable. Which is no longer the case today. Hence the rise of _twisted_ metaphors like Nolan's abominable Batman.

_


----------



## AlexandreSafi

At the end of the day, Epic is not the problem, nor the evolution of the sound & movies!

I'll use & connect two of my favorite quotes:

1)Mozart: "Melody is the essence of Music..."

2)Duke Ellington: "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind..."

1)While i think he's onto something, i will respectfully disagree with his quote...I think "The essence of Music is...--Ideas--..."
I believe Beethoven to be the clearest illustration of that idea, as much as he can be for the 2nd quote
Today's sound, in conjunction with Beethoven couldn't better illustrate what the essence of Good music is...

2)In that respect, i completely agree with Ellington, Every great Melody is essentially a great idea, but not every great idea is a Melody, hence Good Music can't just be defined with Melody or even a combination of Harmony and Counterpoint...

Today's (temporary?) death of optimism & technology has, i believe, forced music and its essentially abstract nature to now become more concretely attached to its media than it ever was... Using just the orchestra as a sound palette has now become as much of a standardised, conformistic reduction as using only samples...

But the essential shift of paradigm from operatic theatricality coming from the 100% orchestral silent movies, Hitchcock's Hermannesque or Kubrick's Spartacus's A. North with character-raised-to-deity long Melodies & complexity in the notes up to the realism which started from Nolan's Batman Trilogy with at its musical core, Minimalism, can only prove one constant...

The essence of consistently good music are its "ideas within"....

This is purely & simply what's really missing today!

The problem, in my eyes, is perception...
I believe Music has an objective, yet intuitive quality when it's good!
Give a kid who's never heard either, "Kleine Nachtmusik or Beethoven's 5th", then give him two anything from their early quartets, and he'll probably tell you, without fail, which two pieces on 1st listen aren't as good as the other two...

For today's kind of Minimalism Music, i believe Beethoven to be today's greatest lesson for the musician. You take his 5th, 7th, beginning of 9th, Egmont Overture, Piano Sonata 14, they all represent this paradigm-breaking idea of melody, and they all show that there is a fine line between minimalism with something "meaty" in it from minimalism with the "appearance" of something durable about it...
Hans Zimmer seems to have well understood Beethoven's methodology, as he's practically the only one who practices it well in the industry, as proves his last decade of work...

The common denominator of every composers that i love & respect are the ones who, i believe, thanks to their evolved-practiced high standards of objective-subjective relationship, know when their musical idea or someone else's idea is good, or not good enough... I believe this to be the most fundamental core skill to have... 

It takes both non-musical & musical wisdom & education to know the highest good from the bottom-end bad...
Or even a predisposition to a taste says much more about who we are, than it's ever dared thought of or gets mentioned, for that matter...

The problem, i believe, has actually more to do with the people who usually think their idea, if there is even any, is good enough, than with those who are never satisfied with their own work... 
I'd argue there are even people ironically good at "executing the genre", but still oblivion to the fact that their musical idea still isn't good enough, and i see that even from the "best-trained" young orchestral composers with a bachelor in Composition as much as the great electronic soundmaker...

See, come to think of it, the problem actually is, it's not having a great idea that's hard, it's the next one, and the next one, and the next one, ---up to the next billioneth one...

That's the real problem & fight, ourselves, our resistance, our short-term successes, and our predisposition to "idealism anthropy"...

And then, back to my previous post, the most EPIC thing about people like J.Williams or H.Zimmer and their body of work is not only their great consistency of ideas(some shall rightfully disagree of course, but then again we only know what's been publicly released, don't we?!...), but their diversity of works, like the classical masters, in how much they've explored and connected ideas, between Music, Literature, Culture, their background, science, psychology, Myths, Humanity, while committed to the one idea that only matters, is the idea really an idea, and is it truly good enough, or not? 

-A.S-


----------



## Sebastianmu

re-peat @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> wounded as the American idea may have been in the 70’s — and not forgetting the severe beating it took in the 60’s (Kennedy, King, …) — it’s mythology remained unharmed, and the interpretation of that mythology remained believable.
> _



I think you're completely right, Piet. 

The deeper source of the fundamental cynicism in modern epic films is the 
erosion of a specific kind of "civil-religious" trust in the foundational ideas of the western democratic nations, as they seem more and more unfit to match the global political challenges. (And that is _not_ only a result of certain obvious damages to US self-esteem by 9/11, since it seems to occur in most western nations.)

Depicting the main character, that appears in the position of the _positive hero_, as someone with heavy personality disorders, reflects that very well, I think. Even if it might not be intended by the scriptwriters to convey any of this (I assume they think of it basically in terms of authenticity). This lack of a positive ideal, that would be worth fighting for, is counterbalanced with ultra-violence on all sides.

That said, I think _Interstellar_ was a positive surprise from Nolan in that latter regard. But also in this film, the positive motivation of the hero is ultimately entirely private (and hence selfish). He's only saving everyone because of the love for his daughter.


----------



## germancomponist

re-peat @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> ...
> A few weeks ago there was a thread about ‘happy music’, which could have been the start of a great discussion that sadly never materialized and which I, for one, still want to have one day, but anyway, what I wanna say is this: there’s a certain cynicism which has crept into our world and also has infected the entire entertainment business over the past two decades — killing off all the sincere, if in hindsight often silly, post-war optimism and naïvité which was unmistakably there for quite a glorious while — which has made things like ‘happy music’ or the Williams-Spielberg formula of the 70s-80s no longer a truly believable proposition today. And it’s a clock that can’t be turned back. Not for some time anyway. The world needs to heal first.



This is sooo true! Thanks for this post! 

It was me who started the other thread and I think exactly the same as you do.

An interesting question: Why are so many cars now in black color?


----------



## Darthmorphling

"Who makes V.I. a great community? You do! V.I. Control Forum's motto is musicians helping musicians."

As a non professional, it is really interesting to see this motto on the front page, but also the lack of respect for people who are learning. As a teacher, I understand completely the frustration of seeing work that obviously needs help in becoming the best that it can be. However, I enjoy helping my students make that journey, even when I know some may not be willing to embark on that journey.

The reality is that a lot of the requests for feedback you all receive are from people that probably do want to hear an honest, yet respectful critique. You are all under no obligation to provide that critique, but it seems like the forum was intended for this very thing and not just to be a "Good old boys club".

I am at the point in my study where I can see all of the mistakes I am making, but am not entirely sure how to go about fixing them. This is a good place to be, but it will take more practice, and critiques from willing people to get beyond it. Apparently here may not be the place to ask for it. 

There is so much animosity towards the "uneducated" musician here from some, and yet there are some generally helpful people that are willing to lend their expertise. Ironically, the most successful composer in the world is one of those helpful ones. 

I have recently went back to my guitar, but am focusing on classical works. I am enthralled by the works of some of the classical guitar composers. The melody, counterpoint, and progressions. My time trying to learn composition has really helped in regards to reading classical guitar notation.

However, I still love the chunky, rhythmic riffs of bands like Dream Theater, Metallica and Conquering Dystopia. Someone mentioned that Epic music is the metal of the Orchestral world, and I can see that. Doesn't make it bad.

I really see this as being more of, "Why do these amateurs try and make music? Just leave it to us 'Professionals'. We obviously know what's best."

Or you could just blame the sample library makers for making the tools that allow us mere mortals to think we might someday earn the respect of the Vi-Control elite. :mrgreen:


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

1. I find it sad that these days I more often than not walk away from movie having no recollection of the soundtrack almost immediately.

2. Talent knows no genre. 


Just my worthless two cents


----------



## clisma

SimonCharlesHanna @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> 1. I find it sad that these days I more often than not walk away from movie having no recollection of the soundtrack almost immediately.
> 
> 2. Talent knows no genre.
> 
> 
> Just my worthless two cents



I echo both of your worthless two cents. Although technically, two cents are worth, ehm, exactly two cents, barring variance in currency fluctuation, of course.


----------



## Stradibaldi

I think the future will not be kind to the current crop of movies.

Hollywood has been taken over by "manchild cinema": the exploitative pandering of turning everything from our childhood into grimdark action schlock for the 30/40-year-old geeks we grew up to become (think JJ Trek, Transformers, Batman, _everything Zack Snyder has ever touched_, etc.) Hollywood doesn't make live action movies for kids anymore like E.T. or Jumanji, I mean movies that are anti-cynical. At best, there's animation.

CGI spectacle movies will not look so good in the rearview mirror either. Audiences are already 90% inured to spectacle. You can create any scene, you can put the camera anywhere, nothing is spectacular anymore.

It says something when _Guardians_ made a bigger pop-culture splash than _Avengers 2_. People want movies to be FUN again.


----------



## bbunker

I'm not usually in the fortune telling business, but this thread has got me thinking. I think that there are some great points going around about cinema today. Which is already dated, since every film is like a supernova - you only see it some time after the creative spark has already been lit. It isn't cinema, but Mad Men is a perfect example, since that was in gestation for some time before it finally got greenlit - and I kind of feel that the difference in 'generational worldview' is part of what's propelled it to success.

If I were in the prediction business, I'd say that the next generation of films (and I think we're nearing the end of this one) are going to be radically optimistic. We're watching the angst and cynical worldview of my generations. The generation in young adulthood on the 11th of June 2001 has been given plenty of reasons to mistrust the American dream, and I have no doubt that the "Dark Anti-hero Ironic Cynicism" phase of these last years has been a reflection of that.

But, I said the next wave will be optimistic - because Millenials don't seem to buy into the same worldview. The YOLO generation is lambasted by Gen X'ers for their sense of entitlement - but I would suggest that 'sense of entitlement' is perhaps just a code language for "optimism," and one that pre-millenials find abrasive. Something along the lines of "We're jaded for a REASON! Why aren't YOU all jaded?!?" Therein lies the generational gap, and crossing that will change cinema.

I think that once cinema is being run by Millenials, a process that definitely does not happen overnight, then film will look very different. There's a flippant, deliberate cheekiness that's prevalent in the Millenial worldview. I don't think that the current 'Epic' trend fits with that cheeky effervescence, and it'll shuffle slowly of this mortal coil as it becomes less and less relevant.

I don't know what the music WILL sound like, but if I were to guess then I'd say that the Orchestral world will probably come back, because it's a very cyclical process. Orchestral Hollywood has been pronounced dead a number of times, and it never seems to go away. Does it make sense to score a 'period western' using Richard Strauss' orchestra? Of course not - but that sound is a part of the Hollywood tradition, and Millenials are strangely bound to tradition in a way that Gen X and Y aren't - I think that the abundance of streaming music has forged a generation of curators.

My guess would be that the future of film music, in five to ten years, is going to rely on streamlined, tighter orchestral sound (more Mendelssohn 4th than Mahler 5, for example!). Minimalism will go away - the tangential, furtively powerful cynicisms of Glass or Reich will have little to do with this wave of film. Hybrid scores are probably going to die as well - they seem far too overly genuine, inauthentic in their appropriations, and too murky, dark and affected.

Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about, and someone can bring up how wrong I am in ten years, we can share a pint and a laugh about it all.


----------



## muk

germancomponist @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> An interesting question: Why are so many cars now in black color?



Actually the most sold car color today is white. Followed by silver and grey.


----------



## Guy Rowland

re-peat @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Not even a hundred Powells joined together at the hip are capable of a single bar of the Indy march. I’m sorry.
> With respect and, I hope, without any hint of sounding patronizing, it seems to me you’re not quite understanding what I’m getting at: I’m not just talking decent tunes or effective film music, I’m talking culture-defining, iconic melodic material. “Ode an Die Freude”-type of stuff, yes. Melodies which transcend being mere melody. Melodies which become engraved in the human DNA. That, Guy, is the exclusive territory of composers like Williams (who, miraculously, wrote several) and people like John Barry and Morricone. It’s a special and rare gift, which only a tiny handful of composers have. John Powell, outstanding film composer that he may be, has no place at _that_ table, I’m afraid.
> 
> As for America’s bit of misfortune in the 70’s: I knew you were going to say that, and it’s true of course, but there is a fundamental difference: wounded as the American idea may have been in the 70’s — and not forgetting the severe beating it took in the 60’s (Kennedy, King, …) — its mythology remained unharmed, and the interpretation of that mythology remained believable. Which is no longer the case today. Hence the rise of _twisted_ metaphors like Nolan's abominable Batman.
> 
> _



Have to say, this is a terrific thread. About Epic music - who'd have thought?

I think I do get your argument Piet, it's just I don't agree with it. You've made a straight line link between a composition for a popcorn movie and the wider mythology of a nation that I don't think exists. I think that's an illusion, or rather reading back into history stuff that was serendipitous, and it misses a deeper truth. I might also take issue with the idea that Watergate / Vietnam was "a bit of misfortune" while today is something deeper, but really my argument is that this isn't relevant.

Escapist popcorn movies aren't representative of the American dream, they're bigger than that. They're merely the latest incarnation of the old old stories, the old old myths and legends from cultures across the world. They equally resonate in China and LA. A poor farm boy saving the galaxy transcends cultural barriers (though of course might be perceived as threatening by some regimes - I'm talking about the audience).

Here's how Star Wars and its score went, as far as I can tell having obsessively read about it for most of my life (incidentally my primary obsession is just the first movie, partly because the making itself is a classic underdog story). Lucas realises that nobody makes the old old escapist matinee adventures any more a la Buck Rogers. He decides to make a kids space adventure in that mould, sticking rigidly to the heroes journey and putting the two lowliest characters at the centre of the film (R2D2 and C3PO), and throwing in some cutting edge effects. He asks JW to write a conventional orchestral rousing score, and Williams knocks it out of the park (the only part of the movie that Lucas was happy with on release, apparently). And that's it. (It's another tangent, but what really fascinates me today is how thwarted his vision was, and how that led to the film's success. Though all respect has to be paid to Lucas for creating those characters and that world, if left to his own devices with unlimited funds and technology, no-one would probably remember it today)

What's changed since 1977? We can discuss the collapse of the USSR, 9/11, Guantanamo, Ed Snowdon, each of which is fascinating and profound in its own way. We can discuss what's happened to the American dream. But how does any of that change the hero's journey? Not at all.

William Goldman said that there are two kinds of movies - movies that tell you how the world is, and movies that tell you how you'd like the world to be. He was scathing of movies who muddled those two things up (I remember he mercilessly ripped into LA Confidential for this very reason). Blockbusters like Indy and SW are of course firmly in the latter camp. And although it might ebb and flow a bit in the aftermath of a tumultuous world event, fundamentally these kinds of films are immune to them, indeed could even be strengthened by them - we want the world to be different to how it is.

I think your case that in some way a tune like Star Wars or ET can transcend merely being a good tune and become "engraved into human DNA" are not so because of socio-political history, they are so because the fusion of the music (the soul of the movie when done right, I argue) and the movies themselves represent that pure perfection of the hero's journey and our wish for the world to be like that. So I agree that they transcend the ordinary, that there is an awe-inspiring alchemy at work, I just disagree as to the reason.

And - I think.... (not sure)... I disagree with you about Powell. The reason is that he's never scored a film like ET or Star Wars. We could argue over the greatness over the theme to HTTYD - for me it is one of the truly great themes - but I suspect you'd consider it lesser partly because of simplicity (it's not as easy to whistle as Superman, to be sure). But either way, though HTTYD is a film beloved by many, it simply isn't an age-and-culture-universal phenomenon such as Star Wars or Indy. It's "just" a good kids film. Star Wars was something far bigger.

You cite that era from about 1974-1993 as Williams' golden era, but how much of that is because the films themselves were so good, with Lucas and Speilberg at the top of their respective games? Has he scored a film since that has had anything like the impact? Maybe he needs a film that good to write at his peak. A flaw in my argument is Superman of course - never really a great movie but the brilliance of the theme is beyond question. But even though even today every kid knows that great theme (and crucially you can sing the word SUPERMAN to the last three notes), it has no particular wider resonance or love I'd say - the films just weren't good or impactful enough. 

I agree with much of bbunker's post. And mostly because I do believe in the universal power of the hero's journey, and cinema's power to transport. If SW7 is as good as the first hand reports of script and shoot I've heard suggest (with all due caveats - I'm well aware it's likely to disappoint because expectation is so absurdly high) it will work just as well today as the original did in 1977.

If I've still misunderstood your argument Piet, do accept my apologies....


----------



## Sebastianmu

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> I think your case that in some way a tune like Star Wars or ET can transcend merely being a good tune and become "engraved into human DNA" are not so because of socio-political history, they are so because the fusion of the music (the soul of the movie when done right, I argue) and the movies themselves represent that pure perfection of the hero's journey and our wish for the world to be like that. So I agree that they transcend the ordinary, that there is an awe-inspiring alchemy at work, I just disagree as to the reason.



The "City of Tomorrow" from 1965:

https://youtu.be/2-5aK0H05jk?t=5m50s

I think it's a perfect example for the genuine "post-war optimism", remnants of which where perceptible up until the 90ies. Nowadays, this is almost completely incomprehensible!

And as much as I admire Campbells book, I do believe it makes a siginificant difference _what kind of person_ goes through the stages of the hero's journey, what kind of character traits he represents, what his specific motivations are and so on. Luke Skywalker is just such a sweet and gracious guy! Nowadays, scriptwriters would find it rather cheesy to have a main character that wouldn't show some inner brokenness and deep wounds. For them, it feels modern to depict the main character as someone who is deeply disturbed, in a way. But this is indicative of a certain negative attitude towards humankind in general for what people do to the world and to each other, that is very widely spread. On a psychological level I conjecture the prevailing ultra-violent behaviour of the good guys and the bad guys alike is some sort of self-flagellation thing of humankind in general.

And so many films have been meticulously constructed according to the hero's journey, but they lack that specific connection to socio-cultural undercurrents that Piet is talking about! Yes, Star Wars was made as a weekend-space-ship-flick for kids, but that it ended up having the impact it had is evidence that it hit something deeper than all the other renderings of the hero's journey before and since.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I think nothing has been the same since the First World War. The genie is out of the bottle, nothing is as controlled as it was before knowledge was kept from the masses. Neo-Neo-Classical music like that of 70s Williams could be viewed as the death knell for a different, simpler time, with good guys and bad guys, Uncle Sam on your side, melodies you can hum instead of a lingering feeling of confusion.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Sebastianmu @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your case that in some way a tune like Star Wars or ET can transcend merely being a good tune and become "engraved into human DNA" are not so because of socio-political history, they are so because the fusion of the music (the soul of the movie when done right, I argue) and the movies themselves represent that pure perfection of the hero's journey and our wish for the world to be like that. So I agree that they transcend the ordinary, that there is an awe-inspiring alchemy at work, I just disagree as to the reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "City of Tomorrow" from 1965:
> 
> https://youtu.be/2-5aK0H05jk?t=5m50s
> 
> I think it's a perfect example for the genuine "post-war optimism", remnants of which where perceptible up until the 90ies. Nowadays, this is almost completely incomprehensible!
> 
> And as much as I admire Campbells book, I do believe it makes a siginificant difference _what kind of person_ goes through the stages of the hero's journey, what kind of character traits he represents, what his specific motivations are and so on. Luke Skywalker is just such a sweet and gracious guy! Nowadays, scriptwriters would find it rather cheesy to have a main character that wouldn't show some inner brokenness and deep wounds. For them, it feels modern to depict the main character as someone who is deeply disturbed, in a way. But this is indicative of a certain negative attitude towards humankind in general for what people do to the world and to each other, that is very widely spread. On a psychological level I conjecture the prevailing ultra-violent behaviour of the good guys and the bad guys alike is some sort of self-flagellation thing of humankind in general.
> 
> And so many films have been meticulously constructed according to the hero's journey, but they lack that specific connection to socio-cultural undercurrents that Piet is talking about! Yes, Star Wars was made as a weekend-space-ship-flick for kids, but that it ended up having the impact it had is evidence that it hit something deeper than all the other renderings of the hero's journey before and since.
Click to expand...


Indeed - the hero's journey doth not a great movie make. You can make a perfectly tedious movie with it hitting every beat - of course there has to be something more, something extra. But as a template to hang the other good stuff on, it can't be beat.

Your comments on good good guys ring true. Leonardo Di Caprio got a huge amount of flack for Titanic, but he was playing it as ordered. I remember reading that Di Caprio wanted to add some tics, some neurosis, but Cameron was dead against it, arguing its harder to play simple straightforward good well. Jack's character is an archetype, almost a cliche, and he performs exactly the right role in that script (of which, incidentally, William Goldman strongly approved while bemoaning some of the dialogue - "screenplay is structure", he argued). The film transcended age and cultural barriers.

As for City of Tomorrow - its exactly what Tomorrowland takes as its hook, nostalgia for the time when the future was exciting, not terrifying. I really liked that movie and its spirit, but it wrestled with too many mind-bending ideas to be a classic. Flawed but hugely enjoyable.

Anyway, I'm getting way off the point. I think since about the mid 90s, only animated movies have really kept this spirit alive, and not insignificantly these have been some of the best (and highest grossing) movies of the past couple of decades. And someone already mentioned the excellent and under-rated work of Randy Newman - the best Pixar and Dreamworks films have tended to have far more conventional scores, and it hasn't hurt them a jot. It feels like the market is pregnant with anticipation for a more universal film of the quality of, say, Toy Story. The worst thing that could possibly happen to Star Wars 7 is if it purely pandered to the 30 somethings and became Dark Knight-ish. Fortunately, that seems spectacularly unlikely at this point.


----------



## WhiteNoiz

bbunker @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> I'm not usually in the fortune telling business, but this thread has got me thinking. I think that there are some great points going around about cinema today. Which is already dated, since every film is like a supernova - you only see it some time after the creative spark has already been lit. It isn't cinema, but Mad Men is a perfect example, since that was in gestation for some time before it finally got greenlit - and I kind of feel that the difference in 'generational worldview' is part of what's propelled it to success.
> 
> If I were in the prediction business, I'd say that the next generation of films (and I think we're nearing the end of this one) are going to be radically optimistic. We're watching the angst and cynical worldview of my generations. The generation in young adulthood on the 11th of June 2001 has been given plenty of reasons to mistrust the American dream, and I have no doubt that the "Dark Anti-hero Ironic Cynicism" phase of these last years has been a reflection of that.
> 
> But, I said the next wave will be optimistic - because Millenials don't seem to buy into the same worldview. The YOLO generation is lambasted by Gen X'ers for their sense of entitlement - but I would suggest that 'sense of entitlement' is perhaps just a code language for "optimism," and one that pre-millenials find abrasive. Something along the lines of "We're jaded for a REASON! Why aren't YOU all jaded?!?" Therein lies the generational gap, and crossing that will change cinema.
> 
> I think that once cinema is being run by Millenials, a process that definitely does not happen overnight, then film will look very different. There's a flippant, deliberate cheekiness that's prevalent in the Millenial worldview. I don't think that the current 'Epic' trend fits with that cheeky effervescence, and it'll shuffle slowly of this mortal coil as it becomes less and less relevant.
> 
> I don't know what the music WILL sound like, but if I were to guess then I'd say that the Orchestral world will probably come back, because it's a very cyclical process. Orchestral Hollywood has been pronounced dead a number of times, and it never seems to go away. Does it make sense to score a 'period western' using Richard Strauss' orchestra? Of course not - but that sound is a part of the Hollywood tradition, and Millenials are strangely bound to tradition in a way that Gen X and Y aren't - I think that the abundance of streaming music has forged a generation of curators.
> 
> My guess would be that the future of film music, in five to ten years, is going to rely on streamlined, tighter orchestral sound (more Mendelssohn 4th than Mahler 5, for example!). Minimalism will go away - the tangential, furtively powerful cynicisms of Glass or Reich will have little to do with this wave of film. Hybrid scores are probably going to die as well - they seem far too overly genuine, inauthentic in their appropriations, and too murky, dark and affected.
> 
> Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about, and someone can bring up how wrong I am in ten years, we can share a pint and a laugh about it all.



Wow, good point but I totally disagree!

I don't think it's about optimism by itself at all. It's about values and the society and condition that inpires them.

What does optimism really indicate and imply? It implies a society ready to change and start fresh and feeling confident in doing so.

The 60s was a time of optimism. Why? Because there were events that inspired that optimism and attitude. People didn't just change overnight. They didn't wake up one morning and declared "From now on I'm being optimistic!". It just makes no sense. Not to mention the world was still discovering itself and its environment (and music, too) and re-evalutating.

Being optimistic as a general condition is just stupid. What is the optimism based on? Surely, you can't be looking at a coming tornado and feeling "optimistic". You can only pray it will change its course or that it will not hit hard.

But society is not a tornado. And music is not a tornado. It is a natural process but not totally undefined and totally beyond our control. Society (and music) can define its course. It will be inspired by itself. It can also destroy itself. It's a constant evolution and fight of the elements. Inspiration doesn't only come from good things. That fight and clash of the elements can create something wonderful but also something destructive. And evolution is not "good" by default. It's just different.

Why do we have so many EPIC productions? Because we have technology. And lack of inspiration... We see a “new” future that is still dictated by “old” values. Something “big” is coming. It's just so multifaceted. Firstly, you have "business sense". An epic eye-candy production should be more popular than some absract piece of "art". 

Ok, ok... Let's start with art. Art is different than entertainment but they're still not mutually exclusive. Art for me is something that can be interpreted in multiple ways while still being aesthetically and technically balanced and pleasing. Hell, an intended product will probably be different than natural artistic expression. That doesn't mean there is no space for pure entertainment and mindless fun and that all people will find the same things equally pleasing. We are shaped by our experiences. Everything has its value; no matter how small. The turd you stepped on at the street was probably not a nice experience but you will be more careful next time by knowing you want to avoid a similar experience. Cause and effect. Patterns. Plus, you only move forward by experimenting and learning from your mistakes. Well, as long as you're not a total control freak or have some dark interest to serve and you're willing to leave your comfort zone. Change is certainly not easy. Of course, if you're smart and provident you will probably avoid stepping on it in the first place. But sometimes you're not cautious and attentive... And then, there is that “childish” part of you that wants to step on it forcefully and willfully. Why? Because it's fun. Because it COULD be fun. What if?

“What if...?”

What is epic? Epic means dramatization. It's about the FEELS. Not just the technicalities. We're living in a society that's getting more robot-like and specialised. We lack the mindless fun. We lack the dragons and the castles. We lack the heroes. We miss the drama. We lack the questions. We need everything explained and ready-made. We lack the big vision. We love patterns. Wait... Epic also has patterns. But it also can place you into that fantastical world. It can lift your spirit.

I was just listening to TSFH's “Battleborne” and paying attention to the lyrics. “There is fire in the air that I'm breathing, There is blood...” . Maybe there is not any actual fire anywhere near you but there is in other parts of the world. Maybe all it's talking about is a fantastical world but it's not that far-fetched to draw lines parallel to our current society.

Couldn't fire mean “turbulence, war”? It's an obvious metaphor.

What about blood? Shed by the galons every single day!

And fighting for the “queen or the slave”? Class war? Fighting for a cause?

Isn't everyday life an uphill battle?

So, what is it about? It's not just patterns and not just plain catchy - but well-crafted – tunes. It's about a message. It's about values. Not only that, of course, but I think that's a valid response and interpretation. Music is a living thing, like society. No matter how stereotypical, unimaginative and repetitive both can get.

Why do we have so many super-hero shows and movies? Why do we have God? Because we need to know someone out there is like us and something powerful represents our will to stand on our feet and establish what we perceive as “right”. Because we feel trapped and scared. But “right” and “realistic”, in actuality, is about what we accept for ourselves. There is no “God-given” right and noone will respect it if we don't. It's just nice words to remind us what we can achieve as a society and what we could have. I, for one, appreciate that most of these nowadays are not about “single beacons that will save the world” but they also show the experiences that shape these sick societies and point out that by working together we can achieve change. Not necessarily by having a big face-to-face war but also by changing our everyday attitude and view of the world.

What do we have? We have a shadow police state. We have the new “God” of economics and markets. We face neo-feudalism and neo-colonialism. Absolute powers. We have powerful entities disregarding and ignoring established freedoms and rights... We have entities that want to play God. Moving against rights we're not still fighting for with the same willpower, intensity and realisation. But we'll catch onto these events (or they'll land in our face) at some points. We're in a state of dormant acceptance and realisation.

Wait, that could be a fairytale...

Is it cynical? Yes! And it's very real! We've learned to be cynical. But it's also hopeful. We live in the new Middle Ages but we can also turn the whole situation on its face and change. We have more machinery and more science, but those are still dictated, in essence, by the same unchanged principles and individuals. Technology can be a huge prison but also a huge liberation. History doesn't repeat itself, humans do! And nothing is pre-determined. Not to mention time and history really concerns only us and not the planet. The universe doesn't have emotional ties. But we're a small part of it that does. And as magical as that is, it's also a huge burden.

People get awed by the epicness but what is the underlying message?

It's also a sort of escapism when you look at it more deeply. People want to believe and they like dreaming of things. Dreaming and hoping is one thing, planning and acting is another! We've also gotten addicted to sensationalism and ignore logic, as much strange as that may sound; especially in this era of debunking, calculation and computing.

We feel miniscule. Everything is unchangeable and too big and established to fail and change. We need the huge armies, the huge heroes, the epic horns and the angels of the apocalypse!

What everyone also seems to be missing is the pattern-based approach. How do machines work? How do computers work? Working on a machine will 'naturally' influence the way you approach things. When you have “snap to grid” on by default, copy-paste, when you can quantise everything to perfection, when you have access to unlimited tools but you still need a vision and a core pattern to get things done efficiently... How different is that to just playing a single intrument live and being limited? Not very. It's still mostly about you in a way. We just think that everything lies in material abundance when the mind behind it plays an equal, and maybe bigger role. If you were given a paper with square grids, wouldn't you need to get more creative and squeeze your brain to draw circles and lines in between the perfect corners and boundaries? Plus, you can make everything "polished" and "perfect".

And a thing about heroes... Ask any “hero”. Do they like being heroes? Do they like being worshipped? I'll answer that for you... No! Noone wants to be a hero. Not one with superpowers (unless they have some sort of psychiatric issue - to want to rule over others that is; see how that suddenly sounds like a villain? Disregarding society, being an idiot), not an “everyday” one. Does a crippled person or a war veteran like to be called a “hero”? Was that their aim in life? No! They just want to be “normal” and be able to do what other people get to do. Pain and disappointment is the main driving factor. And, beyond that, they would be a sucker who tries to save others when they keep repeating the same things and ignoring the circumstances.

By the way, just sharing out thoughts like this contributes in the clash and the evolution. Every little act can contribute to the big whole. And I wrote this while listening to epic music. Who'd have thought? My brain should be fried by now.


----------



## guitarman1960

Guy Rowland @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> adam_lukas @ Thu Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. True Williams style will never be popular again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Let's reconvene in Feb 2016.
> 
> I sense a disturbance in the force. Soundtracks are part of a bigger picture. There's a general moving away from CG and towards practical stunts and effects again, for example. Of course even Star Wars 7 has plenty of CG in it (though it's peripheral... I've heard staggering tales of what was accomplished in-camera), and of course similarly we live in a world with an expanded sonic palette. But.... well, everything comes around....
Click to expand...


Well lets hope CGI does die a death very very soon! Apart from a few exceptions CGI effects are never as good as the old ILM proper real effects with matte paintings and models. Hell, even the old Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet TV series look much better than CGI.

If I see one more movie or trailer where someone or something rushes towards a cliif edge and suddenly looks down on thousands of CGI generated people/creatures or whatever just so everyone wearing 3D glasses can go WOW!!!!, I'm gonna throw up!!!!

As for the old John Williams style of soundtrack cheese, never liked it even back then, so lets hope cheesy melodies and fanfares die a death also. :D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Cowboys and Native-Americans everywhere on screens in the 50s did not lead to 40-year olds in the 70s watching westerns/making Western soundtracks as a hobby. That said, Hollywood stopped making Westerns in the late 70s, but since Star Wars, fantasy/sci-fi operas have had a much longer life, are still dominating the box-office after 40 years. So kids growing up on Star-Wars and LOTR can continue to indulge/feed their love of epic as adults.


----------



## WhiteNoiz

Here's pretty much the same thing from a different perspective:



(Especially after the 20 mins mark)

Also, the whole world doesn't revolve around what we individually like and nothing can satisfy everyone.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> (...) You've made a straight line link between a composition for a popcorn movie and the wider mythology of a nation that I don't think exists.(...)


I think it very much exists because the films we’re talking about here, are all cinematographic mirrors of the fundamental values, morals, hopes, ideals, dreams and pride which (almost) every American is raised on, can indentify with, and rallies behind in times when he/she feels it is necessary, or is asked, to do so.

It’s true that the storytelling itself is always but a slight variation of the age-old themes which have been told, in all likelihood, since the dawn of mankind — stories that can be found all through history and all over the world, in some local adaption or other — but: it’s not these stories in themselves which define American cinema, it’s the way these stories are re-told in a very calculated way to be the carriers of, or metaphors for very specific ideas/values/identifications, which is so very representative of the American identity. (This is, again, not an American exclusive, the technique is as old as stories themselves, but it is unmistakably very much present and exploited in American mainstream cinema.)

The figure of a superman is not an American invention, it goes back to the oldest civilizations, long before ‘America’ was even a glint in the Heavenly Milkman’s eye, but ‘Superman’, as he emerged in the comics and later on the screen as the propaganda-esque embodiment of a very distinct combination of certain morals, values and patriotism-instilling heroïsm — in short: as the symbol of (the spirit of) a nation — is *very* much an American creation (even if there’s a suspiciously German streak in him which raises its ugly head at times).
Same with Indy. On a pleasantly superficial and highly entertaining level, Jones Junior can be enjoyed as the archetypical, universal hero battling bad guys. And that may be all that most people buy a ticket for, sure. Which is fine. But underneath all that — though not so deep as to be subliminal — there is the ever-present flag-bearing American missionary, spreading American values and making Americans feel good about who they (believe they) are. (And before there arises any misunderstanding or confusion: I have not the least problem with that.)
Star Wars: same thing. E.T.: same thing. Even Jaws. They’re all chapters of the Great American Bible. A book which has, contrary to what you suggest, nowhere near the wide-spread foothold as the original (on which it is actually very much based).

Now, if you then bring in a composer who, by the luckiest of concatenations, happens to be able to provide the perfect score, no, let’s make that the ultimate score, to all of this — a musician who is somehow able to tap into, and then summon, the greatest and most diverse powers that music is capable of — you end up with a mix that is no longer just cinematography but iconography.

Let’s move on. (Allow me to skip the Powell paragraph, because it makes no musical sense at all to me to consider the idea that Powell might have even the tiniest fraction of Williams’ melodic gift, a reasonable one. Sorry.)

I can’t agree with what you say about the quality of the films somehow inspiring better music from Williams either, I’m afraid. For one simple reason which I can illustrate with several examples: he wrote some of his best music for some the lousiest, most ridiculous films of the past 30 years.
Between 75 and 93, it simply didn’t matter what film you gave Williams, he invariably came back with phenomenally good music. Every single time. A bad film never stopped Williams being Williams. Williams, in his prime, was way toooo musically ‘possessed’ to let something as trivial as a movie interfere with what he wanted to do. (Which is also why I consider Williams not always the best film composer, even when he was at his best as a composer.)
Williams, I believe, used films as outlets, or vents, the way Stravinsky used ballets, Bach cantatas and Mozart operas and concerti. If you have that much music in you as these people had — and trust me, they knew they were freakishly special —, you just want to write it, no matter the libretto, scenario or script.

It still doesn’t matter, I believe, what film you give Williams, his contribution will always be the envy of the film music composing fraternity. It’s just that, in my opinion, something died around ’92. Like it did for Stevie Wonder after “Hotter Than July”, or for Bowie after “Scary Monsters”, or for Brian Wilson after “Friends”. (The number of near-identical examples — Fagen, Bacharach, McCartney, Paul Simon, Ray Davies,… — is simply too large and too striking to be ignored or dismissed as a coïncidence or random occurence.)

The remarkable genius which these musicians may have called theirs at one time, is a sort of blessed state, I very much believe, with a distinct beginning but sadly, also a distinct ending. An ending which signifies that they still may have all their craft, passion and talent, but that they somehow lost access to that undefinable higher level of inspiration. Like I said before: I haven’t heard *anything* of Williams, not a single bar or cue, since “Hook” — and I buy and keep buying everything that’s got his name on it — in which I hear evidence of that “higher inspiration”. The main theme of “Jurassic Park”, to me, is the great Williams’ final roar.

_


----------



## Greg

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> Have to say, this is a terrific thread. About Epic music - who'd have thought?



I know right!! Let us all take a moment of appreciation for quelling the "like what I like or be damned" attitude and having a nice debate about this very interesting genre! o-[][]-o


----------



## Guy Rowland

Fascinating as always, Piet. One might want to take issue that a JW score such as Heartbeeps (1981) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5nrKe57qo0 (and it's worth a listen) - is necessarily superior to Adventures of TinTin, Harry Potter and the Phiosopher's Stone or Catch Me If You Can. But in perhaps a sligithly more on topic diversion, let's return again to Star Wars, and specifically the prequels.

All three prequel films are today scorned and with good reason. There's little good to find in them at all, but good is there both in the work of Ben Burtt and John Williams, pretty much the only people to come out of the trauma with their heads held high imo. Is Duel Of The Fates the equal to The Battle For Yavin? Even though it's terrific (and much copied), not quite for me, but there again even the beloved Asteroid Field from Empire isn't either. It's hard to argue against the iconic Imperial March, but otherwise all the very best Star Wars thematic material is in that first movie (again, obviously this all from my possibly skewed personal perspective). And that's just fine, as those themes are further explored in the subsequent movies, and musically I make no real distinction between them.

The point of all this - if JW reprises his form in The Phantom Menace (1999, post "golden period") for The Force Awakens, and the film itself is the equal of A New Hope or Empire Strikes Back, then that will have absolutely done its job. If the film excites kids today in the same way that the first film did in 1977, and if (as I suspect) it reduces grown men to tears - the cinematic equivalent of The Critic's culinary revelation in Ratatouille - no amount of socio-political theorising or analysis of John Williams' own personal arc will matter. (Notice how I further absurdly elevate expectation regarding SW7 on each post).

Why do grown men weep at the trailer for the Force Awakens? Just nostalgia? Probably, and maybe that's the whole point. It's nostalgia for an era of filmmaking that is sorely missed. I don't know about in the US, but in the last year or so affection for Back To The Future has gone through the roof, partly due to Secret Cinema's event in London last year. Again and again the subject came up as a new generation discovers these films with the same joy - why DON'T they make them like this any more? Why indeed.


----------



## WhiteNoiz

Let me share something with you:
I have never watched a single minute of Star Wars. Not. A. Single. One. And I have no inclination of doing so. Do I have pre-conceived notions? Probably. Could I be missing on something great? Sure. But I still don't care in the least.

Firstly, I don't like the aesthetics. When I look at it (the costumes, the colors, ...) I want to gouge my eyes out. I just can't relate to it like someone who was around when it first materialised and made its impact.

Secondly, it has an established history and community and I feel I don't belong in it. Not in its era, not in its style. And I don't want to make the effort to fit in it or understand it.

Thirdly, I'm not American. And it means nothing to my culture. It may mean something to (American) cinema. It may have influenced a lot of people outside America (which, of course, due to its size and language has that "spilling" cultural effect). But, at its core, it means nothing to me. It's another EPIC movie. Also, you're proud of what you have achieved as a person, not as a nation. And if you're proud of what the nation as a whole has achieved, you should also be ready to accept its shortcomings.

Finally, patriotism has a different meaning in the Anglo-American world (which encompasses traditionally colonial societies). It's generally considered something negative (that's my impression at least). The only thing that is somehow different is the American Revolution, where noone was a "native" per se, but they had that sense of a new homeland they needed to defend, when you would expect stronger ties with the "old" motherlands. (The distinction of "motherland" and "fatherland" is also of interest)
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". (Mostly for people in power who want to present their interest as the interest of the nation.)

Sure, it may carry a lot of traditional values and ideas. Ideas there are millions of interpretations of. But, there, you have it. The antithesis and clash at work.


----------



## bbunker

What a strange post.

How do you feel you can gauge the aesthetics, or any other aspect of the content of the work, without having seen a 'single minute' of the film? Are you suggesting that you have some idea of what the effect of the film would be from stills, or artwork? Trailers would of course provide a single minute of the film, so we can rule those out. It feels like a profoundly philistine comment, along the lines of "I don't really like Edward Munch's work: it's too purple for me."

Why do you think that the fact that you can't 'relate' to a work in the way that the original consumers of that work did makes you unable to understand it? Do you similarly reject Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Gershwin, Jazz, the Beatles and Nirvana? This sounds profoundly myopic. There must surely be some content which is meaningful beyond the initial consumption of any work, mustn't there? Or must we burn every record after the first listening, since there's no way anyone can relate to them in the same way again?


----------



## re-peat

Apart from a deep love for most of its music, I have nothing whatsoever with “Star Wars” either. Never had, never will. (I think I saw the first one in its entirety, a few stretches of the 2nd and 3rd and I do recall beginning to watch the 4th only to switch it off again after 15 minutes or so.)
I do understand its immense appeal though as both a roller-coaster of an adventure movie and as a sort of 20th century post-nazism “Ilias”. And it is the United-States-Constitution-turned-into-accessible-cinema as well of course. 

My favourite scene from the entire “Star Wars” franchise isn’t in any of the movies: it’s that YT-clip where Williams launches the Boston Pops into the “Main Title”, and the audience simply explodes with irrational excitement. There’s much more happening at that moment than just nostalgia.

But, as a cultural phenomenon, “Star Wars” is not my thing at all, and I’m certainly not counting the days until the new one will hit the screens. And I have nothing with the “Back To The Future” series either. 

All of which makes it a bit difficult to find the common ground of things we both consider important or relevant, Guy. I’m just not into the Spielberg-Lucas-Zemeckis school of filmmaking at all. (My type of films, from that decade anyway, lies more in the Chinatown-TheGodfather-AllThe PresidentsMen-ThreeDaysOfTheCondor vein: Pollack, Pakula, Polanski, Coppola, ...)

Furthermore, and this is another huge sack-of-sand in the gas tank of our discussion: I always detach music from the film to which it belongs. Always. If the music doesn’t work on its own, I’m not interested. If it needs a story, I’m not interested. In short: film music that is only film music, means absolutely nothing to me.
Which is why it’s rather pointless, I suppose, to compare our respective appreciations of various cues in the Williams canon. When I listen to “The Asteroïd Field” or "The Forest Battle”, I’m not even aware that I’m listening to “Star Wars”-music: I’m listening to irresistibly inspired and well-written ‘abstract’ orchestral scherzos, no more, no less. The fact that these pieces saw life as music for some film or other, is entirely circumstantial and irrelevant to me. (Perhaps that is also why, for me, there is such a clearly drawn line, at around ’93, when Williams shapeshifted from being a great composer into a great film composer.)

But yeah, assuming that Williams has hit upon a bottle of musical viagra, or been sent a sort of musical version of Mulliner’s Buck-U-Uppo, and manages to find his mid-season form back for the forthcoming SW-installment, AND assuming that that music oils a movie of comparable appeal and impact as the first one had — both assumptions which I consider highly unlikely contingencies however (“Crystal Skull” being too fresh a very awkward and painful memory) — it might lift some of that dark cape which is currently draped over the blockbuster industry, and bring back some much-needed lightness, zest and unconflicted excitement.

_


----------



## guitarman1960

If you watch the original Star Wars movie today, on one level its a fun, exciting and imaginative sci fi movie, on another level when you look a little deeper it's full of very unsubtle pro American, anti German, anti Soviet and anti Arab propaganda.


----------



## WhiteNoiz

bbunker @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> What a strange post.
> Are you suggesting that you have some idea of what the effect of the film would be from stills, or artwork? Trailers would of course provide a single minute of the film, so we can rule those out. It feels like a profoundly philistine comment, along the lines of "I don't really like Edward Munch's work: it's too purple for me."



Um, yeah, the same way I wouldn't like my curtains purple. There's no deeper meaning to it. The same way you may avoid a neighbourhood by its reputation or a restaurant when you don't like the decoration. The same way I haven't been to a nude beach. Could it be an interesting experience? Well, I guess. But it does nothing for me right now and I don't have to try it. I just have no interest to. Maybe in the future.

It just makes feel weird and it doesn't sit well in my eyes.



bbunker @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> Why do you think that the fact that you can't 'relate' to a work in the way that the original consumers of that work did makes you unable to understand it?



I meant I won't have the same emotional attachment to it or look forward to it in the same way; if at all. There is a difference. It doesn't mean I won't like it. It means I may like it for different reasons. Nostalgia could be one. It could be because it was my first experience. Maybe I've associated it with an event of my life. Etc...

I mean... It's not really about evolution, is it? For some, it seems to be about returning to a previous approach. It has a sort of sentimental quality to it. But, I guess, the old could influence the new in a fresh way. As long as it's meaningful and inspiring for the current generation, that is. And old becomes "new" constantly, like in fashion trends that recycle stuff but occasionaly add a "modern" touch. My point is that the clash is constant and things will eventually change/move forward or even backward and we will be presented with a re-evaluated old in a "hybrid mix" with the new in the context of the given situation.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Since we're on JW's topic, while i completely agree it doesn't get better than the era of _Jaws, Star Wars, CETK, Superman, Raiders, E.T._ in less than 10 years, or _Jurassic Park & Schindler's List_ in 6 months, and that John Williams made much better music than the films usually were...

I think a _Sabrina, JFK, Saving Private Ryan, Harry Potter, Catch Me if You Can & Terminal or Tintin & War Horse_ is as perfect music as it can get for those respective movies, as those from the 70's-early 90's, and to say that each one of those more recent movies, without fail, could have been much more than the result eventually was, is just a dangerous sign of anti-artistic attachment to a certain other kind of music, with a certain kind of sound, melody and meaning in the end, is it not?...

The thing to understand is that vintage Williams, and the same type of melodies or even orchestration, that go with it on the _Star Wars Prequels_ would not have worked, the same way traditional long lyrical melodies, and a certain sonic orchestration tend to be aesthetically rejected by today's stories and realism, however re-orchestrate, [and have a little faith & imagination here], *the theme to Monica from A.I.*, and i can find plenty of his other more recent melodies, and glue it to a film, with a celebratory Americana aesthetics like _Raiders, E.T. or Hook_, the magic or higher inspiration, while i'm sure some might disagree, will surely happen again... ITS ABOUT CONTEXT, and i think this can't be reminded of enough... The movies, starting from the mid 90's up till now, have affected the lyricism of the music in a way it should absolutely NOT be underestimated anymore, and I'm pretty sure that John Wiliams saw the same consequence on how he had to adapt his writing to the filmmaking process these past almost two decades...

I think the strength of a _Harry Potter 1 & 3_ or _Phantom Menace_ as albums can easily rival with a _Temple of Doom_ or _Last Crusade_ or that a _1998's Stepmom_ as great of an artform as the romantic works from _1989's Always_ or _1990's Stanley & Iris_... 

I think we're just assuming too much that we know John Williams's music better than he knows it himself and what he produces on a day-to-day basis at his writing desk. Yes we did indeed witness the evolution in his writing from the 80's to now, but then even Spielberg, as Hollywood in the 90's, started making very different, more aesthetically serious movies as time went on...

Take a look at his less melodic, yet recent, _concert works_, you'll find the Williams of the 80's back in full-flourished 20th century music-mode...

The more we want to quote and prove with examples that Williams's film music was better before than it its now, and that it even transcended the films he made, the more we usually and wishfully risk to make the mistake to ignore the subject matter & impact his later films had...
We can admit that the films changed in values but then why can't we admit that John Williams' public work had to change with it... 


I believe John Williams's is just a better composer now, than he ever was in the 70's-80's...
I think he's as apt now as to how memorable or not a character needs to be musically in today's films as in a character like _Superman_...
*The problem i see is that we always misbelieve that the tune can always be greater than the character or story really is...*

Give him another film with the story of a somehow iconic superhero, (_Harry Potter_ was the closest, but not quite!!)or non-super-hero with an 80's aesthetics, and watch him prove all of us, and our contributing pessimism, wrong...

And surely even after _the Force Awakens_, if the music miraculously fails, knowing John Williams's consistency & sincerity, i will put it on the lack of strength, or lack of depth, of its characters... 

And come on, if _Harry Potter's theme_, who every kid knows about, isn't generation & culturally defining, i don't know what is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNHVMIYqiA

It's all connected to it, aesthetics of the film & story... 
_"In John Williams we trust..."_

-A.S.-


----------



## KEnK

WhiteNoiz @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> Let me share something with you:
> I have never watched a single minute of Star Wars. Not. A. Single. One. And I have no inclination of doing so.


An entirely admirable stance.
I applaud you sir!

It will be sacrilege to most here,
but you aren't missing a thing.
It's just fluff.
Saturday afternoon kid stuff.
Good guys and bad guys, nothing more.

I also agree w/ what you said 
about the thinly veiled Cultural Imperialism/Patriotism aspect.

I also avoid mainstream cultural fluff- especially the manufactured kind.

But I am curious if you enjoyed "The Lord of the Rings" at all?

And to return to The "Epic" topic-
Personally I find the opening ring theme of TLOTR
to be the most "epic" piece of theme written in decades-
Just a simple bit of melody, no overblown brass or banging drums-
yet it encompasses the entire scope of 3 films in just a few notes.
That is truly epic

k


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Very nice discussion, good to hear from different perspectives. 

I am no expert on film or orchestral music but Piet, did you really not think that Phantom Menace, Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban, Schindler's List, Catch me if you can, even the new Tin Tin were any good?

I really liked his concert music - Yo Yo Ma plays John Williams. Such fantastic music in American Journey - the album as well.

There are always amazing moments in his music in almost every score I have ever heard. Not many composers can be spoken of in the same light. 

The only score I have not really listened that much and gotten into is Lincoln. 

I even liked War Horse, The Terminal. 

May be I am biased...eternal fan of John Williams here. I have not heard any music from the man that I simply did not like. 

There is no other film composer whose music I have been connected to at this level. But many come very, very close. 


Tanuj.


----------



## JohnG

When a movie gives the viewer permission simply to have fun on a big scale, to have what used to be called an adventure, the music can set about that as well. This works when a movie is clever, but can also do that even when the movie is a feeble as Hook or Tintin. I always felt that the greatness of John Williams' best scores had something to do with the spirit and (sometimes) the quality of the movies he scored, so to that extent I agree with some other posts here. 

The rise of Epic's popularity coincides with two other trends, the growth in narcism and the growth of video games. In the first, the person is at the center of his or her own drama, and in the second, the player is usually at the center of his or her own drama. If Epic is the music of those mindsets, maybe that accounts for the growth in demand for that kind of music? I hasten to add that I don't mean to disparage or dismiss epic style by saying that; it's just an observation.

As an aside, I think the discussion derails a bit when we get into the definition of America or America's pop self image or whatever we are talking about. Of course I accept that there are blurry gestures in that direction in Jones and of course explicit (and painfully childish) pronouncements on that in Superman. I just think the discussion grows non-musical, and not in a good way, when we veer in that direction.


----------



## Guy Rowland

re-peat @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> But yeah, assuming that Williams has hit upon a bottle of musical viagra, or been sent a sort of musical version of Mulliner’s Buck-U-Uppo, and manages to find his mid-season form back for the forthcoming SW-installment, AND assuming that that music oils a movie of comparable appeal and impact as the first one had — both assumptions which I consider highly unlikely contingencies however (“Crystal Skull” being too fresh a very awkward and painful memory) — it might lift some of that dark cape which is currently draped over the blockbuster industry, and bring back some much-needed lightness, zest and unconflicted excitement.



Assumptions be damned - I'll drink to that.

(And I promise - it won't be the Crystal Skull).


----------



## re-peat

JohnG @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> (...) As an aside, I think the discussion derails a bit when we get into the definition of America or America's pop self image or whatever we are talking about. Of course I accept that there are blurry gestures in that direction in Jones and of course explicit (and painfully childish) pronouncements on that in Superman. I just think the discussion grows non-musical, and not in a good way, when we veer in that direction.


*John,*

True of course, but I needed to say all that in order to explain why I feel that Williams’ greatest music often goes beyond being what it was intended to be. And why, in my opinion, it comes closer than any other composer’s music to being the musical expression of your country’s mythology and indentity.
Gershwin doesn’t cover certain important bits, Zappa is far too difficult and confrontational, Copland’s scope is too narrow, other candidates are either too niche or too inaccessible … only Williams, to my mind, covers almost the entire spectrum and in a way that that even the musically uninitiated can fully recognize.

*Tanuj,*

No, sorry. I have all those albums, they help make out the eighty-or-so centimeters of John Willliams CD’s I have sitting on my shelves … but I never ever put them on. Never. I tried, you know. I gave Potter, and all the others you mention or didn’t mention, every chance to draw me in and convince me, but it just doesn’t happen. (The good ones, on the other hand, draw me in without requiring me first giving them a chance to do so.)

Don’t be offended, please, but “Potter”, to me, sounds like being stiched together with the bits that weren’t considered good enough for “Hook”. Still highly enjoyable, yes, but I never feel any desire to sit down and do so. Because there’s “Hook”, which has far better music. And “Crystal Skull” could well have been concocted by promising Mike Verta students. There’s not a hint of genuine Williams in that score. To my ears.

If I compare the titles you mention with soundtracks like “The Fury”, “Superman” (his biggest claim to immortality, I believe, especially the peerless second half of that score), “Raiders”, “Home Alone”, bits of “1941”, “Temple Of Doom”, “E.T.”, “Jaws I & II”, the first three SW’s, “Witches Of Eastwick”, “Hook” or even lesser known works like “Jane Eyre”, “Dracula”, “The Accidental Tourist” and “The River”, the difference in quality is glaring, I find.

And to reply to what *Alexandre* was saying: it’s got nothing to with a longing for a certain kind of ‘Williams of old’, or a certain sound, or a preference for certain melodic shaping or whatever, … it’s got everything to do with the pure, abstract quality of the musical ideas which, to my mind, begin to sound increasingly more laboured, artificial, hard-won and definitely less remarkably inspired from somewhere around ’93 onwards. 
(And like I said earlier: the impact, meaning or quality of the associated films doesn’t enter into either.)

For me, there is one other film composer whom I admire with a similar near-brain-numbing devotion, and that is Franz Waxman. (If you’re interested, *Tanuj*, I can make you a compilation of some of my favourite Waxman moments: as pure music, every bit as good as Williams’.)

_


----------



## Guy Rowland

(incidentally - Anakin's theme from The Phantom Menace. As a piece of music, maybe not Williams' most electrifying moment. But listening to it with the character of Anakin and the foreshadowing of Vader in mind, it becomes something much richer. Would that meaning exist without the film? (I probably speak from ignorance since much concert music has story too of course). But listening to it again today, it made me realise how good Williams still was even in those wretched prequels, and it makes you yearn for the movies they could have been... he was trying to tell a good story, even if Lucas wasn't).


----------



## JohnG

Thanks Piet.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Is it not obvious? A guy like T.J. does good epic music for the same reasons he can probably do most genres well: talent, training, craft.

The guy who can lift 300 lbs. will lift 50 better than the guy who struggles to lift 50.


----------



## Lex

I find it so strange that with all the JW love in this thread nobody mentioned Munich or Minority Report. Harry Potter inferior to Hook? That's just bizarre.

The strongest message I get from this thread is that if it sounds like beloved Stravinsky with a touch of Holst and sprinkle of Mahler it must be the best everything that ever was!
Could it be that those scores are just what's most pleasing to you (and the masses)?

The fact is that JW is genius film composer and never did a bad score in his life, but I for one find the work he did in last 15 years his most interesting and inspiring and can't wait to see what he does next.

alex


----------



## re-peat

Actually, Alex, neither Holst or Mahler rank very high on my list of personal favourites. I certainly consider "The Planets" one of the most empty and overrated pieces of the 20th century, and Mahler — though I recognise fragments of his tremendous genius — just never managed to speed up my blood flow. It's something in the structure of the music, how the ideas all seem to trample on themselves and others, that always puts me off a little bit. Or something like that. Whatever it is, I'm not a Mahler fan.

So no, it isn't that either. The only reason I love Williams is Williams, and the only reason I don't love Williams is Williams.

_


----------



## ed buller

It is a tough one with these artist of such Statue as Bowie And Williams . I celebrated my 30th wedding anniversary last year and thought " Bowies last good album was made long before i got married " ...And yet for the 70's he gave us 12 incredible records ,with some of the best music every recorded. So it seems somewhat ungrateful to be overly critical of him since . I feel the same about williams ( although i'd argue that Hedwigs theme is a thing of beauty,) Since JP he's not been the same.....but i'm happy with what I have.


very happy

e


----------



## re-peat

Ed, 

You have no idea how much I agree. The main reason I keep buying Williams and Bowie is gratitude. Eternal gratitude.

_


----------



## AlexandreSafi

re-peat @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> And to reply to what *Alexandre* was saying: it’s got nothing to with a longing for a certain kind of ‘Williams of old’, or a certain sound, or a preference for certain melodic shaping or whatever, … it’s got everything to do with the pure, abstract quality of the musical ideas which, to my mind, begin to sound increasingly more labored, artificial, hard-won and definitely less remarkably inspired from somewhere around ’93 onwards.
> (And like I said earlier: the impact, meaning or quality of the associated films doesn’t enter into either.)
> _



Fair enough, i totally respect this point of view, (slightly disagree with the "artificial", as i see them as absolutely sincere and perfect for their projects as his earlier ones but you might find satisfaction knowing that i of course completely agree with you that their end result isn't as iconic as his earlier ideas, but yet that alone, and i'll insist again that if we really analyze the "music-attached-to films" situation in-depth, says only that the movies he scored later, as *JohnG* put it: the spirit & quality of them, were drastically different than the enthusiastic-celebratory kind of a _Hook-Jurassic-Superman_ type, in fact i believe John Williams has made produced more versatility in his sound since the 90's than the big peak period he's known for and of course the big caveat is, i grew up in complete John Williams 90's mode, _Hook_'s my favorite, and you'll excuse me also if i overtly prefer even _Sabrina_ to _Accidental Tourist_... Also the lack of highly inspiring ideas in just a few bars is definitely, to me at least, not one of them, quite the contrary actually, i feel his underscore music got much better & more abstractly & intimately meaningful with time, anyways i remember hearing parts of ---_Terminal, Minority Report (Sean's Theme) Book Thief_-- & especially hearing for the first time the last 2 -4 minutes of this cue: _War Horse_: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdzaRwcCc38, a truly devastatingly amazing both physical & spiritual experience where i would feel I'd just witnessed, not only some of the man's most personal tonal music, but also this perfect cue summing up the man's humbleness & true intellect at his funeral...

But again, i completely understand the observation that you make, and thank you *Piet *for your contributions on this topic, and your conviction & astute observations are actually making me really inspired to revisit once more his earlier works with deep attention, except maybe Images, i'll have to think about that one again...! 

Love those thread derails! 

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

Anyways my final stand on *Christof*'s question on EPIC is that the taste for today's epic goes completely hand in hand with the issue of Existentialism, or the state & evolution of our Consciousness! I would actually really love a thread that speaks about the question *"In which way do you think your music taste mean anything about who you are as a person?"* 

To me, and this is purely a caricature, the more instinctual the idea conveyed through the language of music is, the lower it gets: DRUMS 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxnZIoP_5J0

...And again why Drums? Have people really given a thought to that? 
Drums are bound to our history as a race, communicating our state of affairs, our survival instinct, our right to exist and be heard and even our long-carried desire to WIN! 
Didn't we start by the "big Bang"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEaGQb6dJk (such a great scene & cue by the way by one of my dear heroes--JNH--...)

Drums are so prominent, the same way Sex sells! I believe it all relates to our instincts and to how it basically relates to our survival! Which is why it can be easily applied & consumed in a society which again is mainly based on instincts or instinctual reactions... 

Then, a little later the opposite came, Bach and his Aria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA

and John Williams, with fanfares so honest and so culturally relevant that they, i believe, represented the rightful link between the instincts and the spiritual...
-A.S-


----------



## bbunker

Well, it's starting to feel the John Williams tangent (which has been pretty enjoyable, I must say) has about run its course, so I thought I'd throw out an 'epic' speculation.

In Robert Walser's "Running With The Devil," there's a brief section where he discusses snippets from his interviews with heavy metal guitarists, where he describes associations that those players have with neoclassicism. The essence of that section is that players who indulged in neoclassicism, when interviewed about why they'd pilfered (OK, he probably used other language) Bach's language, usually made a reference to legitimacy; their use of borrowed baroque materials demonstrated their prowess in terms that they found less assailable. "Since Bach is universally recognized as great, when I play Bach-like things, then I should be recognized as not just a 'provincial' expert in Metal, but a legitimate, proper virtuoso" was the running theme.

I wonder if a similar process has happened to produce the 'epic' style. Neoclassicism in Metal kept the timbral characteristics of Metal, with its instrumentation, performative norms and general atmosphere, and appropriated devices and formulae like sequences derived from Baroque practice. I would posit that the genesis of 'Epic' is a similar appropriation by Dance music: the structure (complete with drops, risers and hits, and a verse-chorus form), performative norms (distribution through purely electronic means, etc.), atmosphere and overall 'mastered sound' (extensive use of limiting and compression, and an emphasis on a big, sub-heavy mix) is derived from popular dance styles like EDM, while the timbral materials use some instruments common to dance, particularly synths, but mostly consist of appropriated orchestral sounds which are employed in non-orchestral ways.

So, putting on my musicologist hat for the day, I'd say that the reason people want to be epic is because they're engaging in a time-honored tradition of appropriation of elements of classical and film music for the purpose of legitimizing and ennobling popular styles. It also explains the disconnect for composers who identify as film or classical composers for whom the processes and aesthetics are foreign.

Do I get my Ph.D now?


----------



## Sebastianmu

bbunker @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> I wonder if a similar process has happened to produce the 'epic' style. Neoclassicism in Metal kept the timbral characteristics of Metal, with its instrumentation, performative norms and general atmosphere, and appropriated devices and formulae like sequences derived from Baroque practice. I would posit that the genesis of 'Epic' is a similar appropriation by Dance music: the structure (complete with drops, risers and hits, and a verse-chorus form), performative norms (distribution through purely electronic means, etc.), atmosphere and overall 'mastered sound' (extensive use of limiting and compression, and an emphasis on a big, sub-heavy mix) is derived from popular dance styles like EDM, while the timbral materials use some instruments common to dance, particularly synths, but mostly consist of appropriated orchestral sounds which are employed in non-orchestral ways.



The connections between EDM and "EPIC" orchestral music are clear, I just don't get the feeling that it has anything to do with "legitimacy" at all! 
The rises and breakdowns occur due to a "logic of events" that can be found in all music. It's based on the fact that you get bored if you hear to much of the same, so some kind of change has to happen in order to keep you interested.




re-peat @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> And “Crystal Skull” could well have been concocted by promising Mike Verta students.


Made my day..


----------



## bbunker

I haven't exactly been walking around thinking that 'Epic' has been EDM artists' paths to legitimacy, but I think it fits in some sense. It's a bit squirrelly trying to pin down the definitions here, but I definitely think that 'Epic' has more of a claim to being 'art music,' or is at least further down the axis of 'art musicness' than EDM. Just for that, there's a valid connection to legitimacy in at least one sense.

I think you're right to some extent about how 'logic of events' dictates risers and breakdowns in terms of positioning and dramatic content. I would suggest that all music operates on a 'logic of events,' but the specific content of those sections that satisfies that logic is genre-specific. Rock music, for example, doesn't feature drops and risers much at all, and depending on subgenre would have a guitar interlude, a bridge, augmentation or elision of a verse or chorus to subvert the expected form, or something along those lines. Country music, particularly country music before the recent rise of 'Bro-Country' would never have used anything like risers or drops, and would generally make use of melodic interludes to provide the same effect. Risers and drops are a pretty specific and unique way to deal with dramatic content in a work, with their origins in a relatively specific set of genres, namely electronic dance styles.


----------



## KEnK

bbunker @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> I haven't exactly been walking around thinking that 'Epic' has been EDM artists' paths to legitimacy, but I think it fits in some sense...


I've always thought of them as directly related forms-
mostly because of how both musics are created (DAW based- loop oriented)
It's always seemed pretty much the same to me, just a different tonal pallet.

I don't see them as having different levels of sophistication though.

k


----------



## guitarman1960

I do find itt partly hilarious, but also partly very sad, just how much musical snobbery appears from time to time on here. EDM artists path to legitimacy is through Epic ??? Jeez, Get a grip people!
Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever.

Music isn't a hierarchy with complex classical music at the top. Classical music is just a 'style' a 'genre' no more or less meaningful than Metal or Reggae or anything else..

Epic Trailer Music is a currently popular genre, and as with all genres, including 'classical' there are good and bad, works of genius, and formulaic rubbish.

Epic music is popular right now, don't sneer at it because it makes money and people like it more than some complex classical stuff!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

You're right obviously. Depth is irrelevant. Sophistication is irrelevant. "This Is Why I'm Hot" and the Beethoven 9th, no difference at all. 

So glad I have been enlightened.


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> I do find itt partly hilarious, but also partly very sad, just how much musical snobbery appears from time to time on here. EDM artists path to legitimacy is through Epic ??? Jeez, Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever.
> 
> Music isn't a hierarchy with complex classical music at the top. Classical music is just a 'style' a 'genre' no more or less meaningful than Metal or Reggae or anything else..
> 
> Epic Trailer Music is a currently popular genre, and as with all genres, including 'classical' there are good and bad, works of genius, and formulaic rubbish.
> 
> Epic music is popular right now, don't sneer at it because it makes money and people like it more than some complex classical stuff!


Wow!

Amazing...

Thanks for informing me that anyone using Garage Band
makes music exactly equal to Mahler or Bach or Ellington or Coltrane or Ali Akbar Khan.

Brilliant


----------



## muk

Of course Mahler is more art music than Dr Dre. That's not to say it is more legitimate. Also, I don't think that complexity is a particularly well suited category to distinct between art music and other music. There is very simple art music, and very complex popular music. A much better category would be interpretability in my opinion. And I mean intellectual interpretability (with thought/in words), not on instruments. Craft would be a good category to distinct between good and bad music. Good music is always well crafted, no matter the genre. And art music is always interpretable intellctually in a multitude of ways. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## guitarman1960

KEnK @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find itt partly hilarious, but also partly very sad, just how much musical snobbery appears from time to time on here. EDM artists path to legitimacy is through Epic ??? Jeez, Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever.
> 
> Music isn't a hierarchy with complex classical music at the top. Classical music is just a 'style' a 'genre' no more or less meaningful than Metal or Reggae or anything else..
> 
> Epic Trailer Music is a currently popular genre, and as with all genres, including 'classical' there are good and bad, works of genius, and formulaic rubbish.
> 
> Epic music is popular right now, don't sneer at it because it makes money and people like it more than some complex classical stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Amazing...
> 
> Thanks for informing me that anyone using Garage Band
> makes music exactly equal to Mahler or Bach or Ellington or Coltrane or Ali Akbar Khan.
> 
> Brilliant
Click to expand...


Hahaha, well done for deliberately misunderstanding my point!!!

I say again, in ALL genres including Classical, there are some works of pure genius amongst lots of formulaic rubbish. Epic Music as a genre is no different.

Carry on misunderstanding to justify snobbery if you want.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

re-peat @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> JohnG @ Sun Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) As an aside, I think the discussion derails a bit when we get into the definition of America or America's pop self image or whatever we are talking about. Of course I accept that there are blurry gestures in that direction in Jones and of course explicit (and painfully childish) pronouncements on that in Superman. I just think the discussion grows non-musical, and not in a good way, when we veer in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> *John,*
> 
> True of course, but I needed to say all that in order to explain why I feel that Williams’ greatest music often goes beyond being what it was intended to be. And why, in my opinion, it comes closer than any other composer’s music to being the musical expression of your country’s mythology and indentity.
> Gershwin doesn’t cover certain important bits, Zappa is far too difficult and confrontational, Copland’s scope is too narrow, other candidates are either too niche or too inaccessible … only Williams, to my mind, covers almost the entire spectrum and in a way that that even the musically uninitiated can fully recognize.
> 
> *Tanuj,*
> 
> No, sorry. I have all those albums, they help make out the eighty-or-so centimeters of John Willliams CD’s I have sitting on my shelves … but I never ever put them on. Never. I tried, you know. I gave Potter, and all the others you mention or didn’t mention, every chance to draw me in and convince me, but it just doesn’t happen. (The good ones, on the other hand, draw me in without requiring me first giving them a chance to do so.)
> 
> Don’t be offended, please, but “Potter”, to me, sounds like being stiched together with the bits that weren’t considered good enough for “Hook”. Still highly enjoyable, yes, but I never feel any desire to sit down and do so. Because there’s “Hook”, which has far better music. And “Crystal Skull” could well have been concocted by promising Mike Verta students. There’s not a hint of genuine Williams in that score. To my ears.
> 
> If I compare the titles you mention with soundtracks like “The Fury”, “Superman” (his biggest claim to immortality, I believe, especially the peerless second half of that score), “Raiders”, “Home Alone”, bits of “1941”, “Temple Of Doom”, “E.T.”, “Jaws I & II”, the first three SW’s, “Witches Of Eastwick”, “Hook” or even lesser known works like “Jane Eyre”, “Dracula”, “The Accidental Tourist” and “The River”, the difference in quality is glaring, I find.
> 
> And to reply to what *Alexandre* was saying: it’s got nothing to with a longing for a certain kind of ‘Williams of old’, or a certain sound, or a preference for certain melodic shaping or whatever, … it’s got everything to do with the pure, abstract quality of the musical ideas which, to my mind, begin to sound increasingly more laboured, artificial, hard-won and definitely less remarkably inspired from somewhere around ’93 onwards.
> (And like I said earlier: the impact, meaning or quality of the associated films doesn’t enter into either.)
> 
> For me, there is one other film composer whom I admire with a similar near-brain-numbing devotion, and that is Franz Waxman. (If you’re interested, *Tanuj*, I can make you a compilation of some of my favourite Waxman moments: as pure music, every bit as good as Williams’.)
> 
> _
Click to expand...


*Piet*, I have not heard any music from Waxman. Would love to go through your list. I have heard some classic works of composers far back in time but not Franz Waxman. I love Korngold's music. I have some of his film scores but my absolute favourite is his symphony in F# minor. 

Tanuj.


----------



## bbunker

guitarman1960,

I think you miss my point a bit; I'm not suggesting that either is more legitimate an art form. I'm not even suggesting that the artists themselves consider either to be more legitimate. The Heavy Metal artists interviewed by Walser would have ranked themselves (not being particularly gifted in, say, humility) equal to the music they were appropriating, so I think it would be actually against the research to conflate 'legitimacy' as a sociocultural mechanism with 'legitimacy' as a ranking of relative worth. I wouldn't mean to suggest that that faulty conflation would be appropriate here.

Think about it for a minute: the fact that you connect legitimacy and snobbery actually just proves my own theory, in a way. I hadn't made any suggestion about the relative value of any pieces or genres, just a suggestion about the mindset and motives of the performers. If I suggested that Prokofiev wrote using classical forms (as in his 'Classical Symphony') as a means to prove his legitimacy, you likely wouldn't accuse me of snobbery. Or, Satie's refusal to abandon his counterpoint classes when Charles Koechlin advised him that there was nothing to teach him? It seems a clear example of Satie undertaking an artistic path to increase his 'legitimacy,' whether such a move was necessary or not.

So, in that context, legitimization doesn't have anything to do with snobbery, does it? Using samples of classical music in popular styles, or of popular music in classical styles for that matter, isn't only about the end sonic result; it's also significantly about the sociocultural references imbedded in those references. "Dog Days," a horrid opera premiering at the LA Opera now, features a great deal of 'composed' Heavy Metal: is David T. Little not using the social context of electric guitars as much as the sound of them?


----------



## Stradibaldi

This discussion is interesting because everyone's posts are so thoughtful yet I couldn't disagree more 

*I disagree that JW's work fell off since the 90s*. Sure JW no longer writes action music as catchy as Tie Fighter Attack or themes as direct and iconic as Indy. Instead, he’s chosen to develop a wonderfully complex and minutely-detailed language that contains just as much interesting material to study. I admire the way he has, almost obstinately, insisted on continuing to write music that _requires_ a world class orchestra to record. And at the very least you have to acknowledge that Hedwig's Theme, Jurassic Park and Duel of the Fates have entered the "people on the street recognize the tune" canon. I also disagree that the changes in film music, or movies, are related to some overarching "America sucks now" thesis. Anyway JW's 'Americana' idiom, like Lincoln or Simple Gifts 2009, has always been his least interesting work to me, it's obviously Copland quartalism.

*More importantly I disagree about why "EPIC" happened in the first place, what's right and wrong with it, and the question of "can we ever go back to writing JW style”.* 

*While these “mythological” conversations are interesting, I have a materialist take on it.*

The way I see it, in the 80s and 90s we were in a "composition era" where composers were distinguished by their writing chops, pencil on paper. This was good insofar as the industry was dominated by amazing WRITERS. It was bad insofar as every movie was getting an "orchestra in a room score" from _Toy Story_ to _Basic Instinct_. 

The truth is you could grab any 5 or 6 classic scores from 1975-2000 - not just JW, all of Hollywood - and you could program a Hollywood Bowl concert with minimal personnel changes.

Films deserved to have more musical diversity… to have a unique sonic identity _above and beyond_ a particular compositional approach.

Then HZ&Co came along and unleashed a "production era" where crafting a score's sound became very important (using custom synths and instruments, sound design approach, etc.) and chops became a bit less important.

When you look at scores like TDK it’s so clear that this change was good and historically overdue.

After all, let's get it through our heads, *the audience doesn't give a crap about the compositional complexity of the music we write*. They just care if the music serves the film and having Nolan's Joker be represented by one punk note does that so much better than any "compositional" approach would have.

The problem is people are making a *"biplane mistake"* when they look at HZ/RCP. 

What I mean is this.

Everything that succeeds has ingredients that are instrumental and necessary to its success, and other ingredients that are just incidental. 

When you look at something that succeeds and you DON'T understand it, the safest way to duplicate the success is to clone everything slavishly. That way you don't risk omitting or changing something in the original that was indispensably necessary.

But, this is like someone looking at the Wright Bros. in 1905 and predicting that all future flying machines will be biplanes - maybe better and faster biplanes, transAtlantic biplanes even, but taking for granted that these machines will have two wings because that's how Orville and Wilbur did it.

I fear that everyone has been looking at HZ/RCP and 'deducing' that the new rules of our business are:

1. Composition is out, production is in.
2. Harmonic complexity is out, electronica-influenced triadic progressions are in.
3. Through-composing is out, progressive builds (again electronica-influenced) are in.
4. Melodies are out, ostinati are in.
5. Acoustic realism / concert-perspective is out, overdubbing / layering / sound-mangling is in.
6. "They don't make movies in a way that needs thematic composition anymore."

These are the "rules" that have led to the proliferation of "EPIC". Epic as an aesthetic is just trying to build a better biplane by rewriting "Time" and "Chevaliers" over and over.

Even the anti-RCP types who think “DAWs ruined music” and so on - they too implicitly acknowledge the above principles as the going fashion in film music.

But, I don’t think these rules are real. Only rule 1, I'd say, is actually a real change in our industry. The rest of these supposed principles are just overfitting by people copying HZ's particular aesthetic and style with its roots in electronic music influences like Tangerine Dream. 

There is no necessary connection between a shift to production-based scoring, and the adoption of HZ’s particular approach TO it, yet these two notions have been completely conflated by the horde of imitator “EPIC” composers.

In truth, these "rules of EPIC" are not even a good synthesis or representation of HZ's own overall career! They rely on deliberately _ignoring_ excellent scores like Rango and Woman in Gold, and so on, in favor of the TDK's and Inception's.

This is why "EPIC" ends up being a _dumbed down_ version of the original, thoughtfully considered approach: throw out the clever Edith Piaf part, and just try to make a louder BRAMMM.

It all comes from people copying without understanding.

When you separate the instrumental from the incidental, you instead get a very different takeaway lesson:

*1. Compose, but production is important too.*

“LSO In A Room” scores are never coming back (even the recent Star Wars trailer has layered synth elements!!).

But, composition is not going away.

One of my favorite RCP composers is Henry Jackman. Look at Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero 6. Dense, complex, harmonically adventurous writing. Several “big melodies.” Great action scoring in particular. He just _also_ has well-considered production and a custom aesthetic for each movie.

I also think you see this approach - compose, but don't just compose, custom-produce - in plenty of composers outside RCP. This is the new normal, not the “epic” aesthetic.

*If anything, production-for-production’s sake is about to run out its tether.* It’s rather like CGI spectacle: when the audience gets used to the idea that you can do anything, nothing can be special or impactful anymore, that’s when story becomes important again.


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> Hahaha, well done for deliberately misunderstanding my point!!!
> 
> I say again, in ALL genres including Classical, there are some works of pure genius amongst lots of formulaic rubbish. Epic Music as a genre is no different.
> 
> Carry on misunderstanding to justify snobbery if you want.


I'm sorry-

I thought you said this:


guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or *whoever*.


That is like not recognizing the difference between fast food, a home cooked meal, and a 5 star restaurant.

Nothing in my post was judgmental-

I said this-
_"I've always thought of them as directly related forms-
mostly because of how both musics are created (DAW based- loop oriented)
It's always seemed pretty much the same to me, just a different tonal pallet.

I don't see them as having different levels of sophistication though."_

which is a simple statement of facts.

k


----------



## Sebastianmu

I think we can close the case after Stradibaldi wrapped it up so nicely...


----------



## re-peat

Sebastianmu @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> (...) so nicely ...


But wrongly, unfortunately.

Stradi,

I never said, suggested or even implied that “America sucks”, good heavens no. I merely said that _its mythology is damaged_. I hope you will appreciate the huge difference between the two. And, for those who still don’t understand what I mean by mythology: that very characteristic collection of metaphors, personifications and fictionalizations in which the American history and identity finds accessible and shared expression. I hope that’s cleared that one up.

Secondly — and you’re the second person who seems to have, wholly incorrectly, deduced this from my words —, it’s not because Williams stopped writing ‘iconic themes’ or boisterous action music or whatever, that I feel the quality of his work has declined. Trust me, my appreciation for the man’s music goes MUCH deeper, and is far less superficial and silly than that. (As it happens, as much as I love and admire the iconic themes and the virtuoso action music, they are NOT among my favourite Williams bits at all.)
For the umptieth time: I’m strictly talking about _the abstract quality of the musical invention_, as it manifests itself in every aspect of a composition, whether it’s a theme, a harmonization, a secondary motif, a structure or, my favourite: the arc of intuitive inevitability which spans so much (not all though) of the truly great music.

_


----------



## guitarman1960

Sebastianmu @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> I think we can close the case after Stradibaldi wrapped it up so nicely...



That was a great post and very interesting. However there is still the implied tone by a lot of posters in this thread that complexity, harmonic sophistication and melody in a traditional score are somehow sitting on a level above less complex, less melodic modern hybrid scoring. It does not sit on a level above, it's just different.

When progressive rock in the 70's became more and more complex and musically sophisticated we had some great albums with side long concept tracks composed and played by musicians with amazing 'chops'. e.g albums by YES and ELP among many others which I still love today. Then along came punk rock and showed that with two chords and a 'fuck off' attitude and a massive wall of sound you can create great music that is just as pwerful and meaningful in its own way. E.g. The Sex Pistols and The Clash.

Are YES and ELP living on a level above The Sex Pistols and The Clash, no of course not, they are both really cool, but different!!!

I love some old classic soundtracks but I also love 'Mind Heist'. As I mentioned earlier, don't sneer at genres of music that are less 'traditionally' complex and 'sophisticated'.


----------



## Sebastianmu

re-peat @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> Sebastianmu @ Tue Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) so nicely ...
> 
> 
> 
> But wrongly, unfortunately.
Click to expand...


Stradibaldi's post contained such an amount of insight on 'epic' music, that I considered the little mistakes in the interpretation of the rise and decline of JW according to Piet to be neglectable..


----------



## Guy Rowland

Stradibaldi @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> *1. Compose, but production is important too.*



Lots to agree with in your post. In a sense the above is simply a reflection of 40 years of technological change however. Technical standards have improved, the tools available as routine were the stuff of dreams in the 70s. I'm not sure how much to read into it therefore - it's a little like saying "don't release your movie on VHS".

Star Wars (the first one and yes here I go again) SOUNDS prehistoric. Compared even to Empire and Jedi it really does sound old, and extraordinarily dry - it's like standing right in the middle of the orch. I love that about it, but even I wouldn't expect JJ to insist on recording it all with the same tech (and rebuilding Anvil studios, presumably). That's part of his wider trick - a more modern aesthetic for an older style of moviemaking.

Anyway, the point is if modern classical scores have a few technological bells and whistles enhancements it doesn't amount to much. Actually music technology has always been a Williams blind spot, and unfairly I will again link his "golden era" score for 1981's Heartbeeps - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5nrKe57qo0 . Even Empire and (I think) Jedi had the odd synth and those (thankfully very rare) elements stand out today as sounding truly awful.

But the overall arc you describe in the shift from conventional to hybrid scores sounds about right, along with your caveats. Again, what do Rango and Big Hero 6 have in common? The obvious answer - like the Toy Stories, Finding Nemo, HTTYD etc etc - kids animations, the almost sole preserve of the 70s/80s blockbuster spirit. (that last Hollywood Reporter roundtable has Powell dismissing his own recent career as terminally unhip, but where else but kids movies can he write scores like HTTYD?) As I think about it, I think that's significant for the generation now in their 20s who grew up with them - those movies have a great deal of respect and admiration (huge box office plus critical approval) its a natural fit to want to get some of that spirit back into mainstream cinema.

In short (and forgive as this is an old, old theme of mine) it's making blockbusters FUN again. Looking at the adult blockbusters from the 90s, the difference could not be more stark - True Lies is primarily a comedy, Armageddon, Con Air and the Rock (Woody Bay's early funny films) are a hoot, Speed, T2 etc etc. Maybe the cinematic molasses really was poured over Hollywood on September 11, 2001 (Cameron is on record as saying True Lies 2 was cancelled because terrorism "didn't seem so funny any more"). Of late there has finally been attempts to break out of this - SW7 won't exactly come in a vacuum but hopefully represents a trend.

Which brings us right up to date. I've not been able to face Jurassic World since the trailer looked so awful and looks like an attempt to remake film 1 with everything turned up to eleventy stupid. But my sense is at least it strives to be fun, it's not a Nolanized vision of Jurassic is it? Believe me I want a helluva lot more from my popcorn than Jurassic World, but it does at least fit into this overall trend - and the eye-popping box office suggests that the hunger and appetite is very much there.


----------



## re-peat

Sebastianmu @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> Stradibaldi's post contained such an amount of insight on 'epic' music, that I considered the little mistakes in the interpretation of the rise and decline of JW according to Piet to be neglectable..


*Sebastian*, maybe, but like Benjamin, Marcus & Caldwell, I don't like to be misunderstood.

As for the insights on epic music, I don't quite agree with some of those either I fear, but luckily, I don't find epic music, in whatever current shape or form, interesting enough to devote much attention to it.
And, *guitarman1960*, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with lack of sophistication, complexity or 'legitimacy' or whatever — you're absolutely right of course that 'sophistication' doesn't necessarily or automatically elevate the quality of music (some of the worst music ever made is very sophisticated) — but it's the unimaginative reduction of music down to a handful of predictable, worn-out, risk-free formulas, always limiting itself to the most generic and tiresome of semantic associations, combined with the pretentious pseudo-emotionality which this sort of music invariably claims, which bores me beyond words. It's safe, conformist, reactionnary, bourgeois music. There. I've said it.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

But if someone truly doesn't understand even on a gut level why e.g Stravinsky DOES sit on a higher level than e.g. Ludacriss then nothing I can write can free them from the shackles of anti-egalitarianism, that pervasive and horrible malaise that the world is now burdened by to the point of the worshiping of the mediocre.


----------



## guitarman1960

Well if you can't see that it does NOT sit on a higher level, because different genres of music don't exist in a hierarchy with Classical at the top, then that is the worst sort of musical snobbery possible.
It's like a Heavy Metal fan saying that Metallica is better than Bob Marley. You cannot compare the two, they are apples and oranges. Do you really not understand that music consists of different genres which sit alongside each other, and that they all contain good , bad and indifferent?

Epic hybrid music is just a genre, the same as traditional orchestral is a genre. One is NOT better than the other. They exist side by side.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Yes, I do, but there ARE higher and lower levels of art and that has been recognized for centuries, whether you reject the notion or not. 

I love the Stones but they are not art on the level of Ravel, just as a Fast food burger is not food on the level of cuisine at a Michelin star rated restaurant.

If maintaining this makes me a snob, I will wear the tile like a badge of honor.


----------



## Stradibaldi

guitarman1960 @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> However there is still the implied tone by a lot of posters in this thread that complexity, harmonic sophistication and melody in a traditional score are somehow sitting on a level above less complex, less melodic modern hybrid scoring. It does not sit on a level above, it's just different.... don't sneer at genres of music that are less 'traditionally' complex and 'sophisticated'.



Yes, that's the point I was trying to communicate, that "hybrid" scoring (done right) has its own sources of complexity & sophistication but they're sonic rather than compositional.

But also, that there's nothign about this kind of sonic sophistication that _precludes_ doing cool compositional stuff also.

I reject snobbery on both sides. Everyone who wants to shove Stravinsky and Ravel into a glass case, you guys should consider how wild and "pop" John Williams' jazz-tinged harmonies would sound to them. Not just on Catch Me If You Can but even on Jaws and ET. Would JW be "high art" in their books? 

Speaking of Stravinsky, shall we consult his Autobiography? _"I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc... Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence... Most people like music because it gives them certain emotions such as joy, grief, sadness, and image of nature, a subject for daydreams or – still better – oblivion from “everyday life”. They want a drug – dope... Music would not be worth much if it were reduced to such an end..."_ o[]) 

Instead of high art and low art, I just prefer to see things in terms of craft. Anything that's well crafted is good art. There's no barricade between Stravinsky and The Stones by that metric.



> kids animations, the almost sole preserve of the 70s/80s blockbuster spirit.



Yep spot on Guy. What was the last anti-cynical, fun-for-the-whole-family *live action* movie that was a real critical and commercial success? Maybe Pirates 1? 

It seems like around Toy Story that whole kind of filmmaking moved whole-hog into animation.

Can you imagine if HTTYD was a live action movie with CGI dragons? Hollywood can't :(


----------



## re-peat

guitarman1960 @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> Well if you can't see that it does NOT sit on a higher level, because different genres of music don't exist in a hierarchy with Classical at the top, then that is the worst sort of musical snobbery possible.(...)


Guitarman,

There is something like "all that music can be". And music which explores a greater part of that totality — and does that, steered by a gifted, consummate and inspired musician — is _musically _much more rewarding than music which only covers a tiny strand of it.
In that sense, there very much is a musical hierarchy. Not of genres, no, but of musical creation. It's true, classical music is not _by definition_ superior to many other types of music, but the chance that you'll run into a piece of music where this "all that music can be" is explored more fully (and masterfully), is, like it or not, far greater in the classical repertoire than it is in, say, the epic repertoire or in reggae.

Now, if your main tool of evaluation is — as it is for most people —, for example, 'emotional impact', 'storytelling or descriptive ability', 'bringer of spiritual comfort', 'danceability" or 'melodic accessibility' or whatever, then the above obviously won't mean much. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
But music, good music, can offer A LOT more than just any of these things (or even all of them put together). And forgive me, but I find it very wrong, stupid and more than a little bit fascist (in the Stalinist way) to accuse the people who seek out this "all that music can be", of snobbery.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Beautifully stated, Piet.


----------



## stixman

Guitarman- don't worry you are talking the most sense (as usual)


----------



## EastWest Lurker

A guitar player and a drummer, figures 

Just kidding, btw.


----------



## JohnG

Piet, you can really think. Nice post.


----------



## ed buller

re-peat @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> But music, good music, can offer A LOT more than just any of these things (or even all of them put together). And forgive me, but I find it very wrong, stupid and more than a little bit fascist (in the Stalinist way) to accuse the people who seek out this "all that music can be", of snobbery.
> _




AMEN 

e


----------



## Sebastianmu

I find it rather snobby to think any given heavy metal or rock song or EDM track would be in the same league as something like a Beethoven or Mahler symphony.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

The great thing about people like *Jay & Piet* is that, believe it or not, they come from a position of true idealism, not superiority, and their nicer versions, would, i believe, invitingly share with you this confession about Music: _"If you could see what i see, hear what i hear, and feel exactly what i feel, trust me, you'd never think differently anymore!"_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

AlexandreSafi @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> The great thing about people like *Jay & Piet* is that, believe it or not, they come from a position of true idealism, not superiority, and their nicer versions, would, i believe, invitingly share with you this confession about Music: _"If you could see what i see, hear what i hear, and feel exactly what i feel, trust me, you'd never think differently anymore!"_



I don't feel superior creatively to anyone. I am a hack. I can imitate almost anyone reasonably well given a short time to study and analyze their music. 

And that is why I revere music that strives for all that Piet so beautifully described.


----------



## Guy Rowland

re-peat @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Tue Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you can't see that it does NOT sit on a higher level, because different genres of music don't exist in a hierarchy with Classical at the top, then that is the worst sort of musical snobbery possible.(...)
> 
> 
> 
> Guitarman,
> 
> There is something like "all that music can be". And music which explores a greater part of that totality — and does that, steered by a gifted, consummate and inspired musician — is _musically _much more rewarding than music which only covers a tiny strand of it.
> In that sense, there very much is a musical hierarchy. Not of genres, no, but of musical creation. It's true, classical music is not _by definition_ superior to many other types of music, but the chance that you'll run into a piece of music where this "all that music can be" is explored more fully (and masterfully), is, like it or not, far greater in the classical repertoire than it is in, say, the epic repertoire or in reggae.
> 
> Now, if your main tool of evaluation is — as it is for most people —, for example, 'emotional impact', 'storytelling or descriptive ability', 'bringer of spiritual comfort', 'danceability" or 'melodic accessibility' or whatever, then the above obviously won't mean much. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
> But music, good music, can offer A LOT more than just any of these things (or even all of them put together). And forgive me, but I find it very wrong, stupid and more than a little bit fascist (in the Stalinist way) to accuse the people who seek out this "all that music can be", of snobbery.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


This is SUCH a good post. And actually it's something in a sense all sides could come close to agreeing on. For film music, storytelling and emotional impact rank extremely highly for me. If it happens to be exquisite music in the way you describe in its own right, it's a bonus. That might sound like heresy or I have it all backwards, but I'd argue the opposite - at the end of the day as Paul Farrer memorably puts it, we're all the piano player in the corner. Film music is functional, merely a part of a bigger whole. And this is why (perhaps) so many conservatoire trained composers find writing for media eternally frustrating - that story and (perish the thought) dialogue keeps getting in the way of the music, and preventing it "being what it can be".

Perhaps, then, my appreciation of Williams is different to yours Piet. When I hear Star Wars I think of Star Wars. To me, that's as it should be, it's what the music was put on this earth to do. If I'm after the purest form of music, I'd be better off steering clear of soundtracks altogether.

None of this precludes that I (or others like me) can't marvel at the music itself, appreciate it on its own terms. In fact it becomes something rather miraculous that it can EVER work as well as it does, void of its intended context - technically all the instrumentation and timing will often be designed to weave in an out of dialogue and sound effects, for one thing. And sometimes that works better than others - while I though the scores to Gravity and The Social Network both worked brilliantly in their respective movies, I couldn't stand to listen to them in isolation, where as I can (and do) listen to HTTYD, The Hunger Games, Never Let Me Go, A Very Long Engagement and - yes - Star Wars endlessly.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

re-peat @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> There is something like "all that music can be".
> In that sense, there very much is a musical hierarchy. Not of genres, no, but of musical creation.
> 
> Now, if your main tool of evaluation is — as it is for most people —, for example, *'emotional impact'*, 'storytelling or descriptive ability', 'bringer of spiritual comfort', 'danceability" or 'melodic accessibility' or whatever, then the above obviously won't mean much. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
> But music, good music, can offer A LOT more than just any of these things (or even all of them put together).
> _


Completely agree on the first part! But one element of the next part of your post leads me to this question, since we'll never get another fabulous "subjective-objective" thread like this in a while i thought i might ask: isn't the highest of the highest musical creations also inevitably & ultimately tied to its time-tested-yet-unexplainable deep "emotional impact"? If not then i would love a musical example of a masterpiece that evidently illustrates there is an objectivity in the music that is not only separated from the emotions & which in fact can only be accessed through greater means than simply "feeling it"? Then the question is, what more does it have to offer than the oxymoron "Emotional-Nirvana"? I believe even the greatest works of art indicates a paradox which is that it's still connected to human perception, is it not! 
Thanks Piet, as always!


----------



## guitarman1960

AlexandreSafi @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> re-peat @ Tue Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something like "all that music can be".
> In that sense, there very much is a musical hierarchy. Not of genres, no, but of musical creation.
> 
> Now, if your main tool of evaluation is — as it is for most people —, for example, *'emotional impact'*, 'storytelling or descriptive ability', 'bringer of spiritual comfort', 'danceability" or 'melodic accessibility' or whatever, then the above obviously won't mean much. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
> But music, good music, can offer A LOT more than just any of these things (or even all of them put together).
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Completely agree on the first part! But one element of the next part of your post leads me to this question, since we'll never get another fabulous "subjective-objective" thread like this in a while i thought i might ask: isn't the highest of the highest musical creations also inevitably & ultimately tied to its time-tested-yet-unexplainable deep "emotional impact"? If not then i would love a musical example of a masterpiece that evidently illustrates there is an objectivity in the music that is not only separated from the emotions & which in fact can only be accessed through greater means than simply "feeling it"? Then the question is, what more does it have to offer than the oxymoron "Emotional-Nirvana"? I believe even the greatest works of art indicates a paradox which is that it's still connected to human perception, is it not!
> Thanks Piet, as always!
Click to expand...


This thread is a good one, getting very interesting and a bit deeper now!

A lot certainly depends on subjectivity, and how deeply the listener is 'into' the music. Someone deeply into Hendrix for example can become completely immersed in the 'experience' (pun intended) in just as deep a way as someone deeply into Stravinsky for example experiences that music.

To try and claim that in some objectively measurable way, the music that one person is deeply into exists on a higher plane than the music someone else is deeply into, is an intellectually bankrupt non argument on the level of 'my favourite band is better than yours' from the school playground.

On an earlier point, there is obviously nothing wrong with seeking out 'excellence', but to infer that there is an objective and measurable hierarchy of excellence in music is pretty absurd at best. One persons 'excellence' is another persons 'meh'


----------



## JohnG

sorry, guitarman, but that is complete baloney. 

Your argument, taken just a bit further, implies that there is NO hierarchy that is measurable or discoverable, that rates one artistic creation as loftier than another. But even your own posts about some of the Yes and other efforts in the 1970s suggest that you believe that material is "as good as" some symphonic material, which no doubt it is. That means that a hierarchy exists. 

Sure, there is plenty of rubbish orchestral music (and let's not even begin a discussion about how much of that is married to films or games or TV or adverts).

Hendrix beats the Ramones. Beethoven beats just about everyone doing the orchestral thingy.


----------



## Guy Rowland

guitarman1960 @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> To try and claim that in some objectively measurable way, the music that one person is deeply into exists on a higher plane than the music someone else is deeply into, is an intellectually bankrupt non argument on the level of 'my favourite band is better than yours' from the school playground.



Just a heads up - entire threads (and months) have been lost to this particular tangent on VI Control. There can be no agreement on this between people here. 
I do think Piet's post above comes as close to an olive branch as anyone's gonna get though. The key question - what are you looking for out of music?

FWIW, I'm very happy with the notion that some forms of music require much greater musical knowledge and depth than others, and that therefore it is given elevated status by many. If you like, think of a diving competition at the Olympics - the harder the dive that is attempted the higher the score - a perfectly executed simpler dive won't win gold, however breathtaking it is in its own right.

A crass analogy perhaps

To then necessarily ascribe words like "better" to music which is more complex (and Piet - I promise I'm not equating literal musical complexity with ascribed greatness here, I get that musical learning and skill might go into something that sounds relatively simple and yet utterly sublime) goes back to Piet's point as to what exactly you're talking about, what you want from your music. I was talking with a friend recently who is a little older than I. For him, the red wine had set in and he was incandescent with rage that history has judged prog rock and found it wanting, while punk is still celebrated - clearly, manifestly, it requires more skill to produce prog rock than punk, he argued.

I wasn't going to be the one to tell him that although he was correct, he might be missing the point entirely.

Elitism knows no bounds of course (try talking about any kind of dance music with those immersed in the scene) and there are subtleties and nuances everywhere that a casual listener might miss. Indeed, as I've already shown, John Williams appears to know nothing whatsoever about electronic music and his attempts at it are borderline crimes against humanity - he'd be ill-advised at this point to turn in a Trap album. I understand that aesthetics is a complex subject, and many of the arguments used by those who are accused of being elitist are perhaps more shallow and occasionally ignorant than they realise. Musically, Stravinsky is more complex than Bob Marley - of course it is. The question is whether or not that matters to you, on what criteria you judge or appreciate your music. Schroeder will appreciate Beethoven in a way that a Rhianna fan won't appreciate Rihanna - it's just in the nature of the music. But that doesn't mean that the Rihanna fan won't have a meaningful and satisfying experience, it's just a different kind. I have no problem with that.


----------



## guitarman1960

JohnG @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> sorry, guitarman, but that is complete baloney.
> 
> Your argument, taken just a bit further, implies that there is NO hierarchy that is measurable or discoverable, that rates one artistic creation as loftier than another. But even your own posts about some of the Yes and other efforts in the 1970s suggest that you believe that material is "as good as" some symphonic material, which no doubt it is. That means that a hierarchy exists.
> 
> Sure, there is plenty of rubbish orchestral music (and let's not even begin a discussion about how much of that is married to films or games or TV or adverts).
> 
> Hendrix beats the Ramones. Beethoven beats just about everyone doing the orchestral thingy.



Ok, so if I follow your argument for a second, in what objectively measurable way does Hendrix beat the Ramones?

I myself would have a preferance to listen to Hendrix out of those two if it came to it. But I wouldn'y be silly enough to imply that Hendrix is 'better'

Please enlighten me! :D


----------



## JohnG

re-peat @ 16th June 2015 said:


> Guitarman,
> 
> There is something like "all that music can be". And music which explores a greater part of that totality — and does that, steered by a gifted, consummate and inspired musician — is _musically _much more rewarding than music which only covers a tiny strand of it.
> In that sense, there very much is a musical hierarchy. Not of genres, no, but of musical creation. It's true, classical music is not _by definition_ superior to many other types of music, but the chance that you'll run into a piece of music where this "all that music can be" is explored more fully (and masterfully), is, like it or not, far greater in the classical repertoire than it is in, say, the epic repertoire or in reggae.
> 
> Now, if your main tool of evaluation is — as it is for most people —, for example, 'emotional impact', 'storytelling or descriptive ability', 'bringer of spiritual comfort', 'danceability" or 'melodic accessibility' or whatever, then the above obviously won't mean much. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
> But music, good music, can offer A LOT more than just any of these things (or even all of them put together). And forgive me, but I find it very wrong, stupid and more than a little bit fascist (in the Stalinist way) to accuse the people who seek out this "all that music can be", of snobbery.
> 
> _



This ^^^^


----------



## guitarman1960

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Tue Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To try and claim that in some objectively measurable way, the music that one person is deeply into exists on a higher plane than the music someone else is deeply into, is an intellectually bankrupt non argument on the level of 'my favourite band is better than yours' from the school playground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a heads up - entire threads (and months) have been lost to this particular tangent on VI Control. There can be no agreement on this between people here.
> I do think Piet's post above comes as close to an olive branch as anyone's gonna get though. The key question - what are you looking for out of music?
> 
> FWIW, I'm very happy with the notion that some forms of music require much greater musical knowledge and depth than others, and that therefore it is given elevated status by many. If you like, think of a diving competition at the Olympics - the harder the dive that is attempted the higher the score - a perfectly executed simpler dive won't win gold, however breathtaking it is in its own right.
> 
> A crass analogy perhaps
> 
> To then necessarily ascribe words like "better" to music which is more complex (and Piet - I promise I'm not equating literal musical complexity with ascribed greatness here, I get that musical learning and skill might go into something that sounds relatively simple and yet utterly sublime) goes back to Piet's point as to what exactly you're talking about, what you want from your music. I was talking with a friend recently who is a little older than I. For him, the red wine had set in and he was incandescent with rage that history has judged prog rock and found it wanting, while punk is still celebrated - clearly, manifestly, it requires more skill to produce prog rock than punk, he argued.
> 
> I wasn't going to be the one to tell him that although he was correct, he might be missing the point entirely.
> 
> Elitism knows no bounds of course (try talking about any kind of dance music with those immersed in the scene) and there are subtleties and nuances everywhere that a casual listener might miss. Indeed, as I've already shown, John Williams appears to know nothing whatsoever about electronic music and his attempts at it are borderline crimes against humanity - he'd be ill-advised at this point to turn in a Trap album. I understand that aesthetics is a complex subject, and many of the arguments used by those who are accused of being elitist are perhaps more shallow and occasionally ignorant than they realise. Musically, Stravinsky is more complex than Bob Marley - of course it is. The question is whether or not that matters to you, on what criteria you judge or appreciate your music. Schroeder will appreciate Beethoven in a way that a Rhianna fan won't appreciate Rihanna - it's just in the nature of the music. But that doesn't mean that the Rihanna fan won't have a meaningful and satisfying experience, it's just a different kind. I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...


+100 Well said Guy !!!!
At last some common sense. :D

Equating technical prowess either on an instrument or as a composer with how high up the scale of artistic merit it is, is a very facile argument.
I have lots of guitarist 'muso' friends who rave about Vai and Satriani etc and also about modern jazz virtuoso's too with incredible levels of theory and expertise. Does that make their music better than less schooled music, no of course it does not.


----------



## JohnG

There is an underlying idea of class struggle in the so-called western popular music, in the so-called formalist tendencies. This music, if one can call it such, is created from the sect of ‘shakers’ – dance that induces people to ecstasy, trance and makes them into wild animals ready for any wild action. This type of music is created with the help of psychiatrists so as to influence the brain and psychology of the people. This is one type of musical narcotics under whose influence a person cannot think of fresh ideas and are turned into a herd. It is useless to invite such people for revolution, for building communism. As you see music can also fight.

In 1944, I had an opportunity to read the instruction written by an officer of British intelligence, with the title: how to use formalist music for corrupting the enemy army.
...

*There is no art for art’s sake. There are no, and cannot be, ‘free’ artists, writers, poets, dramatists, directors, and journalists, standing above the society. Nobody needs them. Such people don’t and can’t exist.*

Joseph Stalin


----------



## guitarman1960

Didn't imagine we would get Stalin quotes in on a thread about Epic music! :D


----------



## mducharme

AlexandreSafi @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> Completely agree on the first part! But one element of the next part of your post leads me to this question, since we'll never get another fabulous "subjective-objective" thread like this in a while i thought i might ask: isn't the highest of the highest musical creations also inevitably & ultimately tied to its time-tested-yet-unexplainable deep "emotional impact"? If not then i would love a musical example of a masterpiece that evidently illustrates there is an objectivity in the music that is not only separated from the emotions & which in fact can only be accessed through greater means than simply "feeling it"? Then the question is, what more does it have to offer than the oxymoron "Emotional-Nirvana"? I believe even the greatest works of art indicates a paradox which is that it's still connected to human perception, is it not!
> Thanks Piet, as always!


This is starting to border on discussing modern 'art music' (i.e. contemporary classical) in relation to all of this.

A few great examples:

Xenakis, _Metastases_: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI
Harvey, _Speakings_: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UJ2RXIEXa4
Saariaho, _Lichtbogen_: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xufJp8kHzOQ

While parts of those may be perceived as emotional (most likely 'horror movie music' by most people), the intent was not emotional impact. This is the case with many important contemporary classical works. The intent is, rather, a more intellectual one of developing a musical idea in the most interesting way possible, and creating interesting timbres/textures.

I would label all three of those pieces, if not masterpieces, close to being masterpieces on the experimental contemporary side of things. However, they remain inaccessible to a general audience due to not having 'a tune' and just 'sounding scary'. It is going to be disadvantageous to those works if you try to hold them to the same 'emotional impact' standard as a film score that is specifically intended to tug at the heartstrings.

I don't think that that type of music is 'better' than music that is intended to create emotion of course, but I think it would be closed-minded to completely disregard all such music as being trash simply because it doesn't fit a listener's predetermined viewpoint that music should have an emotional impact.

(I have a love for both genres because I go back and forth between writing film score stuff and experimental contemporary classical.)


----------



## muk

The underlying question is: what is art music, and what distinguishes it from other music? The only thing that is easy to agree upon, is that taste is the single most unsuited delineator for that task. With other proposals made here (as, for example, 'emotional impact') still being so subjective that they only are marginally better. Which is: still totally unuseable.
As for the snobbery-accusation: this usually comes up when people think that the distinction between art music and other music also implies a distinction between good and bad music. But that's also a misconception. Quality isn't suited as a differentiatior either. As with all other music, there's good art music and there's bad art music.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

I think, my truth at least is, that Music has this HUGE beautifully unexplainable paradox in the fact that the best it has to offer is as much in the eye of the beholder as it absolutely isn't!

An initial taste for a particular genre of Music can often be like religions, there's a "very" good chance, if you are part of one, that you would find yourself with another one were you raised in another part of the world. So here if a society deeply includes technology as "progress" in the "belief system", there's a good chance you will like a genre that's driven by it, and you might even not realize how much it is driven by it when the quality of your ideas are thought of as emotionally "good enough" when it is not, and that's still, to me, the core issue to partly answer *Christof*'s concern..."

I personally think, there is at least such a thing as good music & bad music, from a universally intuitive view we can all i hope agree, and there probably is more often than not such a thing as one greater piece of music between two good pieces ("maybe always")... But I think the measure of "how good or how bad" the next pieces of music we are going to hear in the future will be, will depend on whether the composers who made them have developed or not as a 1st step: an abstratcly empirical sense of whether what they're creating is good or isn't good enough! This modicum of the craft in judging one's own music, and doing it well, i believe is acquired through years, not only of musical training, but especially of self-reflection, the good old "_Temet Nosce/Know thyself_" applies, and of knowing & fighting exactly for what truly matters in life and applying it in music...

The more Life Wisdom one has, the more one will develop a fortunate & powerful insecurity that will start and have him push harder & wiser in that subjective-objective relationship with music to give the best result to himself & others or perhaps, if not then a deep need "not to fail"! The wiser the musician, the more he will probably try to make sure that his music describes exactly what it is fundamentally to be human, and maybe more... Also the wiser & learned you are, the worse i believe bad music becomes, and perhaps even some of the good music can become "less good" after some time, because you're after what you can "only feel" is truly good!

What i mean is if you're going to do Epic, there's a good chance that the idea, or even just the secondary ideas here & there you just executed in your last composition would have probably been disposed by another truly reflecting composer, even if he's into the same genre... Both can have a similar taste, but both wouldn't necessarily agree on the quality of the composition itself. Part of it could be because of micro-taste, but more probably because one is wisely harder to please than the other, he understands there could be a deeper combination of notes or a deeper idea or bar, or creative connection yet to discover, while the one he has right now isn't good or genuine enough... He's humble, courageous & even "faithful" enough to keep throwing things out for a somehow "objectively better" idea & piece, because life taught him previously it's ok to self-crush one's ego if that leads to a "truer truth...", and that making more mistakes will probably lead to better choices, he wants stronger feelings & deeper satisfaction from his unmade music, so it becomes a game of exchange between one's perseverance/work ethic and the muse, he keeps thinking on pure faith that as this method always worked until now, it will inevitably work again...

Any person wise about his life and work, i believe, will see exactly how his thinking process will impact the good "subjective-objective" quality of his work in a right way whether it's filmmaking, writing, politics or even just the way you talk to someone else... 

*John Williams*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE9IWvLz6Dk credited the death of his wife, *Barbara Ruick*, as possibly the greatest gift ever given to him as a human being and writer...

What do you think all this talk about Pain as part of the craft of actors such as *Brando *or *Monroe*, or humorists such as *R.Williams* is about? They had a great sense of "what is sincere from not sincere enough" or "funny from not as funny as it can be"...I think it's the same here!

I believe it's safe to say there always were deeper & more beautiful truths, words, sounds & speeches than others, and i even believe that aesthetic not surprisingly evolves, or not, simultaneously as we evolve wiser or not, it happened to me! Well... no...nevermind I'm definitely not that wise, but i think "the correlation between [my increasingly year-evolving true gratitude for the miracle of Life] and [the Music that i used to like, less like now, and the Music that i like even more now] couldn't be more obvious to me...", and i hope this protects my ability to judge my music as if i would judge the one coming from a pro, as best as it can, because this has always served me well so far and i'm sure this will always have a very positive aspect on the type of audience you share your music with...

The point that matters the most that i believe is mostly absent from today is:
Whatever the genre...
-Be your music: Question whether you really are so, do you and your music really make one?
-And then know "true good even from good", (as *Piet *firmly believed in with John Williams's case) and of course "good from bad"!

Then there's again the whole "_Can your taste be explained? What does each/any Genre of Music is to you?_", but that's for another topic...

Anyway, I'm forced to stay humble on this "subjective-objective" paradox, because i have no other way to explain it!

*mducharme*: Some very informative post, and some good points too! Thank you for the musical examples, can't get enough of those Penderecki-Shining-type of noise!


----------



## doctornine

Um, there appears to be only one thing worse than EPIC.

Its a word that starts with L and ends with Y.

I'll get me coat.

o[])


----------



## mducharme

muk @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> The underlying question is: what is art music, and what distinguishes it from other music? The only thing that is easy to agree upon, is that taste is the single most unsuited delineator for that task. With other proposals made here (as, for example, 'emotional impact') still being so subjective that they only are marginally better. Which is: still totally unuseable.
> As for the snobbery-accusation: this usually comes up when people think that the distinction between art music and other music also implies a distinction between good and bad music. But that's also a misconception. Quality isn't suited as a differentiatior either. As with all other music, there's good art music and there's bad art music.


Art music is typically a term for contemporary classical music, some of which is very experimental. I dislike the term because of the implication - its very name suggests that only it is art, that no other music can be art besides the genre of 'art music' (which is of course baloney). "Contemporary classical music" is another term, but is much more verbose and similarly includes more 'popular' composers like Philip Glass (popular not in a bad sense, but his style contrasts so greatly from Xenakis for instance that it seems odd to group them into a similar category). I often find myself having to say "experimental contemporary classical" which is an extremely verbose and ungainly term for the genre.

The main distinction of 'art music' is the direct lineage from the Western classical tradition to the modern day, while film music and popular music are offshoots that emerged at particular times.

I agree very much that there can be (and often is) bad art music. I have heard a lot where people 'hide' behind extended techniques (extended techniques can work really wonderfully, but if they are not used as musical ideas, and instead just used as special effects, it cheapens them). A frequent thing I have seen is that there is a thought among some composers that if you throw enough weird sounds into art music people will think it is good on that basis. It is the same issue as relying entirely on the the conventions of 'epic' music, or whatever else - when you pull away the extended techniques and weird sounds, there might be nothing there. That is not true of course of any of the examples that I linked to.


----------



## guitarman1960

I think 'Art Music' has a lot of parallels with Abstract Painting. Most of the general public still don't 'get' Abstract Art, and can only appreciate paintings that are grounded in the traditions of realism. They often equate how 'good' an artist is by how 'realistic' his paintings are. In fact most of the public still don't even get Picasso.

To appreciate Abstract Art the viewer has to shift their perceptions and expectations of what the work is saying. Abstract Art is speaking a different language to Realism.

In the same way Art Music has to be perceived differently than listening to traditional classical music. The language is different.

Modern Art in general including both music and the visual arts became very elitist and fostered the belief that only those who were well schooled enough to understand its nuances could appreciate it. This view also seems to hold with some of the more elitist posters on this thread. Then thank goodness, Post Modernism came along to dismantle all the negatives of tradition, elitism and hierarchy.

There is no truth, everything is relative to its perception.


----------



## muk

Two comments to this. Traditional classical music is of course art music (I think you used the term art music in the sense of modern art music).

When talking about music there are more objective and meaningful ways to talk about it than mere statements of taste. Else all you could say about it is "I like it", or "I don't like it". But there are many ways in which art music can be interpreted, theorizing about it's content and meaning. That's just not about hard evidence as in natural sciences. It's about plausibility.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

One more point:

You cannot get really good at something if some part of your brain cannot make a distinction between "what I like/love" from "what I know is great/well done."

You NEED this ability to grow, folks and I learned this early on.

2 examples:

1, I would much rather listen to Poulenc than Wagner. The music appeals top me more. But is there any knowledgeable person ( and yes, knowledge matters) that would argue that Poulenc's work is the superior or equal to Wagner? No, the idea is ludicrous and history long ago made its judgement.

2. I am and have always been a fan of the well-crafted 3 minute pop record and much prefer it to to "progressive rock." Therefore i would rather listen to "Petula Clark's Greatest Hits" than "Closer To The Edge" by Yes. But do I believe for a nanosecond that they are artistically comparable? I most assuredly do not.

Love with your heart but assess with your brain.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 17 said:


> One more point:
> 
> *You cannot get really good at something if some part of your brain cannot make a distinction between "what I like/love" from "what I know is great/well done."
> 
> You NEED this ability to grow*, folks and I learned this early on.
> 
> 2 examples:
> 
> 1, I would much rather listen to Poulenc than Wagner. The music appeals top me more. But is there any knowledgeable person ( and yes, knowledge matters) that would argue that Poulenc's work is the superior or equal to Wagner? No, the idea is ludicrous and history long ago made its judgement.
> 
> 2. I am and have always been a fan of the well-crafted 3 minute pop record and much prefer it to to "progressive rock." Therefore i would rather listen to "Petula Clark's Greatest Hits" than "Closer To The Edge" by Yes. But do I believe for a nanosecond that they are artistically comparable? I most assuredly do not.
> 
> Love with your heart but assess with your brain.



Amazingly & concisely well put Jay!
I'll speak from my POV, I can completely relate to what you mean with your examples! 
Critical Thinking (Art of Listening), is obviously, understandably, & even deceptively one of the most underrated & hardest thing to do when applied to Composing & Music Appreciation!


----------



## muk

As Mark Twain put it: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds".


----------



## guitarman1960

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 17 said:


> One more point:
> 
> You cannot get really good at something if some part of your brain cannot make a distinction between "what I like/love" from "what I know is great/well done."
> 
> You NEED this ability to grow, folks and I learned this early on.
> 
> 2 examples:
> 
> 1, I would much rather listen to Poulenc than Wagner. The music appeals top me more. But is there any knowledgeable person ( and yes, knowledge matters) that would argue that Poulenc's work is the superior or equal to Wagner? No, the idea is ludicrous and history long ago made its judgement.
> 
> 2. I am and have always been a fan of the well-crafted 3 minute pop record and much prefer it to to "progressive rock." Therefore i would rather listen to "Petula Clark's Greatest Hits" than "Closer To The Edge" by Yes. But do I believe for a nanosecond that they are artistically comparable? I most assuredly do not.
> 
> Love with your heart but assess with your brain.



I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you, and I am also a fan of both progressive rock and a great 3 minute pop song. However I would be very interested to know on exactly by what measurements 'Close To The Edge' is of greater artistic merit than say 'Downtown' ?

I'm not trying to be funny, just trying to ascertain how you arrive at that conclusion.
Sure the YES track is much more complex, displays greater virtuosity by the musicians, has the 'intention' by the artist to be taken seriously etc etc.
But, do any of these things place it on a higher plane than a well crafted 3 minute pop song? Or are there other measurements you are using?

I still think you are comparing apples and oranges there. Progressive Rock is a different genre with completely different intentions to a 3 minute pop record.

Very interested in how you are judging this. :D


----------



## ed buller

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Chateau Haut-Brion 61.......they both have booze in em !


e


----------



## Sebastianmu

Guitarman1960 - wouldn't you agree that something that is harder to accomplish is somehow 'greater' than something which is easily made?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

guitarman1960 @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more point:
> 
> You cannot get really good at something if some part of your brain cannot make a distinction between "what I like/love" from "what I know is great/well done."
> 
> You NEED this ability to grow, folks and I learned this early on.
> 
> 2 examples:
> 
> 1, I would much rather listen to Poulenc than Wagner. The music appeals top me more. But is there any knowledgeable person ( and yes, knowledge matters) that would argue that Poulenc's work is the superior or equal to Wagner? No, the idea is ludicrous and history long ago made its judgement.
> 
> 2. I am and have always been a fan of the well-crafted 3 minute pop record and much prefer it to to "progressive rock." Therefore i would rather listen to "Petula Clark's Greatest Hits" than "Closer To The Edge" by Yes. But do I believe for a nanosecond that they are artistically comparable? I most assuredly do not.
> 
> Love with your heart but assess with your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you, and I am also a fan of both progressive rock and a great 3 minute pop song. However I would be very interested to know on exactly by what measurements 'Close To The Edge' is of greater artistic merit than say 'Downtown' ?
> 
> I'm not trying to be funny, just trying to ascertain how you arrive at that conclusion.
> Sure the YES track is much more complex, displays greater virtuosity by the musicians, has the 'intention' by the artist to be taken seriously etc etc.
> But, do any of these things place it on a higher plane than a well crafted 3 minute pop song? Or are there other measurements you are using?
> 
> I still think you are comparing apples and oranges there. Progressive Rock is a different genre with completely different intentions to a 3 minute pop record.
> 
> Very interested in how you are judging this. :D
Click to expand...


I guess it comes down to this: that which aspires to be _more_ and takes more knowledge, effort, and skill to accomplish is to me a higher level of art. All "Downtown" aspired to do, and did very well, was to be a catchy tune that would go to the top of the charts. Clearly a band like Yes, while no doubt also wanting to sell a lot of records, was striving for something _more_, and people like Ravel and Bill Evans for something even _more_ than Yes.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Sebastianmu @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> Guitarman1960 - wouldn't you agree that something that is harder to accomplish is somehow 'greater' than something which is easily made?



I'm not guitarman, but I wouldn't necessarily. You might acknowledge the effort for sure, but I'd take a perfect poached egg on toast over a burnt gourmet meal that nevertheless took 10 hours to prepare.

But here - once again - we're up our VI Control blind alley. It's a fruitless, endless argument.

This has been a very interesting and entertaining thread, but I do wish a little more time was spent discussing what film / TV / game music is meant to do - support the film / TV / game (and with reference to styles of music, as per the OP). If one note is right in context and a contrapuntal fugue is wrong, then the single note is "better" in that it serves its purpose correctly whereas the fugue does not. I have the distinct impression that the movie / TV show / whatever is irrelevant to many here, and that's rather telling. Of course there's nothing wrong (indeed everything right) with perusing excellence in music for its own sake, but film music seems a strange place to look for it. (incidentally, for those who ARE interested in film music as film music, listening with interest to a 4 part BBC radio documentary by Mark Kermode - the Sountrack of my Life - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vc9g ... /downloads ) . Good so far except an inexcusible talking over Anne Dudley analyisng John Williams' use of fifths in ep1).

Right now Epic (by our modern definition) is popular primarily because it fits the kinds of films that are popular - dark, impressive sounding and grandiose.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I would argue that Epic music and the films that use it is popular largely because we now have a generation of people who grew up with video games. I have a strong opinion on what that has done to the culture as a whole but that is a whole other discussion


----------



## gsilbers

im jumping late on this one but I do know what the OP is saying. 
There are 6 hour long youtube videos with non stop epic music and also epic covers. like dragons and battles. 
something like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0D5u3EMfA

5 hrs!!!! 

or 10 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNIVhx2mhc

>8o 

that's epic!!! 

the style its not bad, but its just too much of it. 

also, whats up with the fake views??! like if there was 10 million people really watching 5 hour long epic music still videos. I guess buying youtube views and then getting paid by youtube is worth it? 
:? 

with libraries so cheap and the style not hard to compose, I think many people try it out, practice and make it work and post in youtube. and it "sounds" great with some ease.
as to film and tv applications, not sure. I think there is some space for it but I don't listen to that much of the epic style. is it in video games more, maybe?


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> ...I would be very interested to know on exactly by what measurements 'Close To The Edge' is of greater artistic merit than say 'Downtown' ?
> 
> I'm not trying to be funny, just trying to ascertain how you arrive at that conclusion.
> Sure the YES track is much more complex, displays greater virtuosity by the musicians, has the 'intention' by the artist to be taken seriously etc etc.
> But, do any of these things place it on a higher plane than a well crafted 3 minute pop song? Or are there other measurements you are using?
> 
> I still think you are comparing apples and oranges there. Progressive Rock is a different genre with completely different intentions to a 3 minute pop record.
> 
> Very interested in how you are judging this. :D


if i may...

my previous food analogy is appropriate here.
as is architecture- 
prefab housing, a charming ornate victorian, an amazing gothic cathedral.
and visual art-
kitch decorations as opposed to Picasso or Rembrandt.

to a degree, it's about "intent",
but there is also a level of "craft" involved.

a $200 violin made in China is not as good as a genuine Stradivarious,
nor is it supposed to be. 

you may love the tiny porcelain artifact you bought for $5 on your vacation,
but it's not a Ming Vase.

If these analogies make any sense to you at all,
then perhaps you can see that they can be applied to Music as well.

k


----------



## Greg

gsilbers @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> or 10 hours
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNIVhx2mhc
> 
> 
> also, whats up with the fake views??!



The view count is real...


----------



## rJames

I compare the current era of popular music with the 1950s.

I don't know if it was 1949 or 47 or whenever but the electric guitar was born. There were plenty of great guitarists before the electric guitar. But that new technology, electric guitars and amplifiers, allowed the guitar to drive the entire ensemble. In the big band era the guitar was almost a percussion instrument.

So, even though there are all these great artists who played the guitar, you started hearing very simple music. No more big band jazz chords. Just triads (and dom7) but simple stuff.

And it became really popular. Then some guys started to take the simple rock thing to a new height of musicality. Jeff Beck et al. 

Its only been a few years since the home computer brought powerful professional studios (and full orchestras) into everyone's bedroom.

Evolution is happening.

Regarding epic... driving it are paychecks. Trailers and game soundtracks have popularized the epic sound. Garage bands (bedroom computer composers) are following the trend that they hear.

I don't think epic music is going anywhere. That's sort of like the rumor that trailer editors are sick and tired of big choir cues. Not going away. It does what it does and nothing else does quite what it does. You probably won't hear as many epic choir cues on milk commercials as you have in the past few years... but it wall always be with us. As is Chuck Berry and Bill Haley.

(sorry if this is already brought up in the thread, I only read page one)


----------



## guitarman1960

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Thu Jun 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more point:
> 
> You cannot get really good at something if some part of your brain cannot make a distinction between "what I like/love" from "what I know is great/well done."
> 
> You NEED this ability to grow, folks and I learned this early on.
> 
> 2 examples:
> 
> 1, I would much rather listen to Poulenc than Wagner. The music appeals top me more. But is there any knowledgeable person ( and yes, knowledge matters) that would argue that Poulenc's work is the superior or equal to Wagner? No, the idea is ludicrous and history long ago made its judgement.
> 
> 2. I am and have always been a fan of the well-crafted 3 minute pop record and much prefer it to to "progressive rock." Therefore i would rather listen to "Petula Clark's Greatest Hits" than "Closer To The Edge" by Yes. But do I believe for a nanosecond that they are artistically comparable? I most assuredly do not.
> 
> Love with your heart but assess with your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you, and I am also a fan of both progressive rock and a great 3 minute pop song. However I would be very interested to know on exactly by what measurements 'Close To The Edge' is of greater artistic merit than say 'Downtown' ?
> 
> I'm not trying to be funny, just trying to ascertain how you arrive at that conclusion.
> Sure the YES track is much more complex, displays greater virtuosity by the musicians, has the 'intention' by the artist to be taken seriously etc etc.
> But, do any of these things place it on a higher plane than a well crafted 3 minute pop song? Or are there other measurements you are using?
> 
> I still think you are comparing apples and oranges there. Progressive Rock is a different genre with completely different intentions to a 3 minute pop record.
> 
> Very interested in how you are judging this. :D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it comes down to this: that which aspires to be _more_ and takes more knowledge, effort, and skill to accomplish is to me a higher level of art. All "Downtown" aspired to do, and did very well, was to be a catchy tune that would go to the top of the charts. Clearly a band like Yes, while no doubt also wanting to sell a lot of records, was striving for something _more_, and people like Ravel and Bill Evans for something even _more_ than Yes.
Click to expand...


I do get the 'striving for something more' thing and totally agree with you there. However, in some ways, in spite of the instrumental skill levels required to play complex progressive music, it's probably actually easier to make a decent progressive track than write an extremely catchy well crafted pop song that tops the charts.


----------



## guitarman1960

KEnK @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Thu Jun 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I would be very interested to know on exactly by what measurements 'Close To The Edge' is of greater artistic merit than say 'Downtown' ?
> 
> I'm not trying to be funny, just trying to ascertain how you arrive at that conclusion.
> Sure the YES track is much more complex, displays greater virtuosity by the musicians, has the 'intention' by the artist to be taken seriously etc etc.
> But, do any of these things place it on a higher plane than a well crafted 3 minute pop song? Or are there other measurements you are using?
> 
> I still think you are comparing apples and oranges there. Progressive Rock is a different genre with completely different intentions to a 3 minute pop record.
> 
> Very interested in how you are judging this. :D
> 
> 
> 
> if i may...
> 
> my previous food analogy is appropriate here.
> as is architecture-
> prefab housing, a charming ornate victorian, an amazing gothic cathedral.
> and visual art-
> kitch decorations as opposed to Picasso or Rembrandt.
> 
> to a degree, it's about "intent",
> but there is also a level of "craft" involved.
> 
> a $200 violin made in China is not as good as a genuine Stradivarious,
> nor is it supposed to be.
> 
> you may love the tiny porcelain artifact you bought for $5 on your vacation,
> but it's not a Ming Vase.
> 
> If these analogies make any sense to you at all,
> then perhaps you can see that they can be applied to Music as well.
> 
> k
Click to expand...


I don't think the food or architecture analogy works personally. A prefab house is designed to fulfill the function of cheap housing and has an extremely low budget to stick to. Not the budget of a cathedral. A Big Mac is designed to fulfill the purpose of fast cheap food, not working to an extortionate 5 star restaurant budget.

You have to judge things on how well they fulfill their purpose within their genre, not make a hierarchy out of an space ship versus a push bike.

As you mention Rembrandt, an interesting question is this. Which would you say has the most artistic merit, a Rembrandt portrait, or an Andy Warhol Soup Can ?

In spite of the years of dedication and skill needed to paint a Rembrandt portrait, the Warhol offers a much more intellectually complex artistic statement incorporating all kinds of socio-political and cultural questions way beyond that of a visually pleasing likeness of someones face in the case of the Rembrandt.


----------



## guitarman1960

rJames @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> I compare the current era of popular music with the 1950s.
> 
> I don't know if it was 1949 or 47 or whenever but the electric guitar was born. There were plenty of great guitarists before the electric guitar. But that new technology, electric guitars and amplifiers, allowed the guitar to drive the entire ensemble. In the big band era the guitar was almost a percussion instrument.
> 
> So, even though there are all these great artists who played the guitar, you started hearing very simple music. No more big band jazz chords. Just triads (and dom7) but simple stuff.
> 
> And it became really popular. Then some guys started to take the simple rock thing to a new height of musicality. Jeff Beck et al.
> 
> Its only been a few years since the home computer brought powerful professional studios (and full orchestras) into everyone's bedroom.
> 
> Evolution is happening.
> 
> Regarding epic... driving it are paychecks. Trailers and game soundtracks have popularized the epic sound. Garage bands (bedroom computer composers) are following the trend that they hear.
> 
> I don't think epic music is going anywhere. That's sort of like the rumor that trailer editors are sick and tired of big choir cues. Not going away. It does what it does and nothing else does quite what it does. You probably won't hear as many epic choir cues on milk commercials as you have in the past few years... but it wall always be with us. As is Chuck Berry and Bill Haley.
> 
> (sorry if this is already brought up in the thread, I only read page one)



Totally agree with you. Epic is not going away. It fulfills it's purpose extremely well. It is designed to work over massive cinema sound systems and live alongside the over the top visuals and sound effects of exploding spaceships, crashing cars and battling armies. It has to create the excitement and adrenaline rush to go with that and get people to buy tickets. This it does by building and layering a massive wall of sound. In my opinion there are some phenomenal epic trailer tracks out there. Naturally a lot of people and beginners fancy having a go at copying a very successful style, and so there are bound to be lots of weak and formulaic versions out there, but the best stuff is not to be sneered at IMHO. Anyone who thinks it's easy to do, well have a go and post your efforts on here and see how they stack up against the best.

This music is not designed to be something you slip on your home hi-fi and settle back to listen to with a glass of wine.


----------



## muk

guitarman1960 @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> In spite of the years of dedication and skill needed to paint a Rembrandt portrait, the Warhol offers a much more intellectually complex artistic statement incorporating all kinds of socio-political and cultural questions way beyond that of a visually pleasing likeness of someones face in the case of the Rembrandt.



That's a stark oversimplification of the substance of a Rembrandt portrait, as every scientist of art could show. These portraits are not just visually pleasing, they are artful compositions that go way beyond mere picturesque craft. It's the same as with a Beethoven sonata. They are so much more than just an enjoyable sounding piece of music (even though they are that as well, of course).


----------



## Joel Douek

Hey. Nobody has a gun to anyone's head (as far as I know). You don't have to write, like or listen to anything that's not for you. There's always been crap among the good, even in classical times. If shining a light on crap helps calm your insecurities, and makes you think: I can do better than that - then fine but go do it, and stop wasting time ranting on a forum about how you know better and can do better. In the end, only our work speaks for us. Some of it pays the rent, some of it makes us proud. Christof will not be remembered for writing fake epic music. So what will be your contribution? Media is all about attention, and that's what we write for. The beauty is in bringing finesse and your voice into anything you do, even fake epic. (o::o)


----------



## guitarman1960

muk @ Fri Jun 19 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Thu Jun 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the years of dedication and skill needed to paint a Rembrandt portrait, the Warhol offers a much more intellectually complex artistic statement incorporating all kinds of socio-political and cultural questions way beyond that of a visually pleasing likeness of someones face in the case of the Rembrandt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stark oversimplification of the substance of a Rembrandt portrait, as every scientist of art could show. These portraits are not just visually pleasing, they are artful compositions that go way beyond mere picturesque craft. It's the same as with a Beethoven sonata. They are so much more than just an enjoyable sounding piece of music (even though they are that as well, of course).
Click to expand...


An oversimplification maybe, but 'artful composition' etc are all very much parts of an artists craft. The intention and the artistic statement behind a portrait from that period is a very simple one, to create a realistic representation of the subject.


----------



## muk

The intention may be, but the artistic statement certainly not. Just a few meager pointers at which artistic substance a simple portrait may contain:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2004/feb/28/art

http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Colle ... ge.79.html

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/famous- ... an-six.htm

You can fill books about the artistic statement of a Rembrandt portrait.
In any event, to say the artistic statement behind a Monteverdi opera was a simple one, the creation of agreable sounds to go with a story would be similarly simplified.


----------



## JohnG

Hi all

I dug up an old post from another member that's relevant to this thread. Poster goes by "poseur"

reading, writing and their ability to speed 
attendant analysis skills are important, 
are certainly key & helpful..... 
..... but, i think that developing one's ears 
via focused listening, playing & occasionally brutal 
self-criticism remains important, too. 

maybe we can gain much by remembering this: 
maybe it can bring us closer to stronger internalisations 
of core musical concepts: 
harmony, melody, rhythm, arr & orch: 
over and above intellectualised analyses, 
which certainly can lead to the lionisation of the 
analytical approaches at the cost of something dear 
to the root-impulse to create works of un-prefabricated 
feeling. 

that said, 
i read & write, & still have some cause to sight-read..... under pressure, with the red-light on. 

it might be seen as important that our paths 
are founded on the bases of the creation of original works, 
sincere works that offer 
our own personal viewpoints and perspectives; 
i think it can be dangerous to suggest that 
good composition absolutely requires reading & writing, 
first & foremost: 
i don't believe that the basic, childlike impulse to compose should be overlooked as an absolutely primary factor 
worthy of work & development. 

i also think that any instrument that one plays well 
--- the more, the merrier --- 
can, indeed, be folded into the approach through 
which we compose, 
and can thereby enrich both our understanding 
of our own writing, as well as its reach & potential: 
i suggest continuing to use those instruments in one's compositional flow, and pursuing them. 

unlike many, 
i don't believe there's a fundamental problem 
with composing-by-ear..... 
if, 
a) you're increasing the capacity of your ear, and 
b) you simultaneously develop various methods of 
intra-musical communication..... 
..... including (but, not limited-to) reading & writing. 

..... seems like what's primary to music of value is that 
1) we actually have something to say, and 
3) we can say it. 

so, yeah: 
do learn to read & write, so that you can study & analyse scores, & cmprehend harmony & rhythm..... 
but, listen more & with greater concentration, 
sing more melodies (alone, without any instrument to hand), and continue to play all your instruments 
with musical vigor: 
internalise the feelings of 
isolated pieces of music. 
everything you learn 
--- no matter how, or in what chronological order --- 
it's all important. 

sorry for the potentially useless babble; 
i'm tired..... 

[from "poseur," another v.i. control member]


----------



## KEnK

@ muk

_"You can fill books about the artistic statement of a Rembrandt portrait."_

Thanks for taking the baton here and posting those links.

After reading that Warhol's soupcan _"offers a much more intellectually complex artistic statement incorporating all kinds of socio-political and cultural questions way beyond that of a visually pleasing likeness of someones face in the case of the Rembrandt."_,

I decided not to pursue the argument further.
Thanks

k


----------



## TheUnfinished

I love the way that any discussion of music genres on VI always end up with toing and froing over what music is best, regardless of what the original question or point was.


----------



## Daniel James

TheUnfinished @ Fri Jun 19 said:


> I love the way that any discussion of music genres on VI always end up with toing and froing over what music is best, regardless of what the original question or point was.



Heh usually the same people arguing too xD

-DJ


----------



## guitarman1960

Seems to me that as soon as either the words Epic, or Zimmer, are mentioned, then all the music snobs who think the old masters are the pinnacle of humanities artistic achievements, and nothing can ever approach the heights of their beloved Stravinsky, Beethoven, Mahler, Ravel etc etc have to jump in to sneer at music they see as automatically inferior.

Which is why I like to jump in to wind them up! :D 

P.S. I do also have a degree in the history of modern art, so do know a little bit what I am talking about ( re earlier Rembrandt - Warhol thing ) and am open minded enough to know that the old masters either in music or the visual arts are not the be all and end all by any stretch of the imagination, and are certainly not on a level above everything else.


----------



## Daniel James

guitarman1960 @ Fri Jun 19 said:


> Seems to me that as soon as either the words Epic, or Zimmer, are mentioned, then all the music snobs who think the old masters are the pinnacle of humanities artistic achievements, and nothing can ever approach the heights of their beloved Stravinsky, Beethoven, Mahler, Ravel etc etc have to jump in to sneer at music they see as automatically inferior.
> 
> Which is why I like to jump in to wind them up! :D
> 
> P.S. I do also have a degree in the history of modern art, so do know a little bit what I am talking about ( re earlier Rembrandt - Warhol thing ) and am open minded enough to know that the old masters either in music or the visual arts are not the be all and end all by any stretch of the imagination, and are certainly not on a level above everything else.



Haha exactly this. There is a certain degree of "I love this therfor you should too" or "This is clearly Superior because I believe it is" And in their heads thats an unchangeable fact.

Art is not a competition of technicality its a true expression of the artist, in whatever form that may take. There is no better or worse, only the passionate or lazy.

-DJ


----------



## KEnK

Daniel James @ Fri Jun 19 said:


> ...Art is not a competition of technicality its a true expression of the artist, in whatever form that may take. There is no better or worse, only the passionate or lazy...





guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> ...Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever...


 :?: 
Do you guys really believe that M83 is "as good" or equal to Mahler or Stravinsky?
That everything anyone created must be "equal" is a completely bizarre stance to me.

please tell me how this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3k_QDnzHE
is of equal importance and stature to The Rite of Spring

k


----------



## marclawsonmusic

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> I would argue that Epic music and the films that use it is popular largely because we now have a generation of people who grew up with video games. I have a strong opinion on what that has done to the culture as a whole but that is a whole other discussion


Interesting thought, Jay. I had a similar conversation with my kid about this the other day...

The video games of my era (80's, 90's) actually had very melodic and memorable themes. Games like Legend of Zelda and Mario were very melody/motif driven and hardly 'epic' in their 8-bit glory.

I almost feel like video game music has become 'epic' because producers are trying to make game music sound more like 'film music'. It's only in recent years that video game tracks have been recorded with orchestral elements and live orchestras and I feel that is because they are trying to make games feel more like movies these days.

So, I kinda think the opposite... but who knows? Chicken or egg?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Once again, the fault is not the genre it is the lack of craft and imagination of many of the practitioners of the genre.

Personal taste aside, not too many would deny the craft and imagination of Two Steps From Hell but little of what i hear described as Epic is 
anywhere close to as well executed as that.

Passion alone is not enough. The desire to express oneself is not enough. Talent matters. Skills matter. Craft matters. The desire to do something that constantly challenges oneself instead of doing what comes easy and that 50,000 other people do that sounds almost the same matters.


----------



## muk

Time will be the judge. When something is still there after some fifty years, there's usually a reason for it. If something isn't - well, the same. We cannot know what will still have value after that time now, but I dare say that a very small, handpicked part of epic/trailer music will make the cut. But I think the same will be true for today's classical music.

I strongly believe that artistic substance makes all the difference. And that is something more than just craft. Craft alone is a necessary, but insufficient criterion. Everybody is free to disagree with my opinion, but I think you are missing out on the deeper substance of art if you do. Luckily I had a great teacher who was able to show me some of that deeper meaning, and to me that was totally convincing. But don't get me wrong, as Jay wrote, artistic substance is independent of genre!

Anyway, here is a little something I produced some time ago. It is sloppy no end, but for the sake of the argument let's forget about the less than ideal production quality:

https://soundcloud.com/linos-music/instant-hollywood

We all agree that something like this will be completely forgotten in fifty years time (or even in ten minutes), eventhough you might say that it sounds somewhat agreable (well, hopefully). And rightly so, because there is simply no underlying substance here, no deeper value. Nada, zilch. I think that the craft is here, but not artistic substance. But to be able to argue like that you have to agree that there is something like artistic substance.

Again, the snobbery comes in if you are of the opinion that artistic value is the monopoly of a certain genre alone. At least in my opinion it is not snobbery if you are of the opinion that there is good music and bad music.


----------



## Kralc

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 18 said:


> I would argue that Epic music and the films that use it is popular largely because we now have a generation of people who grew up with video games.



I keep seeing this being mentioned. What games are you guys playing/hearing?

I feel like the problem here, is people seeing/hearing one thing shitty version of a thing, and letting that define and epitomise a genre, style, generation,etc...

Is some "epic music" bad? Yes. Is all "epic music" bad. God no.

Are some video game scores "that epic music"? Sure, a small amount. Are all video game soundtracks "that epic music"? God no.

Is most "classical music" on a completely different level of musicality? Yup, probably. o[])


----------



## Daniel James

KEnK @ Fri Jun 19 said:


> Daniel James @ Fri Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Art is not a competition of technicality its a true expression of the artist, in whatever form that may take. There is no better or worse, only the passionate or lazy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :?:
> Do you guys really believe that M83 is "as good" or equal to Mahler or Stravinsky?
> That everything anyone created must be "equal" is a completely bizarre stance to me.
> 
> please tell me how this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3k_QDnzHE
> is of equal importance and stature to The Rite of Spring
> 
> k
Click to expand...


You can't just pick an arbitrary modern song and compare its cultural importance to something well established as a part of musical history. A more apt comparison would be something like The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Bob Marley Each of whome had massive cultural importance and whos music will definitely out live us. 

"Is most "classical music" on a completely different level of musicality? Yup, probably."

Well musicality meant something a little different back then, they didn't have the same kind of access to the world of different sounds, timbres and textures as we do today. If they wanted some bizarre all enveloping texture they had to dedicate the time studying how the instruments they had at their worked together to create different feelings then apply that knowledge given the limitations they had. Now days I would argue that innovation in sound design and synth design is every bit as musical as a composer of the classical era doing interesting things with Orchestration....But again music is not a competition of technical ability. 

@Jay "Personal taste aside, not too many would deny the craft and imagination of Two Steps From Hell but little of what i hear described as Epic is
anywhere close to as well executed as that." - I Already covered that, there is passionate and lazy. There is well crafted music and poorly crafted music. The passionate are the ones who hone the craft they love, they are the ones who keep trying and continue to better themselves even when faced with the petty disregard of those who claim to be their betters. Those are the people who get remembered. How many composers do you think were around during Mozarts time? how many do we still remember today?

"Passion alone is not enough. The desire to express oneself is not enough. Talent matters. Skills matter. Craft matters. The desire to do something that constantly challenges oneself instead of doing what comes easy and that 50,000 other people do that sounds almost the same matters."

Sure they are! Passion leads to the betterment of oneself. Talent craft and skill only really apply to someone who aims to do things and be judged against the conventional way of things. I sure as hell couldn't pain the Sistine chapel, No way in hell I could paint The Last Supper....hell I couldn't even paint a Piccasso. But I know 100% I could create something unique to me, something that expresses what I want to say and have it be a true representation of how I feel. Now if you were to put that up against Michelangelo or a Monet your instant response would be that I have no talent or skill.....which is exactly your problem, you carry on this conversation as though art is a competiton, like there is a general table of people who are better and worse than each other.... its not the case at all. Some people excel at creating realistic portraits, others at holding a mirror up to Society (see banksey) and there are some that go against convention (Jackson Pollock comes to mind) none of these are 'better' than the other they are just different....Sure they have similarities, they all use paint, but they understood that art is subjective and by trying to force this notion that there is better and worse causes people to conform to the conventional and traditional ways of doing things...which is actually a tragedy because then you are expressing your feelings through the eyes of another.

-DJ


----------



## muk

As music allegedly only conveys the feelings of the composer, it looks like nowadays everybody is feeling epic.


----------



## Kralc

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> _"Is most "classical music" on a completely different level of musicality? Yup, probably."_
> 
> Well musicality meant something a little different back then, they didn't have the same kind of access to the world of different sounds, timbres and textures as we do today. If they wanted some bizarre all enveloping texture they had to dedicate the time studying how the instruments they had at their worked together to create different feelings then apply that knowledge given the limitations they had. Now days I would argue that innovation in sound design and synth design is every bit as musical as a composer of the classical era doing interesting things with Orchestration....But again music is not a competition of technical ability.



Yeah, that part was a little tongue-in-cheek. Agreed.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Unique and good are not synonyms Daniel. And the reason Picasso could create his unique and ground breaking Cubist work is that first he learned how to paint representational art masterfully. 

There are exceptions of course, true geniuses. I actually think Hans is one. But they are few and far between, so we end up with a whole lot of crappy Hans Zimmer Lite.


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Unique and good are not synonyms Daniel. And the reason Picasso could create his unique and ground breaking Cubist work is that first he learned how to paint representational art masterfully.
> 
> There are exceptions of course, true geniuses. I actually think Hans is one. But they are few and far between, so we end up with a whole lot of crappy Hans Zimmer Lite.



Good is subjective Jay. Thats my point.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unique and good are not synonyms Daniel. And the reason Picasso could create his unique and ground breaking Cubist work is that first he learned how to paint representational art masterfully.
> 
> There are exceptions of course, true geniuses. I actually think Hans is one. But they are few and far between, so we end up with a whole lot of crappy Hans Zimmer Lite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good is subjective Jay. Thats my point.
> 
> -DJ
Click to expand...


But there are objective standards too. That is how history makes its judgements.


----------



## muk

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Good is subjective Jay. Thats my point.
> 
> -DJ



Sorry to repeat myself, but I'll do it just that one more time (promise): I disagree with that point of view. Taste is subjective, quality (if considered as artistic substance) isn't.


----------



## Daniel James

I think good is the wrong word for both of us to use here. I can 100% appreciate something that is well crafted both in classical and modern music. 

But one is no superior to the other universally. They are different. Which ones you prefer is based around your subjective personal taste. The classical guys certainly had their orchestration down but what kind of textures could they pull out of a modular synth? how many hundreds of thousands of people did they have jumping up and down in unison chanting along to a chorus? All of these things could be someones justification for why they are 'better', and they are all valid, but its just a subject based on your subjective opinion. 

Again there is well made and poorly made music in all eras and genres of music. Classical =/= Superior. Classical = different genre.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Right Daniel, the pertinent question is not the quality of the food, only "how many cheeseburgers did McDonalds sell?"

Lofty.


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Right Daniel, the pertinent question is not the quality of the food, only "how many cheeseburgers did McDonalds sell?"
> 
> Lofty.



How the fuck did you come to that conclusion.

Your use of Quality in that sentence is one of subjectivity. What defines quality? there is amazing music of true quality in all styles and genres since the dawn of music. A deep understanding of orchestral orchestration may differentiate quality in a classical setting but its useless when applied to the intricacies of musical sound design or thrash metal.

Things that define quality to the types of music you enjoy do not universally apply to all types of music. Again there is well crafted and poorly crafted music everywhere.

And ------- with your down the nose comments like 'lofty' as though you speak from the fucking heavens and are bestowing your infinite wisdom to us peasants.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker




----------



## Guy Rowland

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> But there are objective standards too. That is how history makes its judgements.



Except that it doesn't - it's hard enough establishing historical facts, it's illusioary with art. All you are able to claim as objectivity is that a lot of people now like something or not. It's very different to genuine objectivity, potentially full of biases. There is no globally accepted rule book to judge and rank any given piece of music, or any art.

And no, that's not the same as saying all art is equal.

On that BBC podcast about film music that I linked that no-one here is interested in, there was a discussion of a song in a little known 70s film called Jeremy. The actor / singer was warming up on take one and had a lousy headphone mix. To his dismay and horror, his director told him that the take he'd just sung was "perfect", despite it being faltering and plain out of tune. The actor protested that everyone for all time would judge him a terrible singer, but it did no good, and that was the version in the film. The director's point - the character wasn't a singer in the film, and the warm up take captured the tremulous adolescent feeling perfectly. Mark Kermode, 40 years later, agreed with his decision, so "history" vindicated the director. Or did it? A critic in 2055 might well disagree. As for that matter she might right now.

But the main point is simple - don't let your ego get in the way of doing what's right for a production. Much of this debate has been fascinating, but I'm yet again struck of how little discussion there has been about doing what this music is meant to be doing - supporting a film / TV show / game. The pure pursuit of artistic excellence on its own terms (as measured against Beethoven et al) is perhaps not really the primary conversation we should be having.

Anyway, we can, of course, all carry on like this for another 4,000 pages. I doubt page 4,000 will offer any more insight that page 4 however - especially Piet's post there.

Oh, and it might be worth reflecting that pretty much everyone by now has made the point that some Epic music is better than others. Something to agree on, perhaps.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Nonsense Guy, history has not only already made its judgements on the Masters, it has decided that guys like Coltrane and Bird, John Adams and Karlheinz Stockhausen, etc. are important and valuable figures in the development of music that has art at its core less than commerce.

In the film music world, history has already made its judgement that e.g. John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith were important while some perfectly nice composers are in the long scheme of things not.

And I imagine that will happen with Epic music as well. Not everyone will agree with history's judgements of course, but that does not invalidate them.

But I do like your last sentence.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZFffKgljd4
God dis sucks! Soo boring! Da notes are like so try-hard, so forced, like how could anyone like this ****, this ain't any "deeper" than EDM... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B789lus-JE I totally need to get my "goosebumps" from Skrillex, OMG the feels! Dem old classical sissies, and their long-term philosophical bullmucus be like so shoked when i make my wife & grandkids listen to it jumpin' up & down with'em when i'm 90 years ol'! Pfff, elitists, my ***!!

My sincere half-apologies to all EDM & Skrillex fans of course! :oops:
*But if there are still people who believe that "good/great is subjective" is the single most objective and indefensible statement of this thread, then of course this thread will find a dead-end...*

Hans Zimmer said: _"Music is indefensible, you can't talk someone into liking it, it either resonates with you or it doesn't..."_---> While i believe this is a very true statement and realistic & wise attitude to have in the business, you can't also make it into an absolute and ignoring the countless stories of one's evolution of taste and questioning why that happened... 

To find a common ground!
As long as we can all agree that the concept of Good vs. Bad Music is real, that Passion (the same definition i share with Daniel James), curiosity and real perspective on the quality of your own work are really important, and that the attitude of questioning everything is usually very good, then we're much closer to seeing eye to eye than not...

But then there's another ingredient that's never talked about:
Wisdom: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”


----------



## Stiltzkin

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> How the fuck did you come to that conclusion.
> 
> Your use of Quality in that sentence is one of subjectivity. What defines quality? there is amazing music of true quality in all styles and genres since the dawn of music. A deep understanding of orchestral orchestration may differentiate quality in a classical setting but its useless when applied to the intricacies of musical sound design or thrash metal.
> 
> Things that define quality to the types of music you enjoy do not universally apply to all types of music. Again there is well crafted and poorly crafted music everywhere.
> 
> And fuck off with your down the nose comments like 'lofty' as though you speak from the fucking heavens and are bestowing your infinite wisdom to us peasants.
> 
> -DJ



Given how laid back and calm you are in your videos (which got me into samples btw, so thanks!) this is hilarious to see you having a good old rant at someone. I wish this had been in a video blog


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Exactly Alexandre.

I suspect from listening to a lot of it that people write what is easy for them to write and make sound ok thanks to the tools and never question, "is this any good? Am I settling because it is easy?"

Instead they say to themselves,"I like the way this sounds and it expresses my mood." and that is as far as the introspection goes. And that is a recipe for shallow, poor work.


----------



## KEnK

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> KEnK @ Fri Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ Fri Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Art is not a competition of technicality its a true expression of the artist, in whatever form that may take. There is no better or worse, only the passionate or lazy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :?:
> Do you guys really believe that M83 is "as good" or equal to Mahler or Stravinsky?
> That everything anyone created must be "equal" is a completely bizarre stance to me.
> 
> please tell me how this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3k_QDnzHE
> is of equal importance and stature to The Rite of Spring
> 
> k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't just pick an arbitrary modern song and compare its cultural importance to something well established as a part of musical history.
Click to expand...


Daniel- I didn't choose M83 as an example of artisitc "legitamacy", guitarman did.
and although you happily chimed in, in agreement w/ him,
you also see the absurdity of such a claim.

Further on in your post you acknowledge that you are no Michelangelo-
and that some music has attained a historical and cultural importance
that most will not-

So- why is that, an acknowledgement of differing quality and importance in art
is any different than what many here are saying?

It seems to me you are in agreement w/ the basic premise that 
All Art is not Equal-

k


----------



## Guy Rowland

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Nonsense Guy, history has not only already made its judgements on the Masters, it has decided that guys like Coltrane and Bird, John Adams and Karlheinz Stockhausen, etc. are important and valuable figures in the development of music that has art at its core less than commerce.
> 
> In the film music world, history has already made its judgement that e.g. John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith were important while some perfectly nice composers are in the long scheme of things not.
> 
> And I imagine that will happen with Epic music as well. Not everyone will agree with history's judgements of course, but that does not invalidate them.



See I have zero problems with the word "important". One can objectively point to all sorts of reasons why this is the case - popularity, influence etc. The problem comes when you go over and above this and start claiming that this makes it a fact that one person is better than another, which crosses a line into using objective terminology to describe a subjective opinion. 

You cherry pick Williams and Goldsmith. Is that it for film composers? What about Bernstein? Lesser, perhaps? Korngold? Hermann? Barry? Morricone? Jarre? Elfman? Shore? Powell? Horner? Newman? North? Silvestri? Zimmer? My guess (I could be wrong) is you have pretty firm opinions on exactly whom (if any) of these make the grade into "history's judgement". I put it to you that others - arguably better qualified others too I shouldn't wonder - would disagree. Try googling if you don't believe me. The truth may be out there, but if it is then it's awfully fuzzy.

And while it's easy to pick on someone like Williams and say "look, everyone now says they're great so that means it's history's judgement", there would be countless examples which still divide people. Does it mean that they are lesser? Is there a pecking order? What is the percentage cutoff point for history's judgement? 96% popular (among whom)? 98%? Or is there some yardstick of which I'm unaware that really is more objective?

But to be more positive, I agree with much of Alexandre's post (not all perhaps). I think there's more common ground here than might first be apparent. If one side were happy to drop some of the more dogmatic terminology while the other conceded that there is more compositional complexity (and specific rewards for those with ears to hear) in some forms of music than others, we'd all be down the pub laughing like old mates.

(PS - beautiful clip of Williams and Speilberg spotting ET here - https://youtu.be/EDC_fppZ1Kg . Who knows, critical tide may turn in the future if more future film historians decide that it's all just crassly manipulating an audience or he's just - as expressed in this thread - a petty theft http://www.filmtracks.com/comments/titl ... 6&expand=1 . I think they'd be bang on wrong, but there again that's just my opinion....)


----------



## EastWest Lurker

That all makes sense to a point Guy, and certainly there will always be some dissenting opinion on any given composer that the preponderance of opinion musical historians decide are great or not great.

Here is what is in my mind indisputable: if all you strive for is music that "expresses your feelings" and you equate that with "good" it is little more than masturbation, pleasant enough but ultimately ineffectual.

And I do not come at this from a holier than thou position.Fairly early on in my career I reached the conclusion that I didn't have what It takes to be really great and decided to apply myself to becoming really competent.

Which is why I so admire those who really do strive for greatness and am so turned off by people who turn out obvious dreck and convince themselves that it's more than that.


----------



## Daniel James

KEnK @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KEnK @ Fri Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ Fri Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Art is not a competition of technicality its a true expression of the artist, in whatever form that may take. There is no better or worse, only the passionate or lazy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Get a grip people!
> Stravinsky or Mahler, or John Williams are no more 'legimate' or 'art music' (whatever that is) than Dr Dre or M83 or Tangerine Dream or Bowie or whoever...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :?:
> Do you guys really believe that M83 is "as good" or equal to Mahler or Stravinsky?
> That everything anyone created must be "equal" is a completely bizarre stance to me.
> 
> please tell me how this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3k_QDnzHE
> is of equal importance and stature to The Rite of Spring
> 
> k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't just pick an arbitrary modern song and compare its cultural importance to something well established as a part of musical history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel- I didn't choose M83 as an example of artisitc "legitamacy", guitarman did.
> and although you happily chimed in, in agreement w/ him,
> you also see the absurdity of such a claim.
> 
> Further on in your post you acknowledge that you are no Michelangelo-
> and that some music has attained a historical and cultural importance
> that most will not-
> 
> So- why is that, an acknowledgement of differing quality and importance in art
> is any different than what many here are saying?
> 
> It seems to me you are in agreement w/ the basic premise that
> All Art is not Equal-
> 
> k
Click to expand...


I am no Michelangelo at doing what Michelangelo does. The same as I will never be better at sounding like Hans Zimmer than Hans does. I can however sound like me pretty well, which is a culmination of all my tastes and influences. And no I have not yet achieved a level of cultural importance reserved for those who managed to define the genre they do but I am still working on myself and most certainly plan to be the best Daniel James out there....although if my voice doesnt resonate culturally or historically it wont be for lack of passion or dedication and I refuse to believe that I was not because I wasn't as 'good' as my peers, only that my voice wasn't the one history decided to choose to represent the era.

Art cannot be judged to be better than worse that any other art unless you arbitrarily create a set of requirements to define what is 'should be'. Without that they are simply just different. 

"Fairly early on in my career I reached the conclusion that I didn't have what It takes to be really great and decided to apply myself to becoming really competent. "

You gave up. I believe with genuine passion and commitment you can push yourself beyond what you would have thought were your limits were. However fairly early on in your you career handicapped yourself by believing there was such thing as better and worse meaning your target was competency....and there is no such thing as competency unless you are comparing to something else. So you decided to be average following the conventions and traditions.....If that's true man then its a sad reflection of what setting fake barriers can do to someone. 

The sky is not the limit unless you believe it is.....(because why else would you spend the time figuring out how to go further)

-DJ


----------



## Daniel James

Also as a side point. Which language is better for reciting poetry, English Or French?

One could argue English is superior because it is more widely spoken so it has a wider reach.

Some might argue French because it is a more classical language of which some of the English language borrows.

I might argue English because I understand emotion when spoken in English, I can spot a clever turn of phrase that my ears wouldn't understand in a language I don't understand like French.

Now apply this to music. You cannot compare the Rite of spring to an EDM track. They are both saying different things in different languages to achieve the artistic intent of the composer. 

To say one is better than the other requires a form of measurable scale which you have to make up. There is no universal 'better or worse' scale. If you claim one if superior to the other means you are either don't understand the other, you dont understand the passion or the emotion its trying to portray. OR you are creating an arbitrary set of standards that define what good is.
-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

An artist needs to be able to step outside his/her ego and see their talent and intellect for what they are. I believe that I have come reasonably close to reaching my ceiling. And yes, ALL artists, even the greatest, qhave one, as Piet eloquently makes the argument that the great John Williams did.

And OF COURSE there's such a thing as competence and it is measured by one's ability to take on a musical task and know within yourself, and to the client's satisfaction if there is a client, that you have executed what you set out to achieve.

I will give you an example. I am composing music for featurettes for "Love And Mercy." When I commenced the producer said to me, "this is going to be tough to please me this time, Jay.I have been living with this Beach Boys stuff for months now and I love it."

Now he told me, "Sometimes when I am watching this with your musicI forget what I had temped in because it works so well."

That is not art and it is not something that a lot of others could not do as well or better. But it IS competence.

And nothing is sadder in my opinion than self delusion as to the level of one's talent and intellect.


----------



## guitarman1960

Firstly, big thanks to Daniel for joining the conversation and making some great points!!!
Thanks also to Guy for his input too!

I did wonder how long it would be before the Elitist side brought out the 'judgement of history' argument. The fact that you can write thousands of pages of analysis about a work of art does not bestow on it any greater artistic merit than any other work of art.
Generations of 'experts', 'critics' art historians' whatever, received their second hand wisdom from the previous generation of critics and before they even write a word, have already had it instilled in their heads that a particular artist or composer is a 'master'.

Just as 'experts' analyse every single sentence in a Shakespeare play and then 'read into it' some monumentally profound artistic statement that was never intended at all by the author, you can apply the very same techniques of 'analysis' and read just as profound artistic statements into everything from Fifty Shades Of Grey to a Spiderman comic book if you have an agenda to set out to do that.

When judging how successful a piece of artwork, music, or writing is, what matters is the quality of the idea the artist is wanting to express, and how well he is able to express that idea through his work. As I stated previously, the 'intention' is also paramount, look at what the artist is setting out to achieve, and then assess how well that has been achieved. If someone sets out to write a complex classical symphony, while another sets out to write a top ten pop record, the aims and intentions are not comparable and the end results are also not comparable in terms of one being 'better' or 'worse' than the other.

If an artist sets out to paint a traditional realistic portrait filled with atmosphere and mystery, then look at how well he has achieved that. If another artist makes a silkscreen print of a soup can to question the very nature of what is traditionally considered 'art', then assess how well he has achieved that also

There are no universal measurements of artistic merit, they simply do not exist. It is nothing to do with 'chops', nothing to do with any 'gravitas' imbued on a work by the weight of history and hundreds of academic scholars reading profound depths of meaning into certain works, when the same extremely biased techniques of 'analysis' can be performed on pretty much anything if you have a mind to.

No, you have to look at the artists intention, what he is trying to express, what format he chooses to express that in, the quality of the idea and how well he succeeds in bringing that to fruition.

If someone is making an Epic trailer track, then look at how well they are achieving their objective. Are they bringing anything of their own to it, or just re-hashing something that's been done a thousand times before ?. Are they adding any original sound design ideas? Does the production quality sound great on a cinema sound system? etc etc etc. It is absolutely ridiculous and quite juvenile to mock or sneer at an Epic Trailer track for not using the compositional techniques and skills of a traditional classical orchestral symphony.

If you look at it in such a childish, blinkered, and yes, snobbish way, then lets try a Stravinsky piece for the next cinema trailer for a blockbuster action movie, and then complain how rubbish it is when it doesn't work with the montage of exploding spaceships and alien armies creating galactic havok!


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> And nothing is sadder in my opinion than self delusion as to the level of one's talent and intellect.



I fully know what I can and can't do musically, I am under no illusion that I am historically or culturally important yet. But to tell myself that's something I could never achieve and just accept it would be cyanide to my desire to keep improving. Again if you tell yourself the sky is the limit, then it is.

Also I don't believe I am nor pretend to be a knower of all there is to know and learn. I do however hold strong beliefs that as an artist, the only person in the way of you being the best you can be is you. I for one will never settle with competent. But thats who I am, if I dont strive to be the best I can be at being me what is the point in doing anything at all. I honestly find the concept of saying. " I reached the conclusion that I didn't have what It takes to be really great and decided to apply myself to becoming really competent." absolutely depressing. I think you would have had what it takes but you let your concept of better and worse cloud your passion.

-DJ


----------



## re-peat

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Good is subjective. Thats my point.


Daniel,

Good is NOT subjective. Taste is subjective, yes, but recognizing that human expression or creativity can, when in the presence of an exceptionnal talent, reach a level far above the limited demarcation abilities of our personal preferences — and the faculty to recognize it when it does —, has nothing subjective about it. People, like you and Guitarman, who say that evaluation (of greatness) is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that greatness eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation. 

We may differ in our private appreciation of, say, Tchaikovsky — maybe you like him and I don’t, or vice versa — but assuming that we’re both intelligent, honest musicians, gifted with a modicum of talent and musical insight, we both should be able to recognize that Tchaikovsky is a composer of rare talent, craft and accomplishment.
Again: where such quality stops being subjective — where the whole world and, ultimately, history declares it ‘great’ — is where it transcends the narrow boundaries of our subjective preferences.

If your 'honesty and modicum of talent & musical insight' can’t tell you that a Beethoven symphony offers tons more food for the musically hungry than, say, a Steve Jablonsky score (no matter how satisfying that may be in itself), I’m very sorry, but then I’m afraid I have to declare you unfit for this discussion. For absence of faculty to recognize preference-transcending greatness.
Enjoy Jablonsky all you like — and I’m the last person to question the profound pleasure and excitement of the experience — but at the very least also have the honesty and humility to acknowledge and respect that people with a deep passion for pure music (could it be: deeper than yours, perhaps?) — people who are interested in things like development, structure, harmony, melodic invention and variation, orchestration, vertical and horizontal architecture, etc. … in short: all that music can be — might find an encounter with Beethoven a more rewarding experience than one with Jablonsky.

But no, you call these people — those who prefer to swim at the deep end of the Great Swimming Pool Of Music, while you and Guitarman choose to splash about with your kickboards in the shallow end — elitist snobs. 

Cathedrals have been built, and yet you and Guitarman expect us to swoon over cheap, prefab condominiums. If we don’t, we’re snobs. Man has conquered the moon, and yet you want us to applaud pyroflatulence as the pinnacle of science. If we refuse, we’re snobs. The ceiling of Sistine Chapel has been painted, it's there for all to behold, but here you are, wanting us to revere painted-by-numbers kitch as if it were equally great art. And if we decline to do so, you call us snobs.

Where does that come from? Why am I a snob, I ask you, for preferring Stravinsky’s ‘Petrushka’ over Paul Haslinger’s ‘Three Musketeers’? Tell me, from one musician to another: why? What’s elitist about me, a musician, finding much more musical pleasure in the Brandenburg Concertos than I do in Tyler’s “Age Of Ultron”? Or why am I a highbrow snoot for hearing a million times more musical depth and invention in a single minute of Brahms “Haydn Variations” than I hear in the entire output of Haslinger and Tyler et al. put together. Explain that to me, please.

And of course my views on the music which I consider superior are _unchangeable_. (You have a problem with that too, apparently.) But that’s what such superiority (even when attributed subjectively) implies, is it not? The recognition and appreciation of something of lasting excellence, and therefore — and entirely consistent with it — receiving my equally lasting, unwavering devotion. The more fleeting and superficial of my musical infatuations are for other, less outstanding music. The music which I consider the zenith of the art however, has my everlasting, unchangeable love.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

And I was wondering how long it would take someone to trot out the cliche "elitist" term, as if that were a dirty word. To me, anti-egalitarian is far worse because it promotes mediocrity.T

hen in your view, once again a McDonald's hamburger is every bit as good as a fine prime steak cooked by a world class chef?

After all, McDonalds "intention" is to make something that most will thin tasty and sell it for a low price and give it to the customer very quickly.

The chef's intention is to buy the finest meat possible and cook it perfectly.

Totally equally "good", right?

And believe me, if Stravinsky had the opportunity and decided to write music for a trailer, he would have done so far better than 98% of what is out there. One listen to The Right Of Spring, proves that he could write "Epic" if he chose to.

And as usual, Piet makes the argument far more eloquently than I can .


----------



## Daniel James

Stiltzkin @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the f#@k did you come to that conclusion.
> 
> Your use of Quality in that sentence is one of subjectivity. What defines quality? there is amazing music of true quality in all styles and genres since the dawn of music. A deep understanding of orchestral orchestration may differentiate quality in a classical setting but its useless when applied to the intricacies of musical sound design or thrash metal.
> 
> Things that define quality to the types of music you enjoy do not universally apply to all types of music. Again there is well crafted and poorly crafted music everywhere.
> 
> And f#@k off with your down the nose comments like 'lofty' as though you speak from the [email protected]#king heavens and are bestowing your infinite wisdom to us peasants.
> 
> -DJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given how laid back and calm you are in your videos (which got me into samples btw, so thanks!) this is hilarious to see you having a good old rant at someone. I wish this had been in a video blog
Click to expand...


Haha I have a very strong reactionary impulse to people who stand to put themselves as someone else's superior when the topic at hand is an option based one. I think the concept of a 'purist' (many of which you will find here), are a cancer to progress and creativity. They solely exist to complain that things are getting 'worse' and that we should be looking back to the past instead of forward to uncharted territory. I have absolutely no issue defending the future of our art with all the venom and passion I can muster 

-DJ


----------



## guitarman1960

re-peat @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good is subjective. Thats my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> Good is NOT subjective. Taste is subjective, yes, but recognizing that human expression or creativity can, when in the presence of an exceptionnal talent, reach a level far above the limited demarcation abilities of our personal preferences — and the faculty to recognize it when it does —, has nothing subjective about it. People, like you and Guitarman, who say that evaluation (of greatness) is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that greatness eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation.
> 
> We may differ in our private appreciation of, say, Tchaikovsky — maybe you like him and I don’t, or vice versa — but assuming that we’re both intelligent, honest musicians, gifted with a modicum of talent and musical insight, we both should be able to recognize that Tchaikovsky is a composer of rare talent, craft and accomplishment.
> Again: where such quality stops being subjective — where the whole world and, ultimately, history declares it ‘great’ — is where it transcends the narrow boundaries of our subjective preferences.
> 
> If your 'honesty and modicum of talent & musical insight' can’t tell you that a Beethoven symphony offers tons more food for the musically hungry than, say, a Steve Jablonsky score (no matter how satisfying that may be in itself), I’m very sorry, but then I’m afraid I have to declare you unfit for this discussion. For absence of faculty to recognize preference-transcending greatness.
> Enjoy Jablonsky all you like — and I’m the last person to question the profound pleasure and excitement of the experience — but at the very least also have the honesty and humility to acknowledge and respect that people with a deep passion for pure music (could it be: deeper than yours, perhaps?) — people who are interested in things like development, structure, harmony, melodic invention and variation, orchestration, vertical and horizontal architecture, etc. … in short: all that music can be — might find an encounter with Beethoven a more rewarding experience than one with Jablonsky.
> 
> But no, you call these people — those who prefer to swim at the deep end of the Great Swimming Pool Of Music, while you and Guitarman choose to splash about with your kickboards in the shallow end — elitist snobs.
> 
> Cathedrals have been built, and yet you and Guitarman expect us to swoon over cheap, prefab condominiums. If we don’t, we’re snobs. Man has conquered the moon, and yet you want us to applaud pyroflatulence as the pinnacle of science. If we refuse, we’re snobs. The ceiling of Sistine Chapel has been painted, it's there for all to behold, but here you are, wanting us to revere painted-by-numbers kitch as if it were equally great art. And if we decline to do so, you call us snobs.
> 
> Where does that come from? Why am I a snob, I ask you, for preferring Stravinsky’s ‘Petrushka’ over Paul Haslinger’s ‘Three Musketeers’? Tell me, from one musician to another: why? What’s elitist about me, a musician, finding much more musical pleasure in the Brandenburg Concertos than I do in Tyler’s “Age Of Ultron”? Or why am I a highbrow snoot for hearing a million times more musical depth and invention in a single minute of Brahms “Haydn Variations” than I hear in the entire output of Haslinger and Tyler et al. put together. Explain that to me, please.
> 
> And of course my views on the music which I consider superior are _unchangeable_. (You have a problem with that too, apparently.) But that’s what such superiority (even when attributed subjectively) implies, is it not? The recognition and appreciation of something of lasting excellence, and therefore — and entirely consistent with it — receiving my equally lasting, unwavering devotion. The more fleeting and superficial of my musical infatuations are for other, less outstanding music. The music which I consider the zenith of the art however, has my everlasting, unchangeable love.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Sorry, but either you are deliberately misunderstanding the core argument, or are just intellectually incapable of following the argument rationally.


----------



## Daniel James

re-peat @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good is subjective. Thats my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> Good is NOT subjective. Taste is subjective, yes, but recognizing that human expression or creativity can, when in the presence of an exceptionnal talent, reach a level far above the limited demarcation abilities of our personal preferences — and the faculty to recognize it when it does —, has nothing subjective about it. People, like you and Guitarman, who say that evaluation (of greatness) is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that greatness eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation.
> 
> We may differ in our private appreciation of, say, Tchaikovsky — maybe you like him and I don’t, or vice versa — but assuming that we’re both intelligent, honest musicians, gifted with a modicum of talent and musical insight, we both should be able to recognize that Tchaikovsky is a composer of rare talent, craft and accomplishment.
> Again: where such quality stops being subjective — where the whole world and, ultimately, history declares it ‘great’ — is where it transcends the narrow boundaries of our subjective preferences.
> 
> If your 'honesty and modicum of talent & musical insight' can’t tell you that a Beethoven symphony offers tons more food for the musically hungry than, say, a Steve Jablonsky score (no matter how satisfying that may be in itself), I’m very sorry, but then I’m afraid I have to declare you unfit for this discussion. For absence of faculty to recognize preference-transcending greatness.
> Enjoy Jablonsky all you like — and I’m the last person to question the profound pleasure and excitement of the experience — but at the very least also have the honesty and humility to acknowledge and respect that people with a deep passion for pure music (could it be: deeper than yours, perhaps?) — people who are interested in things like development, structure, harmony, melodic invention and variation, orchestration, vertical and horizontal architecture, etc. … in short: all that music can be — might find an encounter with Beethoven a more rewarding experience than one with Jablonsky.
> 
> But no, you call these people — those who prefer to swim at the deep end of the Great Swimming Pool Of Music, while you and Guitarman choose to splash about with your kickboards in the shallow end — elitist snobs.
> 
> Cathedrals have been built, and yet you and Guitarman expect us to swoon over cheap, prefab condominiums. If we don’t, we’re snobs. Man has conquered the moon, and yet you want us to applaud pyroflatulence as the pinnacle of science. If we refuse, we’re snobs. The ceiling of Sistine Chapel has been painted, it's there for all to behold, but here you are, wanting us to revere painted-by-numbers kitch as if it were equally great art. And if we decline to do so, you call us snobs.
> 
> Where does that come from? Why am I a snob, I ask you, for preferring Stravinsky’s ‘Petrushka’ over Paul Haslinger’s ‘Three Musketeers’? Tell me, from one musician to another: why? What’s elitist about me, a musician, finding much more musical pleasure in the Brandenburg Concertos than I do in Tyler’s “Age Of Ultron”? Or why am I a highbrow snoot for hearing a million times more musical depth and invention in a single minute of Brahms “Haydn Variations” than I hear in the entire output of Haslinger and Tyler et al. put together. Explain that to me, please.
> 
> And of course my views on the music I consider superior are _unchangeable_. (You have a problem with that too, apparently.) But that’s what such superiority (even when attributed subjectively) implies, is it not? The recognition and appreciation of something of lasting excellence, and therefore — and entirely consistent with it — receiving my equally lasting, unwavering devotion. The more fleeting and superficial of my musical infatuations are for other, less outstanding music. The music which I consider the zenith of the art however, has my everlasting, unchangeable love.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


What is good? How do you define good without creating a set of standards by which to be judged? Who sets those standards? do those standards apply to all? So yes good is totally subjective unless you have a unit of measurement to compare ones ability against another....something which doesn't exist universally for art.

Now greatness or ability I can appreciate but only when I give it the context of the genre or style they are trying to achieve, again not a universal measurement, but for the sake of discussion lets consider style and genre as a measurement for 'good' So yes in his style and genre Tchaikovsky was a master, but how were his textural sound design skills, how good were his EDM anthems, how good was his reggae? Now you might say these are unfair comparisons but could you honestly say that Bob Marley wasnt 'great' at reggae? So you see, to be universally great you have to have a pre defined unit of measurement. I can totally agree with you on the incredible talent and skill of all the people you mentioned but you cant compare the English and French language and decide which is better for telling a story.

Also no I dont for one second berate you for enjoying the depth of classical music, not one bit. There are many lessons to learn from there including techniques and style which can be an influence of today. I don't call you an Elitest snob when you enjoy something. I call you an elitist snob when you declare that anything beyond your particular choice of music is inferior. I call you an elitist for failing to acknowledge that while Jabolsnsky's transformers score couldn't stand up against Beethhoven if it was compared as a piece of classical music but absolutely blows it away when used in the context of creating the emotion for the film with which it is paired. I call you an elitist when you dismiss the musical creativity and potential that comes from the limitless possibilities of organic and synthetic sound design and how it can be used to create textures and feelings music of the classical era couldn't even dream of.

So no you are not and elitist or a snob for liking the skill and craftsmanship of classical composers writing classical music. However those skills are not equal or comparable to the music of today. You cant judge Reggae by the tools and techniques of classical music. Why? because Classical music =/= all music. Yes it has some amazing work and composers but you can't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree any more than a monkey by its ability to breath underwater.

So surely you can see, you are deeming 'good' to be what your held beliefs of what good is, which it appears to be classical music. And thats fine. Its only a problem when you start telling other people the are inferior or worse because of your own personal taste.

-DJ


----------



## Stiltzkin

My part time hobby is actually sitting at the zoo judging swimming monkeys. 

Such grace....


----------



## Confuzzly

My my, what an entertaining thread. So much so that I feel the desire to come out of my lurking hole and actually make a post.

First, let me say that I agree with the idea that "good" is objective, while taste is subjective. However, one thing that I feel is often overlooked during these types of arguments is that in a way classical music is, by definition, "good". Classical music is a selection music that by some miraculous, mysterious means has survived and remained relevant for hundreds of year. However, I'd imagine that it is only a fraction of a percent of the music that was made during that era. Countless numbers of artists and songs were made only to fall into obscurity. Sure, they didn't have mass media to help distribute it and make themselves known, but I find it hard to believe other music didn't exist. So yea, it's no surprise that when we think of classical music that contains the likes of Ravel, Mozart, Mahler etc that we think about how "good" it is, but it is because of that quality that their names and music still remain to this day.

I feel as though it is the same logic that people use to say the classic rock is better than modern rock while only citing the likes of Zeppelin and the Stones as examples. Obviously Zeppelin is better than virtually all modern rock made today. That is why someone in their early twenties like myself know their names, has heard their music, and has even enjoyed some of it even though rock isn't normally my taste. However, if I took *insert random unknown band from the 70s* and compared them to some modern rock, I'd imagine that they would be objectively similar in quality. 

I am nowhere near intelligent enough to guess what makes something "good", but Zeppelin had it, as did Mozart, Miles Davis, John Williams etc. I'm sure 50 years from now we will look at a fraction of a percent of the music from today and say how music from 2015 was so much better than music from 2065, and so the cycle continues...

Just my two cents. Now back to my hole. o[])


----------



## Daniel James

If 'good' is not subjective....what makes something good musically?

-DJ


----------



## ed buller

hasn't this just become a universal truth argument ?

entertaining but pointless ? either you think it exists...or you don't

e


----------



## Greg

Damn, there are some HUGE superiority complexes on this forum.


----------



## re-peat

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> (...)I have absolutely no issue defending the future of our art with all the venom and passion I can muster.


You defend no such thing, Daniel. What you defend is complacent, risk-free, bland conformity. Or, as I called it two pages ago: reactionary bourgois art. Lubricant music, that’s what you’re defending.
And the territory which ‘epic music’ now calls its own, with a completely misguided sense of achievement as it happens, was already charted and annexed — in its entirety and much more thoroughly — over a century ago, by people who, unlike you, truly had the progress and future of music at heart. Bugger, isn’t it?
Surely you don’t really believe that you’re coming anywhere near the boundaries of contemporary music, let alone push them forwards, with epic music’s lazy ostinatos, its kindergarten harmonic devices, its dreary sameness of melodies, its predictable percussion beds and its unavoidable and cheap-effect-seeking crescendos. (Rossini did all that already, and much more excitingly, and he stopped writing that stuff in 1829 preferring to be a gourmand instead. If only more ‘epic’ composers would follow his example.)

But let’s address some of your other points.
The difference between me considering Beethoven’s music great and you considering Jablonsky’s great, is that I can built my case entirely on strictly musical arguments, whereas you are obliged to drag in a whole _non-musical_ context — film and emotion — to validate Jablonsky’s music. 
It’s the exact same mistake that made Guitarman’s juxtaposition of Warhol and Rembrandt such a hilariously ridiculous affair. (And the mistake is also why your language analogy doesn’t work.) The power of Warhol’s soup tin — which I certainly don’t deny is there — relies entirely on exterior factors (a.o. the questions it raises, the conventions it questions, the discussion it triggers, etc.), but the work itself is little more than a decorative gimmick, as most thinking men will agree. A Rembrandt portrait, on the other hand, not only offers image, (his)story and bi-directional empathy (contextual factors, for those who like that kind of thing), but gives us all that, captured in a work that is, above all, a magnificent display of stunning painting ability and talent. The Rembrandt, as a painting, has a layer of intrinsic ‘absolute’ artistry — talent, passion and phenomenal technique culminating in a great painting — which we seek in vain in the Warhol. Or, put differently: the Warhol only becomes art ‘conditionally’ (and again: I don’t deny that it does), whereas the Rembrandt is, first and foremost, ‘art from within’, and as such even immune to contextual interference.

If I were to have an orgasm all over a canvas — that would be called a canvasial, I suppose — and hang it in a museum, the work might provoke all sorts of relevant reactions about what is art, etc., and maybe even gain some ‘artistic’ meaning and importance because of that, but it still wouldn’t be a great painting, now would it? Warhol’s work the same: conditionally meaningful, intrinsically empty.

I’m not suggesting that ‘intrinsic art’ is automatically and always superior to ‘conditional art’, far from it, but I don’t think any sane person, and certainly no one who has insight in what the art of painting involves, will doubt the artistic superiority of Rembrandt’s work — as ‘paint applied to canvas’, I mean — over Warhol’s.

And though not quite the same thing — obviously —, something similar is going on with my Beethoven and your Jablonsky. Beethoven’s music stands, as a self-contained musical creation, firmly on its own two feet, whereas Jablonsky’s isn’t self-contained at all and needs to be supported by the crutches of context before it becomes what it was meant to be. And that has serious and far-reaching musical implications which I, for one, refuse to ignore. Sorry if that makes me a snob.

Talking about ignoring: forgive me if I do just that with your disturbingly silly comments on Tchaikovsky’s reggae or EDM anthems.

By the way, and I’m only mentioning this as a piece of information: there’s a school of music historians who say that the use of ‘epic’, in its original meaning and as an adjective connected to music, is first justified with the opening of Beethoven’s 9th: music which suggests a size and scope beyond itself.

But, for the record: I’m not some classical music exclusivist, you know. There’s plenty of classical music — even very famous and celebrated one — which bores me to bits, and there are many other styles and genres of music which please and excite me just as much as classical music does. (But again and again and again: for the purest form of musical bliss, for the closest man can take music to all that it can be, I invariably turn to great pieces of the classical repertoire.)
I just had a quick look at my iTunes collection (which contains only a fragment of my actual music collection, but a representative one): 221 classical albums, 238 jazz albums, 114 pop/rock/electronica albums, 87 soundtracks, 40 unclassifiable albums (that’s all Zappa), and a few dozen albums of other stuff. 

Zero albums ‘epic music’, I’m afraid. We’re not going to move much closer to one another with all this, are we?

_


----------



## Darthmorphling

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Haha I have a very strong reactionary impulse to people who stand to put themselves as someone else's superior when the topic at hand is an option based one. I think the concept of a 'purist' (many of which you will find here), are a cancer to progress and creativity. They solely exist to complain that things are getting 'worse' and that we should be looking back to the past instead of forward to uncharted territory. I have absolutely no issue defending the future of our art with all the venom and passion I can muster
> 
> -DJ



In my profession, education, this mentality is very present. We have many older teachers that believe the way they have been teaching for their entire career is the only way that works. When you live in the past, you are never able to appreciate what may come in the future.

I find Jay's remark about realizing he will never be great and settling on being competent to reflect this view of the world. There may be better teachers than I, but I never for once say that I will just accept that. I look at what they do, ask them questions, and try to incorporate what they say into my curriculum. I look for new ideas that may go against the status quo and see if that helps my students.

I would never let a student just settle for being mediocre. I will build that student up to be the best they can be.

This entire conversation is like discussing politics. Everyone believes their views are correct, but the reality is that your views are just opinions, based on your life experiences. There is no imaginary line that defines what "great" music is.

I listen to a classical guitar podcast and these types of discussions come up all of the time. In that particular world, there is a lot atonal, academic music that a lot of classical guitar players hate playing. It may be technically superior to something like "Lagrima", but that doesn't make it good. Metal guitarist who only play 320 bpm on guitar, while technically challenging is just utter crap.

I will choose a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, over a finely prepared meal of Escargot any day of the week. Just because something is prepared by a "trained" chef does not make it good.


----------



## Greg

Anyone that settles on "I will never be great" is a fucking pussy. What a pathetic cop-out to a life as a human being.


----------



## Greg

re-peat @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between me considering Beethoven’s music great and you considering Jablonsky’s great, is that I can built my case entirely on strictly musical arguments, whereas you are obliged to drag in a whole _non-musical_ context — film and emotion — to validate Jablonsky’s music.
> _
Click to expand...


Are you fuckin serious? I really pity you if you can't put aside your musical elitism and just feel the emotions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ3F9aYDiSw

Edit: After reading your page 4 post. We're just a different breed. I can appreciate the craft but at the end of the day it doesn't mean shit to me if there isn't some emotional response. It'd be like staring at a nicely chiseled birdhouse with no birdies in it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Darth, my teachers never told me my ceiling. When I left Boston Conservatory, I was convinced I would be great. When I got out into the world here in Los Angeles, my experiences and my willingness to be honest with myself did.

I have no more to add, just wanted to make it clear that what I have become and not become has nothing to do with my teachers, who always encouraged me to grow.

And comparing a fast food burger with escargot is a false comparison. Compare it to a burger made by a fine chef at least.


----------



## Guy Rowland

On sober reflection, the thing that baffles me about Jay's "I'll never be great" is the supposed practical effect it had. Jay, please explain a little more. You wrote that because you believed you didn't have greatness in you, you made the wise decision to focus on craft instead. Where I'm struggling is this - had you believed that greatness WAS within your grasp - what was the plan then? Not to study? Not to try? Why is craft the preserve of those who have abandoned ambition?

In all other ways, we could all save time at this point and just re-read posts from page 1 onwards again rather than post any more. And to prove the point, Greg - Piet has already dealt with that issue of "feeling the emotion" multiple times. Again, his page 4 post is excellent. You may not agree with him, but there's little value in writing what you did without acknowledging his argument at least.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> On sober reflection, the thing that baffles me about Jay's "I'll never be great" is the supposed practical effect it had. Jay, please explain a little more. You wrote that because you believed you didn't have greatness in you, you made the wise decision to focus on craft instead. Where I'm struggling is this - had you believed that greatness WAS within your grasp - what was the plan then? Not to study? Not to try? Why is craft the preserve of those who have abandoned ambition?



Not much. I did not "abandon ambition." I studied, I pursued. But I also devoted a lot of time to being a hands on father and a good husband. That is time I might not have been willing to spend doing that if I thought I could be truly great. Music is a selfish art, it demands complete dedication for greatness, less if all you are aiming for is to be decent and competent.

And craft is not only for those who cannot be great. The greats focus on craft as well, they just have something "more" going on than most of us have. More talent, more originality, more intellectual acuity.


----------



## Daniel James

> You defend no such thing, Daniel. What you defend is complacent, risk-free, bland conformity. Or, as I called it two pages ago: reactionary bourgois art. Lubricant music, that’s what you’re defending.



I was speaking generally about defending and hopefully inspiring people to pursue their own musical voice, trying new things, creating new and exciting things....and not listening to those who judge you to be inferior because you don't fit their pre determined model of what music is. And I am glad you got the little swipe at my music out of your system, I know I have much more to learn but I am still working at it, still pushing for it and it will take more than a petty jab to slow me.

Again Piet, and please answer this one.....what is good? how do you define good, what are these musical arguments you are using to define what makes one composer better than another? If its something like complex orchestral orchestration, how does that apply to judging a rock back? if its complex harmony how does that apply to judging rap?....There is no universal musical measurement for better or worse, its all subjective. 

The next definition for good is that it has stood the test of time...well lets think about that, is it possible that these pieces are still around because they were the most popular? perhaps complex harmony and intricate orchestration were popular back then so they rose to the top and we remember them because they were the cream of the crop.....but if complex orchestration, harmony etc were indicators of better or worse music...why do we no longer hold classical style composers in such regard? Why isnt every composers ambition to score in a classical style? instead we have the Marleys, the Beatles, the Zepplins, the Stones, the Jacksons....Good music isnt defined by a classical interpretation of what music is, its not a competition of technical ability, its not a science in which there is right and wrong answers.

All paintings are just paint on canvas. Its just some people make it resemble something real and others make it represent something intangible. More real, or more technically produced does not instantly mean 'better' 

What about the Tchaikovsky sentence is silly? He wrote in the classical style and was great...if you judged that work as a reggae piece it wouldn't be considered quite as great would it? so why would you judge reggae by classical conventions? they are so wildly different but no one is better than another. Bob Marley could create a piece with beautiful harmony, a groove, a message that resonated with listeners and is still remembered today. So for the final time what are you using to define good. Bob Marley was able to use music to move people every bit as Tchaikovsky. It was nowhere near as complex but as I mentioned above, nowhere is it universally accepted that complex = better. His work is masterfully crafted, but that greatness exists within its own world as much as Bob Marley's exists in Reggae. Now if you were to ask 1000 random people which music is better your logic would have them all say Tchaikovsky....but we both know thats not how it go. Because better is subjective. You can deny that all you want but anything that indicates how someone feels about a piece of art will always be subjective. That doesnt speak to the craft at how well it does a particular style or technique, but only to the fact that no one can be classed as to superior to all

Heh I can almost see by the amount of albums you have in 2 particular genre that you are inclined to believe that more complex = better, You do realize how many people think all Jazz sounds alike right or how it sounds bad, a quick google search will find you page after page sharing the sentiment, (for the record I dont) much in the way you guys might feel about 'Epic'. Sure they have their cliches but come on every genere has its bedrocks...and like I was saying earlier every genre has its passionate and lazy attempts.

Anyways if you make it this far before beginning another long winded rebuttal please to answer my question as to what Good actually is and is universally accepted for music. I think that would help us along to decide if it really is a universally accepted thing or just your personal standards.

-DJ


----------



## JohnG

He's already answered your question, Daniel. Not that you are really interested in anything that disagrees with your premise.


----------



## stixman

This thread is stuck in some time loop! Medieval even! Some of you may not even make it into 2016 musically! As some one said earlier we are in a transitional phase and need to be open minded but there is some very insecure elitism right here which is very disheartening! How the mighty have fallen :cry:


----------



## EastWest Lurker

stixman @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> This thread is stuck in some time loop! Medieval even! Some of you may not even make it into 2016 musically! As some one said earlier we are in a transitional phase and need to be open minded but there is some very insecure elitism right here which is very disheartening! How the mighty have fallen :cry:



Oh, please. Whichever side one comes down on in this discussion, resorting to throwing the "elitist" label at people who disagree is vapid and intellectually lazy.


----------



## guitarman1960

With respect, JohnG, he has not answered the question, and will never be able to answer the question because a universal objective measurement of artistic merit, does not exist, has never existed, and never will exist.
To be honest, someone that blinded by elitist snobbery appears incapable of understanding rational argument. To keep claiming that your favourite works are this mythological and unmeasurable ' all that music can be' is no more than a child in a playground saying my favourite band is better than yours. It's pathetic.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

You must be right. The reason people have continued to study and practice Mozart doesn't make his compositions any better than music by Kiss since it cannot be stated facily so it is just taste that more people still prefer Mozart around the world by a wide margin. And of course calling people elitist snobs makes your argument so much more powerful.


----------



## Daniel James

JohnG @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> He's already answered your question, Daniel. Not that you are really interested in anything that disagrees with your premise.



Come off it John. There is no need for that passive aggressive bullshit. People are more than welcome to disagree with me, thats how debates work. 

But when everyone keeps saying that good and better are objective not subjective but no one has yet told me by which set of standards that is being measured against...I will keep asking. You can't base your side of an argument on something you avoid explaining. 

I get it, a few of you don't like me, we have been here before, but fuck off with the jabs... Its not helping the discussion. If I feel I am on the wrong side of an argument I would back down and concede my position. It has happened before on this forum but as it stands right now I fully defend my position so don't give me this shit that I'm not interested in hearing legitimate arguments from the other side. Also John as a moderator its sort of unfair for you to throw out a line like that, which is so targeted at a member....it makes responding in turn a bit unbalanced because if your feelings get hurt you can just edit my post to be whatever you like or have me banned. 

@Jay. The term elitest applies here. You have contested many times that classical music is far superior many times to modern music. Thats an elitist standpoint. I am saying there is no real better, unless of course someone has the universal standards upon which all music is judged and for whatever reason only composers in the classical era were able to achieve.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I have said no such thing. I have said that music that strives for greater depth and succeeds is greater than music that strives for less and succeeds. Therfore, Miles Davis was greater than Coldplay is. 

And once again, describing someone as an elitist because they maintain that there is such a thing as greater and lesser music simply betrays a lazy intellect. You will notice that at no point have i resorted to throwing labels on people, though there are several that came to mind.


----------



## tack

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> I have said that music that strives for greater depth and succeeds is greater than music that strives for less and succeeds.



"Greater depth" as in complexity? That's really my parsing of the debate here. I think some are essentially saying that good/great/<superlative> music is complex. When you start with that premise, then I think you can make an unimpeachable case that a Beethoven symphony is objectively "better" than a Kiss song.

To me, Daniel seems to be coming from a different place. He's rejecting that good == complex, or at least saying that position is subjective.

But sure, if you start with that premise, I can buy the rest of it. I just don't know that a Platonic ideal for music has been (or can be) established.


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> I have said no such thing. I have said that music that strives for greater depth and succeeds is greater than music that strives for less and succeeds. Therfore, Miles Davis was greater than Coldplay is.
> 
> And once again, describing someone as an elitist because they maintain that there is such a thing as greater and lesser music simply betrays a lazy intellect.



What do you mean by depth? thats a bit ambiguous as an explanation...in what way is Miles Davis striving for something more than Coldplay? I mean I can think of many people I know who love Miles Davis and I know others who love Coldplay. They have both connected on a deep and meaningful level with thousands of people....so I don't understand what you believe Miles Davis is doing that Coldplay is not. They both operate in different styles and genres, they both have achieved great success. Just saying one is more deep than the other doesn't cut it. Again as I have said many times...what are the standards you are holding them to to determine depth. It still looks to me like you are basing this on your personal opinion and taste. 

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I think people get so committed to an ideology that they ignore what they know on a gut level is true. Is there even 1 person here who if they remove the ideology filter actually believes in their heart of hearts that Mozart's music is not greater music than the music of Kiss, that is is just "different?"


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said no such thing. I have said that music that strives for greater depth and succeeds is greater than music that strives for less and succeeds. Therfore, Miles Davis was greater than Coldplay is.
> 
> And once again, describing someone as an elitist because they maintain that there is such a thing as greater and lesser music simply betrays a lazy intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by depth? thats a bit ambiguous as an explanation...in what way is Miles Davis striving for something more than Coldplay? I mean I can think of many people I know who love Miles Davis and I know others who love Coldplay. They have both connected on a deep and meaningful level with thousands of people....so I don't understand what you believe Miles Davis is doing that Coldplay is not. They both operate in different styles and genres, they both have achieved great success. Just saying one is more deep than the other doesn't cut it. Again as I have said many times...what are the standards you are holding them to to determine depth. It still looks to me like you are basing this on your personal opinion and taste.
> 
> -DJ
Click to expand...


Miles was exploring new ground that he knew would make him less commercially viable, but he did it because his creativity demanded it of him. That is depth.

Coldplay makes nice commercial records and has never apparently aspired to do more. That is the opposite of depth.

BTWE, Daniel, here is the dictionary definition of "depth' as we are discussing it.

complexity and profundity of thought: the book has unexpected depth.
• extensive and detailed study or knowledge: third-year courses typically go into more depth.


----------



## tack

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Is there even 1 person here who if they remove the ideology filter actually believes in their heart of hearts that Mozart's music is not greater music than the music of Kiss, that is is just "different?"



I personally wouldn't argue that for a second. But then I'm simultaneously happy to admit that my idea of "greater" is subjective, and it happens to align with yours.

I'm reminded of an anecdote Mike Verta told in one of his classes. (Apologies to Mike in advance if I don't get it exactly right.) He said he was stopped at a red light beside some woman with the windows down and music blaring, some hiphop/R&B tune, and that woman was into that music to the point that it looked transcendent. Body flailing around, car shaking. I can imagine what the answer might be if we asked that lady if she thought Beethoven's 5th was better.

There's an audience for both. The rest is philosophy.


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> I think people get so committed to an ideology that they ignore what they know on a gut level is true. Is there even 1 person here who if they remove the ideology filter actually believes in their heart of hearts that Mozart's music is not greater music than the music of Kiss, that is is just "different?"



But thats just it Jay....What is better. I 100% get where you are coming from, but you are composer who works with orchestral instruments. Classical music has a direct impact on your work, you understand the intricacies of the technical ability that goes into developing that particular type of music so your bias is obviously skewed in that direction....but to someone who writes music that doesnt feature a single orchestral instrument, the techniques and craft of orchestral writing doesnt directly apply. So to a person like that Kiss maybe considered 'better' because that is the music they have studied and while it may not be as focused on Orchestration or complex harmonic material it does focus on rhythm, tone, texture, chorus, lyrics (poetry?). Both are valid forms of music and you can only say one is better than the other subjectively. Because what is better to you doesn't apply to all, you are aware there are people out there who hate classical music with a passion right? and just because it doesnt resonate with them doesnt instantly mean they are dumb or uneducated, it just means that language doesnt speak to them. Nor does it take away from the technical skill of those composers. Its all just subjective.

-DJ


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said no such thing. I have said that music that strives for greater depth and succeeds is greater than music that strives for less and succeeds. Therfore, Miles Davis was greater than Coldplay is.
> 
> And once again, describing someone as an elitist because they maintain that there is such a thing as greater and lesser music simply betrays a lazy intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by depth? thats a bit ambiguous as an explanation...in what way is Miles Davis striving for something more than Coldplay? I mean I can think of many people I know who love Miles Davis and I know others who love Coldplay. They have both connected on a deep and meaningful level with thousands of people....so I don't understand what you believe Miles Davis is doing that Coldplay is not. They both operate in different styles and genres, they both have achieved great success. Just saying one is more deep than the other doesn't cut it. Again as I have said many times...what are the standards you are holding them to to determine depth. It still looks to me like you are basing this on your personal opinion and taste.
> 
> -DJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Miles was exploring new ground that he knew would make him less commercially viable, but he did it because his creativity demanded it of him. That is depth.
> 
> Coldplay makes nice commercial records and has never apparently aspired to do more. That is the opposite of depth.
> 
> BTWE, Daniel, here is the dictionary definition of "depth' as we are discussing it.
> 
> complexity and profundity of thought: the book has unexpected depth.
> • extensive and detailed study or knowledge: third-year courses typically go into more depth.
Click to expand...


Exploring new ground is fantastic and I wholeheartedly support people to follow suit but doing so doesnt instantly make him better or deeper....If I was to go off now and follow one of my creative itches down the road of hybrid acoustic synthetic sound design, you would most likely not call it deep or say that the act of me persuing creativity over commercial success instantly made me better than anyone else.

If your music is commercially successful doesn't automatically mean you have no aspirations musically. You are making lots of random logic jumps here Jay "Ie is a does b then it must equal x"

And back to the whole crux of my point, as you have just defined to me via the magic of the dictionary that you do indeed consider technical complexity as the measurement of which all music is to be judged. I couldn't disagree with that stance any more if I tried. 

-DJ


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Well Morpheus, true or not!... What about beauty then?
What about enduring works of art, if most of them are usually what we call "beautiful"? Is it then all still in the eye of the beholder?
Just a question Morpheus...What do you believe the answer will be if you show any kid, grandma or grandpa, any female or male, any Occidentals or Orientals from any religion *which one in this picture is the most "beautiful" between 90's Brad Pitt vs. Mother Hell?...*
Shoot you're right Morpheus, Apples and Oranges, right!? Oh yeah you're right also Morpheus, I can't prove either is more beautiful or less beautiful than the other one, just like i can't prove Swiss Yodel is better, worse, or equal as Mongolian Throat singing...

But the "probable" answer & consensus, as i haven't made the test, is that *universal visual beauty*, at least in the Human experience DOES exist, or am I making a complete logical fallacy here?...
Aesthetics? Of course, to a certain degree, you don't prove these things rationally, especially beauty, your intuition does & with Art: your wisdom, which is a combination of many on-going practiced things that need Time, does...

Now on Music: why grant it the whole subjectivity-fundamentalism?
*On Brad Pitt's case, if almost nobody thinks Mother Hell is as beautiful as Brad, then i guess almost everybody is an elitist then...*


----------



## Daniel James

AlexandreSafi @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Well Morpheus, true or not!... What about beauty then?
> What about enduring works of art, if most of them are usually what we call "beautiful"? Is it then all still in the eye of the beholder?
> Just a question Morpheus...What do you believe the answer will be if you show any kid, grandma or grandpa, any female or male, any Occidentals or Orientals from any religion *which one in this picture is the most "beautiful" between 90's Brad Pitt vs. Mother Hell?...*
> Shoot you're right Morpheus, Apples and Oranges, right!? Oh yeah you're right also Morpheus, I can't prove either is more beautiful or less beautiful than the other one, just like i can't prove Swiss Yodel is better, worse, or equal as Mongolian Throat singing...
> 
> But the "probable" answer & consensus, as i haven't made the test, is that *universal visual beauty*, at least in the Human experience DOES exist, or am I making a complete logical fallacy here?...
> Aesthetics? Of course, to a certain degree, you don't prove these things rationally, especially beauty, your intuition does & with Art: your wisdom, which is a combination of many on-going practiced things, does...
> 
> Now on Music: why grant it the whole subjectivity-fundamentalism?
> *On Brad Pitt's case, if almost nobody thinks Mother Hell is as beautiful as Brad, then i guess almost everybody is an elitist then...*



Actually this is indeed subjective. Some may prefer the lady to the right and who are you to judge those people? Just because the vast majority would go for Brad Pitt doesnt make it a universal fact. Unless of course fact is determined by popular vote? For something to be universally true for everyone there has to be a universally accepted set of standards that you can hold something against...if not then its just subjective.

Besides this comparison is so unusable. Beauty has nothing to do with creativity or artistry. Not to mention an evolutionary bias towards what we find attractive in a mate. There exists no evolutionary bias towards classical music...or any particular art for that matter.

-DJ


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Daniel James @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> AlexandreSafi @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Morpheus, true or not!... What about beauty then?
> What about enduring works of art, if most of them are usually what we call "beautiful"? Is it then all still in the eye of the beholder?
> Just a question Morpheus...What do you believe the answer will be if you show any kid, grandma or grandpa, any female or male, any Occidentals or Orientals from any religion *which one in this picture is the most "beautiful" between 90's Brad Pitt vs. Mother Hell?...*
> Shoot you're right Morpheus, Apples and Oranges, right!? Oh yeah you're right also Morpheus, I can't prove either is more beautiful or less beautiful than the other one, just like i can't prove Swiss Yodel is better, worse, or equal as Mongolian Throat singing...
> 
> But the "probable" answer & consensus, as i haven't made the test, is that *universal visual beauty*, at least in the Human experience DOES exist, or am I making a complete logical fallacy here?...
> Aesthetics? Of course, to a certain degree, you don't prove these things rationally, especially beauty, your intuition does & with Art: your wisdom, which is a combination of many on-going practiced things, does...
> 
> Now on Music: why grant it the whole subjectivity-fundamentalism?
> *On Brad Pitt's case, if almost nobody thinks Mother Hell is as beautiful as Brad, then i guess almost everybody is an elitist then...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is indeed subjective. Some may prefer the lady to the right and who are you to judge those people? Just because the vast majority would go for Brad Pitt doesnt make it a universal fact. Unless of course fact is determined by popular vote? For something to be universally true for everyone there has to be a universally accepted set of standards that you can hold something against...if not then its just subjective.
> 
> Besides this comparison is so unusable. Beauty has nothing to do with creativity or artistry. Not to mention an evolutionary bias towards what we find attractive in a mate. There exists no evolutionary bias towards classical music...or any particular art for that matter.
> 
> -DJ
Click to expand...


Daniel, you are right, in the end, a majority on a vote of beauty can be mostly proof that all of it is still subjective, but take away the "mental thinking" for a moment, and ask yourself, the simple question? Do you even believe Greatness exists or that it's really all an illusion we all like to participate into?


----------



## re-peat

Darthmorphling @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> (...) Just because something is prepared by a "trained" chef does not make it good.


A wiser teacher, *Darth*, would say: “Just because something is prepared by a "trained" chef does not make it *tasty*.”
If you don’t like escargots, then I’m afraid it’s not for you to decide whether an escargot dish is ‘good’ or not. In which case you should humbly accept that, given it was prepared by a committed chef, it is in all likelihood going to be a good (as in: passionately and expertly prepared) dish.

And yes, I would be a complete snob if I were to mock the fact that you’re not too keen on escargots. (Which I would never do, by the way.) But you would be a very wise man if you’re willing to accept that there might be a lot more to that dish than what your taste buds allow you to perceive.

Same thing with music, people. If you refuse or are unable to look beyond where your (self-affirming) preferences permit you to look, then that’s a rather sad state of affairs already, I would say. For any self-respecting musician, I mean. But if you then combine that narrow view with a begrudging, infantile and deriding condemnation of all those who *do* have the passion, interest, courage and/or talent to go further than you appear to be able to, than we have definitely arrived at a very painful impasse from which no amount of mutual understanding or cordiality will ever release us.

- - - - - - - - - - 

*Daniel,*

Good, in my book, is basically defined by three things: (1) idea, (2) treatment and (3) the accordance between the first two (which is not always evident).
And whether it is Stevie Wonder, Squarepusher, Heinrich Isaac, Gerry Mulligan, Jon Brion, Stravinsky, Duke Ellington, Frank Zappa, Mozart, Waxman, Richard Rodgers, Cinematic Orchestra, Schubert, Bowie, Bacharach or J.P. Sousa, to name just a quick handful of composers/musicians I embrace in admiration, those three elements can always be observed.

A good idea, to me, is an idea which is pregnant with musical challenges and possibilities. And good treatment is that which (a) recognizes the identity of the idea and its particular pregnancy and (b) fully exploits all those challenges and possibilities. (Most obvious example: Beethoven 5, where a single rhythmic motif transpires to be pregnant with an entire four-movement, gloriously varied yet amazingly coherent symphony. That is, in the hands of a Beethoven.) Which is precisely why I find great classical music a musically far more rewarding dish than just about any other type of music. Not because it is, as a genre, from itself superior — as I clearly said already before — but because the art of music can be practiced much more completely in a great classical piece than it can in, say, a pop song or a film cue or a rap song. And by ‘more completely’ I mean: a talented, inspired and skilful composer can use MUCH more of music’s melodic, harmonic, linguistic, semantic, structural, referential, intellectual and emotional powers, and often to a fuller extent as well, than, say, a songwriter or film composer can. Surely, you can see that as well? 

We really should walk through a great piece (or track) together, step by step, bar by bar, and stop at regular intervals to have a look around at the ideas, at the treatment, and at the way in which they match. And when we’re finished with that, we should take a few steps back and look at the whole thing to observe if there’s an arc of intuitive inevitability (which I mentioned a few pages ago) spanning the piece and which, in my view, is only present in the most sublime of all music. It’s like an invisible rainbow hanging over a piece, or a huuuuge ‘structural legato marking’ if you prefer, which ensures in a rather inexplicable way (I recognize it when I hear it, but I am unable to explain what to look for, sorry — more grist on Guitarman’s squeaky mill, I suppose) that a piece is moving forward to its conclusion on the engine of its own musical logic. It’s something to do with how a piece unfolds from start to finish, and how all the domino pieces (make the next one) fall.

Anyway, the best music, for me, offers the most structurally sound marriage of the best ideas with the best matching treatment. Quite simple really, when phrased like that, isn’t it?

But deceivingly so, I’m afraid. Because, what it requires — and I now turn my voice down to a hushed whisper — is the ability, or talent, to make an innumerable amount of evaluations and differentations — some fairly blunt and obvious, but others of tweezer-like accuracy — on just about every musical level or aspect.
And here we approach the really big problem: having that ability. Having the ability and the talent to recognize great ideas, great treatment and the accordance between those two as well. Not to mention my blasted arc, if it happens to be present.
And this — more whisper-y still — is a topic I’m extremely reluctant to bring into the discussion — we’re not just talking a can of worms here, we’re talking a Moby Dick-sized cargo of the meanest boa constrictors — cause everytime I did so in the past, things got really ugly, really fast. I mean, you may think I’m an elitist snob already with what I wrote thusfar, but wait till I give you my views on “the talent required to recognize talent”. V.I.’s air will be filled with indignation and a shower of swearwords in no time at all. And from a whole lot more people than have expressed themselves in that way so far. Perhaps best not to then, he?

_


----------



## Daniel James

> Good, in my book is...





> Anyway, the best music, for me, offers the most structurally sound marriage of the best ideas with the best matching treatment. Quite simple really, when phrased like that, isn’t it?



And this is exactly my point. This is a subjective opinion on what good is. I absolutely respect and understand your outlook on music, you clearly have a good understanding on the technical ability required for different styles and the kind of passion it would take to train yourself hard enough to realize your artistic vision...however as I have said a few times you are basing which composers are better than others based on your interpretation of what 'good' is...which I am saying isnt held universally. Thats when words like elitest and snob get thrown around. Because you are taking the position that your held notion of what good is, is superior to someone elses by stating that the music they love is 'worse' than the music that meets your criteria of good.

Hopefully you can see now that it is a subjective matter. There is no better or worse, just different. What works for you might not work for everyone else. 

-DJ


----------



## KEnK

Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> ...in what way is Miles Davis striving for something more than Coldplay?...


I'm sorry Daniel

but you have got to be kidding. :roll: 
I can no longer think that you believe what it is you're saying.
More that you are clinging to an argument that is like water running through a sieve.

Here is something that will be interpreted as entirely inflammatory=

I've noticed that on this forum most often the people insisting on this 
everything is equal, taste is subjective argument
are primary people doing epic or edm.
(certainly it's the case in this thread)

Why is that?

It's because of the inherent weakness of the form.
It is in fact a kind of Muzak™.

The real 'elitists' are those demanding an equality that has not been earned.

fire away boys :twisted: 
enjoy o-[][]-o 

k


----------



## AlexandreSafi

And here we approach the really big problem: having that ability. Having the ability and the talent to recognize great ideas, great treatment and the accordance between those two as well. Not to mention my blasted arc, if it happens to be present.
And this — more whisper-y still — is a topic I’m extremely reluctant to bring into the discussion — we’re not just talking a can of worms here, we’re talking a Moby Dick-sized cargo of the meanest boa constrictors — cause everytime I did so in the past, things got really ugly, really fast. I mean, you may think I’m an elitist snob already with what I wrote thusfar, but wait till I give you my views on “the talent required to recognize talent”. V.I.’s air will be filled with indignation and a shower of swearwords in no time at all. And from a whole lot more people than have expressed themselves in that way so far. Perhaps best not to then, he?
_[/quote]

Perhaps you should absolutely do it, one day, if only for one person, me, because i somehow feel your future post is going to be the one i've been waiting forever to see someone express since i developed exactly years ago the same conclusion as you about this "talent of recognition of ideas", which is NEVER talked about... 

The most inspiring thing for a musician is to actually believe that there is an "objectivity" in GOOD music that has yet to be discovered, assembled or attained, and so i find ironic to call *Jay* on his so-called depressing statement, and then imply that musical greatness is an illusion or logical fallacy of objectivity(if you are not, then please at least admit there's a contradiction...)


----------



## Daniel James

KEnK @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...in what way is Miles Davis striving for something more than Coldplay?...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Daniel
> 
> but you have got to be kidding. :roll:
> I can no longer think that you believe what it is you're saying.
> More that you are clinging to an argument that is like water running through a sieve.
> 
> Here is something that will be interpreted as entirely inflammatory=
> 
> I've noticed that on this forum most often the people insisting on this
> everything is equal, taste is subjective argument
> are primary people doing epic or edm.
> (certainly it's the case in this thread)
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> It's because of the inherent weakness of the form.
> It is in fact a kind of Muzak™.
> 
> The real 'elitists' are those demanding an equality that has not been earned.
> 
> fire away boys :twisted:
> enjoy o-[][]-o
> 
> k
Click to expand...


Of course there is no equality in music. I love must that some of you hate and vice versa. But that doesn't mean anything is better or worse. Now as I have discussed previously, better and worse is based on a personal subjective criteria on what good is. Just because you believe its better, doesn't make it so. I am mostly defending this point because its irritating to see any discussion of epic music turn into elitists (I explained the use of this word above) telling people who love epic music that the music they love is inferior to the kinds of music they love. I am putting across the point that art is subjective. If you don't like epic music, good for you, fuck off and stop reading threads about epic music, go start your own thread about how awesome Mozart is. Its all art, its all subjective and like I said I like to defend the position of moving forward and trying new things with music, instead of looking to the past for all the answers.

-DJ


----------



## Greg

All these idiosyncrasies that you express, re-peat, are a fallacy when it comes down to what I believe music inherently is.

If M83's music bestows upon the audience a sense of wonder, beauty, meaning, expression, emotion, ect. Then I believe his music is just as profoundly meritable if not more so than music which does not bestow equivalent experiences upon an audience. No matter the talent or understanding the audience has of music or aesthetics.

This, in my opinion completely trumps "the structurally sound marriage of the best ideas with the best matching treatment." When giving merit to a piece of music.


----------



## re-peat

Daniel James @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Good, in my book is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the best music, for me, offers the most structurally sound marriage of the best ideas with the best matching treatment. Quite simple really, when phrased like that, isn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is exactly my point. This is a subjective opinion on what good is. I absolutely respect and understand your outlook on music, you clearly have a good understanding on the technical ability required for different styles and the kind of passion it would take to train yourself hard enough to realize your artistic vision...however as I have said a few times you are basing which composers are better than others based on your interpretation of what 'good' is...which I am saying isnt held universally. Thats when words like elitest and snob get thrown around. Because you are taking the position that your held notion of what good is, is superior to someone elses by stating that the music they love is 'worse' than the music that meets your criteria of good.
> 
> Hopefully you can see now that it is a subjective matter. There is no better or worse, just different. What works for you might not work for everyone else.
> 
> -DJ
Click to expand...


You’re quite fatigueing and frustrating to talk to, Daniel, especially when you now start to isolate some of my sentences while completely ignoring the logic and arguments which lead up to them.

It’s b-bye from me (the snob). And it’s b-bye from me (the elitist).

_


----------



## dgburns

Not that I want to enter into this crazy thread or anything,but wanted to point out-

Miles said that the notes you choose NOT to play are as important as the ones you DO play,or in other words,the space between the notes is as important as the notes played.
In Indian music,there is a term callled "the unstruck note",I think it means the same thing.(it's asian if not indian,don't hold me to the origin svp)

For my part,epic is all fun in the same way heavy metal is fun,silly and loud.And like any FORM of music,it requires a level of craft to pull off in any proper way.It can be hard to navigate hundreds of tracks of noise to make sure the whole pickle stays together.

and for what it's worth,I don't see producers,directors,video editors,or screen play writers arguing amoungst themselves like composer do about their craft and the merits of any one form of music.

for shame fellow composers,for shame,for you are all a bunch of intelligent music makers from the prose you write,that is obvious.

just sayin'


----------



## Daniel James

AlexandreSafi @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Daniel, you are right, in the end, a majority on a vote of beauty can be mostly proof that all of it is still subjective, but take away the "mental thinking" for a moment, and ask yourself, the simple question? Do you even believe Greatness exists or that it's really all an illusion we all like to participate into?




Sorry missed this one.

Absolutely I believe in greatness and will use every ounce of passion I own to achieve it. But I am aware that I am aiming at my interpretation of greatness, my vision of it. What greatness means to you might not be the same to me.

@re-peat: It doesn't particularly matter which parts I quoted because the end result was the same. As I said your version of what greatness is I deeply respect but I am maintaining that it is a subjectively held view. So surely you can see now that you have given your personal criteria for what good is you can accept that it might not be the same for everyone. And also you must understand my frustration when I am spoken down to by some composers because I love a type of music they consider inferior when at the end of the day that is their opinion and should be stated as such, not as universal fact.

-DJ


----------



## RiffWraith

This thread is *awesome!* :D 

o[])


----------



## re-peat

Greg @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> All these idiosyncrasies that you express, re-peat, are a fallacy when it comes down to what I believe music inherently is.
> 
> If M83's music bestows upon the audience a sense of wonder, beauty, meaning, expression, emotion, ect. Then I believe his music is just as profoundly meritable if not more so than music which does not bestow equivalent experiences upon an audience. No matter the talent or understanding the audience has of music or aesthetics.
> 
> This, in my opinion completely trumps "the structurally sound marriage of the best ideas with the best matching treatment." When giving merit to a piece of music.


Greg,

I wasn’t aware that I actually had to say this, but I’m not some Mozes-like figure who comes down the Mountain Of Music to spread Apollo-given unshakeable truths about music, carved in stone.
I’m not demanding anyone to agree or disagree with me, nor am I out to convert or convince. I’m just another member who’s simply sharing his/her views — views in which I believe very, very strongly, yes — on what music means to me and on why certain manifestations of music resonate more with me than others.

And seeing how much — not all, but enough — of what I treasure and believe is reflected in what generations, nay centuries of musicians which I deeply admire have to say on the subject or express in their music, I won’t deny that I proceed in this thread with a rather pleasant and marked sense of confidence, yes.

Anyway, 'bestowing emotion' happens to be not very high on my list of what I consider musically appealing or interesting, but if it is important to you, that’s entirely fine with me.

_


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Daniel James @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Of course there is no equality in music. I love must that some of you hate and vice versa. But that doesn't mean anything is better or worse. Now as I have discussed previously, better and worse is based on a personal subjective criteria on what good is. Just because you believe its better, doesn't make it so.
> -DJ



In the end Daniel, I can totally understand your stance, you didn't attack anybody first and didn't ask for any fight... And I can understand why anybody thinks "All Art is Subjective" is legitimately more rational than anything else!

I'm just going to say that the Perspective one gets, after a certain time spent in a certain way on this Earth, can't be qualified as just as subjective as one's Perspective during early years, especially in creating Art, and that there's an underlying spiritual reason that you are maybe already well aware of, why a genre such as EDM or bombastic will probably not be a part of future elders's life, and that maybe this says something deeper about our human nature and our deeper needs, hence leading to all this, i agree with you, blurry topic about presupposed depth behind genres and questions that you asked specifically Jay & Piet to prove to you on rational terms...

But anyways,
I sincerely wish you the best Future & Success to you and your future music Daniel!
-A.s-


----------



## patrick76

This thread takes me back to the worst parts of my music education.


----------



## Greg

re-peat @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Anyway, 'bestowing emotion' happens to be not very high on my list of what I consider musically appealing or interesting, but if it is important to you, that’s entirely fine with me.
> 
> _



I understand, and understand your points and how you value them. Even though I believe that they shouldn't be so strongly considered for judging the merit of music, they are obviously apparent in my favorite tunes. Especially the feeling of "inevitability."

We simply differ in this regard. My aspirations are to bestow emotion, meaning, connectivity, and experiential journey in my work. Apologize for the negative tone earlier.


----------



## Guy Rowland

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On sober reflection, the thing that baffles me about Jay's "I'll never be great" is the supposed practical effect it had. Jay, please explain a little more. You wrote that because you believed you didn't have greatness in you, you made the wise decision to focus on craft instead. Where I'm struggling is this - had you believed that greatness WAS within your grasp - what was the plan then? Not to study? Not to try? Why is craft the preserve of those who have abandoned ambition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much. I did not "abandon ambition." I studied, I pursued. But I also devoted a lot of time to being a hands on father and a good husband. That is time I might not have been willing to spend doing that if I thought I could be truly great. Music is a selfish art, it demands complete dedication for greatness, less if all you are aiming for is to be decent and competent.
> 
> And craft is not only for those who cannot be great. The greats focus on craft as well, they just have something "more" going on than most of us have. More talent, more originality, more intellectual acuity.
Click to expand...


Ah, that's totally different to what I thought you were saying. And absolutely fair enough, and actually I agree. It's a big decision that I think many aren't honest with themselves over - will you put your career before the rest of your life come what may, to the point of obsession? I've never wanted to do that, and always understood that it will limit where I can go with my career.

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

As to the rest of the thread in the past 8 hours... 95% circular, but there's one interesting juicy dangling thread. Although perhaps Piet never spelled it out, I thought it was obvious from what he'd already written that one needs talent to really appreciate talent. And that's quite fair enough in my book, but worth a little more thought as it leads to some not-so-obvious places.

If someone doesn't like a genre, chances are it all sounds the same to them. "Classical" sounds much of a muchness to the untrained ear, in the same way that trance does, rock and roll or heavy metal. It's only when one immerses in something that you're able to pick up on the wide variety all of these genres might maintain. With trance that might not be such a deep well as classical (and that's an important point) but the same principle applies. So that's a pre-requisite for appreciation for any genre. But then I think talent in the listener is able to take that still further - some just don't have the ears to hear. And some types of music will resonate with some people more than others of course, and there will be a wide disparity in how much there is to explore from genre to genre.

But that's not to say that, say, complex classical music cannot be appreciated by ignorant philistines at all, on more of a gut emotional level, as Piet has already pointed out. And here I have The Shawshank Redemption's famous opera-playing-over-the-prison-PA-scene as exhibit A. In case you haven't seen it, some way into the film, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) gets into the Warden's office where the prison announcements are made, alone, and plays the Marraige of Figaro over it for a few beautiful minutes til the wardens break in. It has a stunning tranformative effect on the entire prison - presumably most prisoners wouldn't have heard music at all in their lengthy incarceration. Red (Morgan Freeman) in voiceover says:



> I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singin about. Truth is I dont wanna know. Id like to think they were singin about something so beautiful it can't be expressed in words and makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you those voices soared higher and farther than anybody in a gray place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away and for the briefest of moments every last man in Shawshank felt free.



In relation to this discussion, what's fascinating about that scene (fiction of course, but resonates because it tells a truth) is that probably none of those prisoners had the kind of talent that Piet is talking about to hear that music. None could fully appreciate that composition on a purely musical level (and one might imagine a very different scene if Andy had played a more demanding instrumental composition - the boy chose well). But on a basic visceral and emotional level, the prisoners got it.

The question is - whose experience would be more profound? That of the musically gifted, or the common prisoner?

That's at the heart of this debate and - as I understand it - Piet's argument. There are different ways of appreciating music. Personally (and I mean personally) I like the universal kind more then the academic, though the latter has its own unique pleasure and satisfaction. And by academic I don't mean its purely intellectual, I mean it requires talent and learning on the part of the listener in order to appreciate it - even if that final appreciation is itself emotional. But for me its the universality of music that is most magical.

Where does any of this leave film music? Where indeed. To make the point for the 100th time, typically its not the primary job of film music to be that kind of transcendent music, appreciated in either way, which taints this entire debate with absurdity. But of course film music when put in its proper context - the film - provides its own transcendant experience, with the audience taken out of their cheap seats and sticky popcorn into galaxies far far away, or trailer parks in rural America or wherever it is. The skills the composer has to enable THAT experience is what gets them the gigs.

And here perhaps Epic music has a problem. Yes the best can produce a terrific effect in context, but it's palette is necessarily limited. For all of us as composers, as big a toolbox as possible is immensely valuable. So to end right back on the OP - fill your boots with Epic by all means, master it, refine it and subvert it - but there is a whole other musical world out there too. And the more you can draw on that - from every influence and corner of history and the globe - the more effective you're likely to be.


----------



## muk

Everybody can hold their own opinion about what defines art, what sets apart great music from mediocre music etc. and to a certain degree these opinions will all differ. The 'definition' becomes fuzzy at it's edges, if you will, but at it's core there are certain aspects that our society has agreed upon as necessary. The aspects at the edges are constantly changing, causing minor changes in the canon of great music that our culture holds. So in a way you may say that this definition is 'subjective', but it is subjective to our whole western civilization, not to each individual person. Ever read Willard van Orman Quine's 'Two dogmas of empiricism'? It's one of the most brilliant articles of the 20th century (like on a cultural level paradigma-changing, nobel-prize brilliant (eventhough he didn't win one)), and it is about exactly that phenomenon.

And let's forget about styles of music. What makes great music great music for our society is not inherent to style, it's not even inherent to music! It's inherent to art. The same things that set apart a Rembrandt portrait from the doodling of a kindergarten kid also sets apart a Beethoven symphony from a counterpoint exercise of a six year old. Or a John Williams score from some kids attempt to underscore a youtube video.

Jay has attempted to verbalize some of the sentences in the core of what defines art in our society. So has Piet, and I myself. Some absolute prerequisites are profoundness, intellectual acuity and depth, interpretability, craft.

Now you may not even agree to these sentences AT THE CORE of OUR SOCIETY's definition of art. Guitarman obviously doesn't. And that's completely fine. But you will not be able to communicate with society about it.
For example, you can invent your own words for any object you want. But using them you will not be able to communicate to others, because society has agreed to use different terms for these objects.

So, if you have some very different prerequisites about what makes great music, that's completely fine. If it helps you strive towards achieving these attributes in your own music that is greater still. It's just probable that our society will not acknowledge, nor understand these features and not value your music highly if it doesn't conform to the societies idea of great music. That's the deal we all have to make. And again, that has nothing to do with style. The question is whether it does conform to our societies idea of what art is.

In any event, I do hope that you have the belief that there are features that set apart great music from mediocre music, whatever they may be. Because if you haven't, then really all music is equal. A kindergarten doodle is just the same as Warhols soup can, and a Rembrandt portrait. And in that case you can't strive to become better at anything you are doing, because there is no better. Just complete, equality.


----------



## stixman

Who's society!!!!!! :roll:


----------



## mverta

Why is everything trying to be epic? Because it's for teenage hyperdrama in teenage movies and teenage games. Have you ever met a teen? Everything's a big fucking deal. A new pair of shoes? EPIC. Girlfriend left? I MIGHT AS WELL KILL MYSELF. Phone has 3 bars instead of 4? THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT! Everything in their lives goes to 11 and at warp speed. It's worse for this generation because it's also compensating for a complete lack of any actual, interesting experiences in their lives; they go out together and tap listlessly on glowing rectangles all night. They mostly can't focus, don't read; the closest any of them have had to a fist fight is unfriending somebody on Facebook, for Chrissakes, not that their happy meds would let them, that is. So they like movies and music where everything is equally a big goddamn deal. The world has to blow up. There has to be a million orcs running around. Wailing and gnashing of teeth, all that shit.


Now I understand everyone here and everyone they know is, of course, the exception; we're talking about the giant, unwashed masses. Naturally. Anyway, it's not rocket science; you don't need a psychology degree to get a handle on it, and the bonus for would-be composers is that BIG GIANT EPIC DRUM POUNDING music is mostly easy as shit to write. Counterpoint and efficient orchestration, on the other hand... 

Comic books usually feature hypersexualized males with giant muscles and freakishly curvy females with giant boobs, read predominantly by boys who will never have either. Compensatory imagery needs compensatory music. I guess. Anyway, what do we have, 40 more movies of this shit liined up? Better get to sampling those Hiroshima Toms, boys. There's cash to be made! The question of whether all this music being sprayed out is good will be answered by history. Great stuff endures; don't even worry about it. They're still lining up to see the Mona Lisa. Hell even John Williams still sells out concerts so people can hear music from 40 years ago. If, in 40 years, anybody's recent score to Superhero Movie 329 is still selling out concerts, you'll know it was worthy. Otherwise, history is pretty brutal on the subject.





_Mike


----------



## TheUnfinished

I don't have any money on either side of the argument (whatever the argument may be, it seems to shift from response to response merely to frame what somebody wants to say next, frankly).

However, enough of the sideways, snide "I'm not going to openly be rude because frankly I'm a fucking coward but everyone knows I'm calling you a dick" passive aggressive horseshit.

That's part of the reason words like 'snob' and 'elitist' get bandied about. Not because of your opinions, but the way you convey them.

Outside of VI Control, I never hear composers/producers speak so negatively about music (whatever genre it is and whether they make it themselves).

And anyway... Mozart and Deadmau5 never used the slendro scale once. Fucking amateurs, the pair of them.


----------



## guitarman1960

muk @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Everybody can hold their own opinion about what defines art, what sets apart great music from mediocre music etc. and to a certain degree these opinions will all differ. The 'definition' becomes fuzzy at it's edges, if you will, but at it's core there are certain aspects that our society has agreed upon as necessary. The aspects at the edges are constantly changing, causing minor changes in the canon of great music that our culture holds. So in a way you may say that this definition is 'subjective', but it is subjective to our whole western civilization, not to each individual person. Ever read Willard van Orman Quine's 'Two dogmas of empiricism'? It's one of the most brilliant articles of the 20th century (like on a cultural level paradigma-changing, nobel-prize brilliant (eventhough he didn't win one)), and it is about exactly that phenomenon.
> 
> And let's forget about styles of music. What makes great music great music for our society is not inherent to style, it's not even inherent to music! It's inherent to art. The same things that set apart a Rembrandt portrait from the doodling of a kindergarten kid also sets apart a Beethoven symphony from a counterpoint exercise of a six year old. Or a John Williams score from some kids attempt to underscore a youtube video.
> 
> Jay has attempted to verbalize some of the sentences in the core of what defines art in our society. So has Piet, and I myself. Some absolute prerequisites are profoundness, intellectual acuity and depth, interpretability, craft.
> 
> Now you may not even agree to these sentences AT THE CORE of OUR SOCIETY's definition of art. Guitarman obviously doesn't. And that's completely fine. But you will not be able to communicate with society about it.
> For example, you can invent your own words for any object you want. But using them you will not be able to communicate to others, because society has agreed to use different terms for these objects.
> 
> So, if you have some very different prerequisites about what makes great music, that's completely fine. If it helps you strive towards achieving these attributes in your own music that is greater still. It's just probable that our society will not acknowledge, nor understand these features and not value your music highly if it doesn't conform to the societies idea of great music. That's the deal we all have to make. And again, that has nothing to do with style. The question is whether it does conform to our societies idea of what art is.
> 
> In any event, I do hope that you have the belief that there are features that set apart great music from mediocre music, whatever they may be. Because if you haven't, then really all music is equal. A kindergarten doodle is just the same as Warhols soup can, and a Rembrandt portrait. And in that case you can't strive to become better at anything you are doing, because there is no better. Just complete, equality.



To quote Margaret Thatcher " There is no such thing as society" =o


----------



## muk

It's the same instance that defined what music is, as opposed to any other source of audible experiences. We can talk to each other about music because we share the same societal/cultural idea of what music is. There may as well be other societies which don't distinguish between any kind of noises, be it the grumbling of a hungry stomach or the kind of well organised noise we with our cultural background call music.


----------



## guitarman1960

To be a bit more serious for a moment, society is an artificial construct that doesn't actually exist. The history of art as taught by generations of teachers and academics is the accumulation over time of received second hand 'judgments' and 'wisdom' based on traditionalist and elitist principles and passed on through schools, colleges, universities and the media as 'facts', and therefore becomes part of public consciousness until it is questioned.


----------



## Guy Rowland

muk @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> It's the same instance that defined what music is, as opposed to any other source of audible experiences. We can talk to each other about music because we share the same societal/cultural idea of what music is. There may as well be other societies which don't distinguish between any kind of noises, be it the grumbling of a hungry stomach or the kind of well organised noise we with our cultural background call music.



This does seem a gross simplification. Different societies across the world have widly differing perspectives on what makes great music, and have done throughout history. And even that is a gross simplification, since it suggests there is always a groupthink among any one culture that can define something, when it's almost invariably far fuzzier.

I've just heard Kermode's review of Entourage, which he described as "worse than Sex In The City 2" (only reviewed on Friday, already over 120,000 views - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgCZ9lgQ3I ). From him, that's bold talk - the man hated every frame with every atom in his body. It scored 30% on Rotten Tomatoes - higher than I'd expect, with some reviewers saying it was funny. But it scores a staggering 7.5 on IMDB. So what does "society" say about Entourage? Does it mean that you have to average it out to a vapid "it has good and bad points"? If so, doesn't that massively diminish the human appreciation of art (if you'll indulge me and call Entourage "art")?

Matt - nice.

Mike - entertaining, but perhaps not as entertaining as it would have been in a week where one whiny over-dramatic youth hadn't put his iPhone down played with his rad gun in church.


----------



## muk

Just as music is an artificial construct, one of our society (go ask an earthworm about music...). It's well established that there is no reasoning with hardcore skepticism, so we may as well end discussing at this point. It's just that I'm genuinely interested in hearing what other eye opening insights and truths you may have about music that don't go together with our traditions and our culture. I think by now it is well clear that you despise those.


----------



## guitarman1960

muk @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Just as music is an artificial construct, one of our society (go ask an earthworm about music...). It's well established that there is no reasoning with hardcore skepticism, so we may as well end discussing at this point. It's just that I'm genuinely interested in hearing what other eye opening insights and truths you may have about music that don't go together with our traditions and our culture. I think by now it is well clear that you despise those.



I do not despise traditional art by any means. I love Rembrandt, Canaletto, Bach, Stravinsky, etc etc. but I also love Roy Lichtenstein, Warhol, Rothko, Pollock etc etc, I love Hendrix, Led Zep, Motorhead, but also love Mahavishnu Orchestra, Miles Davis, John Coltrane.

I am passionate about music and art, and have taken the time to learn to appreciate and understand the language of genres that are not so instantly accessible. It is true as Piet mentioned that you do get more out of it, if you learn the skills of the language and appreciation.

However that does not have anything to do with a supposed hierarchy of artistic merit.

In the design agency where I work, there are a good cross section of musical tastes, from classical, to metal, to blues, to prog, to easy listening, motown etc. However there is a universal dislike for Modern Jazz. Apart from myself, there is only one other who is a bass player and a 'muso' who likes Modern Jazz. All the others just dont get it, don't understand it, don't understand the language it speaks and have no interest in learning it. Because I understand and appreciate Miles Davis, does that make me superior to someone who likes Bruce Springsteen? No of course not. Does it make the music of Miles Davis superior to the music of Bruce Springsteen, no of course not. If you look at it another way, Bruce Springsteen's music is more accessible, more easily understood by more people, so you could easily call that 'better'. The same thing is true of a Rembrandt portrait, it speaks a language that is easy to understand, which partly explains its popularity. Modern Art, like Modern Jazz is not so easy to understand unless you learn its language.

To try and claim that people who take the time to learn the language of Modern Jazz or Abstract Art, or the deep nuances of a classical symphony are in some way superior,because they have a love of 'the finer things' is just the worst type of snobbery possible. And that is coming from someone with a degree in the history of Modern Art.

Appreciation of art IS subjective, whether you like it or not. That subjectivity is influenced of course, and not always for the better, by the information we receive from our education system and the media, but it is still subjective in spite of all the brain washing.

On a given night I might sit and listen to Birds Of Fire by Mahavishnu Orchestra and get thrilled by the interplay of the virtuoso musicians as they improvise and weave incredible lines. To me, at that time, that is great music. On another day I might be out driving on a fast road, with Ace Of Spades blasting out at full tilt, and thrill to the energy and awesome power of that song. To me, at that time, that is great music.

Is Birds Of Fire 'better' or 'worse' than Ace of Spades, no of course not. Does either one have more artistic merit than the other? No of course not.


----------



## R. Soul

I will settle the argument for you.

Skrillex vs. Mozart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Au0xCg3PI

:mrgreen:


----------



## guitarman1960

R. Soul @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> I will settle the argument for you.
> 
> Skrillex vs. Mozart
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Au0xCg3PI
> 
> :mrgreen:




Now THAT is genius !!!! :D


----------



## muk

Guy, without having seen 'Entourage' nor Kerman's review I'm not sure why you would assume that a multi-faceted evaluation would 'massively diminish the human appreciation of art'? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point here. Isn't it like in many a case when a work is published, that there are differing assessments about it's value? Over time 'society' will find a consensus about it's appreciation of the work, either in that it will continue to be received widely, or that it will be forgotten or appreciated only by a small number of 'insiders'. If it's value is deemed as 'average' it most likely will be forgotten. That's an oversimplification again, but isn't that what happens to anything published in our society? Sorry if I completely misunderstood you here, might be a language barrier or just me being stupid.

Nice one R. Soul.

Guitarman it seems like our opinions are not that far apart. Just for the protocol, I didn't say (nor do I think) that you despise traditional art, I did say (and think) that you despise our societies definition of art, though.
I don't know where you got the idea from that anybody here is judging anybody as superior. It's not about superiority or inferiority. It's about what is called art in our society. Art has a long lasting value for our society as a whole, that gives a work of art a certain importance for our culture. That makes a Rembrandt more valuable for our society than a kindergarten doodling. It does, however, NOT make anybody superior who prefers the Rembrandt over the doodling. And I have nobody seen claim that in this thread. Yes, I do think that there are different degrees of artistic value, craftsmanship, profoundness etc. But no, I do not think that the ability to create such, or to appreciate it makes anybody a superior nor inferior human being.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

The whole "superiority" thing is just people getting defensive. 

Rob (Roberto) is more talented than me. Does that make him superior to me? As a human being, no (though he may be) but is he a superior talent? Yes. 

So what! Compared to Bill Evans, Rob ain't so much 

My Dad only likes Manishevitz Concord Grape wine and has never taken any time to really try different wines and learn about wine. Does that make me superior to my Dad? No, he is twice the man I will ever be. But does the fact that over the years I have tried lots of wines and studied a little about it and therefore my palette has become more sophisticated than my Dad's make me a superior judge of wine? Yes, it does.

So what! Compared to Francis Fords Coppolla I know relatively nothing about wine.

Why do people have such a hard time accepting that the more you know about a subject the better qualified you perhaps are to assess it?

The ability to be able to self-evaluate REALISTICALLY, taking your ego out of it, without getting down on yourself for your shortcomings, is critical to being an artist who grows.


----------



## guitarman1960

muk @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Guy, without having seen 'Entourage' nor Kerman's review I'm not sure why you would assume that a multi-faceted evaluation would 'massively diminish the human appreciation of art'? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point here. Isn't it like in many a case when a work is published, that there are differing assessments about it's value? Over time 'society' will find a consensus about it's appreciation of the work, either in that it will continue to be received widely, or that it will be forgotten or appreciated only by a small number of 'insiders'. If it's value is deemed as 'average' it most likely will be forgotten. That's an oversimplification again, but isn't that what happens to anything published in our society? Sorry if I completely misunderstood you here, might be a language barrier or just me being stupid.
> 
> Nice one R. Soul.
> 
> Guitarman it seems like our opinions are not that far apart. Just for the protocol, I didn't say (nor do I think) that you despise traditional art, I did say (and think) that you despise our societies definition of art, though.
> I don't know where you got the idea from that anybody here is judging anybody as superior. It's not about superiority or inferiority. It's about what is called art in our society. Art has a long lasting value for our society as a whole, that gives a work of art a certain importance for our culture. That makes a Rembrandt more valuable for our society than a kindergarten doodling. It does, however, NOT make anybody superior who prefers the Rembrandt over the doodling. And I have nobody seen claim that in this thread. Yes, I do think that there are different degrees of artistic value, craftsmanship, profoundness etc. But no, I do not think that the ability to create such, or to appreciate it makes anybody a superior nor inferior human being.



I agree that we definitely have some common ground here. We may have got our wires crossed a bit on a few things. There has been a definite implied tone of superiority though in some of the posts from a few people on here, which obviously got Daniel quite angry, and myself quite wound up too. In the heat of the moment I think both sides have made a few rather rash and foolish comments and comparisons which on second thoughts don't really stand up. Very interesting discussion though. 
As regards despising society's definition of art. Not really, what I don't like or agree with is the 'weight of history' argument when used as some kind of justification for creating a hierarchy of artistic achievement. There are many reasons that certain works of art, and certain artists get placed on a pedestal over time, not many of them to do with any kind of objective measurement. Some of that is due to popularity, which again harks back to my point about Springsteen v Miles Davis, some of it is due to there being an accumulation of academic study. Neither of these is an objective measurement that proves one piece of art is superior to another.


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Rob (Roberto) is more talented than me. Does that make him superior to me? As a human being, no (though he may be) but is he a superior talent? Yes.



He is only superior if you judge yourself against him on some random criteria of what constitutes good. You may say music...but if you are different enough how could you compare? as an extreme if you were to write rap music (lol) and he writes in a particularly classical way how can you compare superiority? there is no real scale to judge one against the other. Now if you make it a less extreme example, say he writes one particularly classical way and you write more in line with your influences, the criteria on what makes one good would still vary slightly. You could only be truly worse than him if you were attempting to do the exact same thing in the same way. 

So stop looking around judging who is better and worse than you. Start focusing in on what you love and how to be the best you, that you can possibly be. Like I mentioned a few posts above telling yourself the sky is the limit means it will be, even though in reality there is much more beyond it.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daniel, I am 66 years old with 45 years of making my living exclusively with music. I neither need or value your advice because not only are you comparatively inexperienced I have read nothing from you or heard music from you that would cause me to do so. 

I don't say that to put you down, it is just the truth.


----------



## re-peat

guitarman1960 @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> (...)To try and claim that people (...) are in some way superior,because they have a love of 'the finer things' is just the worst type of snobbery possible.
> (...) Appreciation of art IS subjective, whether you like it or not.


Guitarman,

I don’t think anyone here ever suggested or implied to be superior him- or herself because of being able to enjoy the finer arts in life. It’s not because I like to listen to Thelonious Monk all day, and someone else insists on André Rieu as the main course of his or her musical diet, that I am the better man.
On the other hand, put me in a blind date with five anonymous people, only inform me of their preference in music, and I’ll invariably go with the one who’s taste most closely matches mine. Kindred spirits, and all that. It still might end in disaster — some of the vilest creatures in the history of mankind had the most exquisite taste in art and music — but I’d rather take my chances with someone who professes to love Charles Mingus than with someone who swears by, say, One Direction.

Appreciation of art (or music) is subjective yes. But only up to a point. Only up to the point that we (are able to) make it mean something to us. Beyond that point, art isn’t even ours to appreciate or evaluate. 
See, in a sense, all art is unfinished, and we’re the ones who provide those missing final touches by distilling personal meaning and relevance out of the whole package that’s being offered. And we all do that differently. Very differently, as this thread illustrates. The elements in a work of art (or music) which speak to us are different, the elements which we ignore are different too, and our respective brains also translate, filter and interpret differently, depending on who we are, how we are wired, and what our history is.

I once wrote a few words on the subject “There Is More To Music Than Music” and one of paragraphs ran as follows:

_“The power (and mystery) of music is such that there’s a lot more to it than simply communicating abstract musical ideas and/or qualities. The way people absorb and respond to music, the many fascinating and unforeseeable ways in which they invent and wrap a non-musical context around a piece of music, each with his or her own intellect, background, taste, emotions and imagination, is something which is largely (not entirely of course) beyond the composer's control. The music has moved from the composer’s desk, where music rules, into the listener’s territory and there, music may very well not be (and usually isn’t) the absolute monarch. So, which type of music provides the ‘best’ or most meaningful experience is, at the end of the day, something that should not be evaluated on purely musical grounds alone.”_

So yes, that is the subjective side of things. But that’s not the whole story, I believe. Because I’m very much of the opinion that there is an objective quality in all great art (whether it’s the Giza pyramids, or Michelangelo’s “Piëta”, or the Helvetica font, or “The Sacre”, or “Guernica”, or “Kind Of Blue”, or “La Valse”, or a Dégas ballerina, or the design of the original Volkswagen Beetle, or whatever), a quality which is always there no matter whether you or I, or anyone else, happens to like the work or not.
Beyond any subjective appreciation — positive or negative — “The Sacre” is always a musically astounding organisation of sounds, motifs, cells, rhythms, impacts, contrasts and textures. In the most masterful way possible, this piece takes music to places where only music can go and also discovers plenty of territory where music never went before. And that, I firmly believe, should be above dispute. In others words: be recognized as objective fact. At the very least by those who claim to possess any degree of musicality.

_


----------



## TheUnfinished

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Daniel, I am 66 years old with 45 years of making my living exclusively with music. I neither need or value your advice because not only are you comparatively inexperienced I have read nothing from you or heard music from you that would cause me to do so.
> 
> I don't say that to put you down, it is just the truth.


Sigh.


----------



## Greg

re-peat @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> _“The power (and mystery) of music is such that there’s a lot more to it than simply communicating abstract musical ideas and/or qualities. The way people absorb and respond to music, the many fascinating and unforeseeable ways in which they invent and wrap a non-musical context around a piece of music, each with his or her own intellect, background, taste, emotions and imagination, is something which is largely (not entirely of course) beyond the composer's control. The music has moved from the composer’s desk, where music rules, into the listener’s territory and there, music may very well not be (and usually isn’t) the absolute monarch. So, which type of music provides the ‘best’ or most meaningful experience is, at the end of the day, something that should not be evaluated on purely musical grounds alone.”_
> _



Then why is none of the above in your statement of how you value music?


"Good, in my book, is basically defined by three things: (1) idea, (2) treatment and (3) the accordance between the first two (which is not always evident). "


----------



## Greg

TheUnfinished @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I am 66 years old with 45 years of making my living exclusively with music. I neither need or value your advice because not only are you comparatively inexperienced I have read nothing from you or heard music from you that would cause me to do so.
> 
> I don't say that to put you down, it is just the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
Click to expand...


Double Sigh.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I am sorry guys, I cannot feign respect by being gracious to someone I don't respect. It just is not in me.


----------



## Stephen Rees

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> I am sorry guys, I cannot feign respect by being gracious to someone I don't respect. It just is not in me.



I don't think anyone is asking you to feign anything. However keeping your disdain for others in check would certainly be appreciated.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Stephen Rees @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry guys, I cannot feign respect by being gracious to someone I don't respect. It just is not in me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is asking you to feign anything. However keeping your disdain for others in check would certainly be appreciated.
Click to expand...


And I would have had he not the temerity to lecture me like I am his peer. We are not peers if by nothing else my far greater life experience.


----------



## re-peat

Greg @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> (...) Then why is none of the above in your statement of how you value music?


Greg,

Because that quoted paragraph is concerned with the common 'subjective' intake of music which, for most people, involves adding a certain and often important amount of non-musical dressing (emotion, memory, fantasy, association, …), whereas, when asked earlier about how I separate the great from the mediocre (or bad), I replied with strictly musical criteria, devoid of all emotionality, which, in my view, are the only criteria that bring me closest to discovering the 'objective' musical value of a piece of music.

_


----------



## Daniel James

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> I am sorry guys, I cannot feign respect by being gracious to someone I don't respect. It just is not in me.



Well just to be clear here I wasn't really telling you how to live your life. I was using your self deprecating post to highlight to those reading a more general philosophical point about how comparing yourself to others will only hold you back in life. How it can stifle ambition and perhaps even creativity (why would you take the time to learn something if you didn't think you could do it)

Jay I neither need nor demand you respect....you have hated me ever since I started calling you out on some of the bullshit you peddle, on the passive aggressive attitude you take to some members and the elitist attitude you aim at people who are just trying to pursue their passion of music if it doesn't coincide with what you love. I get it you don't like me, but does that automatically mean everything I say is wrong, that it has no merit. You don't have to like someone to acknowledge if they have a point or not. And again I am sorry you don't like my work and yes your career has lasted longer than I have been alive but I have more experience in worlds of music I imagine you will never understand, I have experienced things in life you never will, I have succeeded and failed at things you never even thought of to try....so don't sit there in your throne of wisdom believing you know it all, in the end refusing to listen to anyone, even with a resentful or curious ear is the most narrow minded thing one can do. You don't respect me? fine, learn something from me you don't know and use it against me, use it to put me out of business to teach me a lesson....but don't ever stop growing as a person just to spite me.

"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." -Mark Twain

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daniel James @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry guys, I cannot feign respect by being gracious to someone I don't respect. It just is not in me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well just to be clear here I wasn't really telling you how to live your life. I was using your self deprecating post to highlight to those reading a more general philosophical point about how comparing yourself to others will only hold you back in life. How it can stifle ambition and perhaps even creativity (why would you take the time to learn something if you didn't think you could do it)
> 
> Jay I neither need nor demand you respect....you have hated me ever since I started calling you out on some of the bullshit you peddle, on the passive aggressive attitude you take to some members and the elitist attitude you aim at people who are just trying to pursue their passion of music if it doesn't coincide with what you love. I get it you don't like me, but does that automatically mean everything I say is wrong, that it has no merit. You don't have to like someone to acknowledge if they have a point or not. And again I am sorry you don't like my work and yes your career has lasted longer than I have been alive but I have more experience in worlds of music I imagine you will never understand, I have experienced things in life you never will, I have succeeded and failed at things you never even thought of to try....so don't sit there in your throne of wisdom believing you know it all, in the end refusing to listen to anyone, even with a resentful or curious ear is the most narrow minded thing one can do. You don't respect me? fine, learn something from me you don't know and use it against me, use it to put me out of business to teach me a lesson....but don't ever stop growing as a person just to spite me.
> 
> "Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." -Mark Twain
> 
> -DJ
Click to expand...


I don't hate you Daniel. I hate the guy in Charleston who murdered innocents.


----------



## guitarman1960

Hey guys, we don't all have the same opinions, but I think it would be good to all try and stay respectful of each other?


----------



## guitarman1960

re-peat @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Greg @ Sun Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) Then why is none of the above in your statement of how you value music?
> 
> 
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Because that quoted paragraph is concerned with the common 'subjective' intake of music which, for most people, involves adding a certain and often important amount of non-musical dressing (emotion, memory, fantasy, association, …), whereas, when asked earlier about how I separate the great from the mediocre (or bad), I replied with strictly musical criteria, devoid of all emotionality, which, in my view, are the only criteria that bring me closest to discovering the 'objective' musical value of a piece of music.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


So if I understand this correctly, you are saying there are the subjective qualities of a piece of music, I.e. Whether we like it or not, to put it simply, and then there are the objective qualities which are concerned with skills, craft and technique? Is that in very simple terms what you are saying?


----------



## JohnG

to Jay:



Daniel James @ 19th June 2015 said:


> How the f#@k did you come to that conclusion. ...And f#@k off with your down the nose comments like 'lofty' as though you speak from the [email protected]#king heavens and are bestowing your infinite wisdom to us peasants.



to me:



Daniel James @ 20th June 2015 said:


> passive aggressive [email protected]#t.
> ... f#@k off with the jabs...



Nice.

Your conduct in this thread is disgraceful. You make yourself out to be a victim of intellectual snobs and in the process you use the tactics of a thug and a bully, attacking, shouting down, and belittling anyone who disagrees with you. 

You have your mind made up and have insisted, practically shouted, in many posts, that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is an elitist whose opinion should therefore be disregarded. 

You keep asking Piet to explain himself when he has, in great detail and with amazing eloquence.


----------



## guitarman1960

Hi JohnG, it's for Daniel to speak for himself, but to be honest there have been more than a few snide, sneering and disrespectful remarks from the 'classical is obviously superior to epic' side of the argument too. 
Just saying


----------



## Daniel James

JohnG @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> to Jay:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ 19th June 2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the f#@k did you come to that conclusion. ...And f#@k off with your down the nose comments like 'lofty' as though you speak from the [email protected]#king heavens and are bestowing your infinite wisdom to us peasants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ 20th June 2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> passive aggressive [email protected]#t.
> ... f#@k off with the jabs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Your conduct in this thread is disgraceful. You make yourself out to be a victim of intellectual snobs and in the process you use the tactics of a thug and a bully, attacking, shouting down, and belittling anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You have your mind made up and have insisted, practically shouted, in many posts, that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is an elitist whose opinion should therefore be disregarded.
> 
> You keep asking Piet to explain himself when he has, in great detail and with amazing eloquence.
Click to expand...


I tend to respond to this pathetic passive aggressiveness with a blunt direct response, If someone has something to say they should just say it, not hide behind snide remarks and little jabs which are clearly intended for me. We all know what you mean, and I respond in kind. Notice how when people are talking clearly and making valid arguments like Piet, I retort with a solid stable, un offensive response. I only resort to venomous language when I feel the need to defend myself on a personal level.

I am a victim of nothing with regards to the debate, I have my opinion and am making a case for my argument. When people are talking about my validity to have said opinion by making a remark about me as a person then yeah I will fight back. 

I never have my mind made up, I have my opinion and will argue it until my mind is changed or the debate ends one or the other, ideas are still going back and forth and its actually interesting to see what people have to say, I can definitely respect and understand their positions even if I dont agree. I will still try to explain to them my side however. 

I am not calling anyone who disagrees with me an elitist, again I dont know where the fuck you are getting that from. I am saying someone who holds the position that the music they love is far superior to someone elses and then tells them that as fact instead of acknowledging it as an opinion...is an elitist.

Actually John you should probably go back and read a bit, when you decided to jump in with your snide little remarks Piet hadn't actually answered my question yet, as demonstrated by the other people who pointed out that fact to you directly. He eventually did, which I used to explain my position. So again, pulling out incorrect information to try to gain some sort of point against me.

And just for the record it is kinda fitting that both a guy who receives free libraries from EW and a guy who works for them have both had it out for me ever since I started to share my negative opinions about PLAY. Its as if you have both carried a grudge over from those threads. Maybe its time to let that go. You don't have to like/respect me but at least grow up a bit mate.

-DJ


----------



## vocalnick

I rather enjoyed the first four pages or so, but then things went a bit wonky. Here are some things I’ve taken from the last couple of days:

It's served as a powerful illustration of the notion that I can have the utmost respect for peoples’ knowledge, career, and talent, and yet not respect them at all for their conduct, or as people.

As a one-time student of semiotics, I’m also reminded that on a close reading, the one using the “naughty words” is not necessarily the one being the most offensive.

With regard to superior knowledge and experience, I figure you can use it to teach, enlighten and explain, as some in here do daily. Or you can use it to belittle, condescend and goad, as others seem to prefer. The last couple of moderator calls seem to have confirmed which approach is preferable in this particular forum, and I’m greatly saddened by it.

Just my AU$0.02


----------



## rJames

Really???


----------



## Greg

guitarman1960 @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> So if I understand this correctly, you are saying there are the subjective qualities of a piece of music, I.e. Whether we like it or not, to put it simply, and then there are the objective qualities which are concerned with skills, craft and technique? Is that in very simple terms what you are saying?



I understand that subjectivism will never lead to a logical conclusion but giving more weight to the craft/idea is simply an injustice to the medium (imo).

What good is the craft without meaning? I ask because many people will say that music having some effect on the listener (whatever subjective way that happens) is the only thing that gives music objective value.

You argue that the idea of the notes being the right ones at the right times has value but what exactly is the worth of that without having effects beyond just being _the right notes_?

Say you find beauty in the execution of accurate western music theory. The thought of certain sounds / notes being the _right_ ones is still entirely a supposition. If music is simply _combined sounds_ in its definition then aren't the experiential effects upon the listener, the _only_ way we can attempt to judge the worthiness of the combined sounds? 

For some, their appreciation of music is the order of the right notes among the possibility of disorder? That is not "_everything that music can be_" it is also entirely supposition.

The only thing we can even attempt to agree upon is the value of music having an experiential effect on the perception of an individual. Be it how classical music makes re-peat appreciate the craft or equally how M83 gives someone tears of joy. It is the only thing that has certain objective value. I would then argue that the only objectifiable meaning of conscious life is to _experience_. Everything else is subjective.

Finally I say, all music has equal value. If and only if it bestows upon the listener some experiential effect.

DISCLAIMER!!!!
I'm not asking you to defend yourself re-peat, this is just fun to debate and think about! Nor do I even claim that my thoughts are true to myself (I am still thinking about it.)


----------



## vocalnick

Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> What good is the craft without meaning? I ask because many people will say that music having some effect on the listener (whatever subjective way that happens) is the only thing that gives music objective value.





> The only thing we can even attempt to agree upon is the value of music having an experiential effect on the perception of an individual. Be it how classical music makes re-peat appreciate the craft or equally how M83 gives someone tears of joy. It is the only thing that has certain objective value.



I'm always open to new ideas, but this is where I tend to sit at the moment. Doubly so with music-for-picture, where I would argue that providing/supporting an emotional response in the filmgoer is the _entire point_ of the music being there. I'm wary of applying objective standards of "goodness" to an artform that's by its very definition intended to operate as just one part of a whole.

I've said this elsewhere, but my gut feeling is that if I'm watching a film and I notice the music explicitly, then it has overplayed its hand by taking me outside the narrative. That's not to say that I'm unable to appreciate greater harmonic or rhythmic complexity when I'm listening to music for its own sake.

Incidentally, my work & (relatively modest) credit list can be found through my signature link. Just pointing it out to assist anbody who'd like to deem me unqualified to proffer an opinion.


----------



## José Herring

vocalnick @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> I rather enjoyed the first four pages or so, but then things went a bit wonky. Here are some things I’ve taken from the last couple of days:
> 
> It's served as a powerful illustration of the notion that I can have the utmost respect for peoples’ knowledge, career, and talent, and yet not respect them at all for their conduct, or as people.
> 
> As a one-time student of semiotics, I’m also reminded that on a close reading, the one using the “naughty words” is not necessarily the one being the most offensive.
> 
> With regard to superior knowledge and experience, I figure you can use it to teach, enlighten and explain, as some in here do daily. Or you can use it to belittle, condescend and goad, as others seem to prefer. The last couple of moderator calls seem to have confirmed which approach is preferable in this particular forum, and I’m greatly saddened by it.
> 
> Just my AU$0.02



The only thing this thread revealed is that people get attached to a certain type of music then evaluate all music based on their own viewpoint which I think is rather deadly towards creativity as time moves, taste change and really who wants to write music like they did in 1960 or 1970 or 1870?

My only critique towards "epic" is that far too many people only do it as they feel it's a means to "make money" or copy somebody else who is successful rather than contribute something that is unique to them whether that uniqueness be Taylor Swift or Arvo Part.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

So Vocalnik, when you watch E. T. flying across the moon you don't notice that soaring theme explicitly? And when you watch Rocky and that anthemic theme comes on you don't notice it explicitly? 

And if you do, you consider these poor film scoring?


----------



## Greg

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> So Vocalnik, when you watch E. T. flying across the moon you don't notice that soaring theme explicitly? And when you watch Rocky and that anthemic theme comes on you don't notice it explicitly?
> 
> And if you do, you consider these poor film scoring?



Sorry to jump in but I wanted to bite! That's the beauty of those themes. They encapsulate the scripts narrative and become an entirely new one. Fuck yeah film music rocks!! (sorry for turning into a 6 year old again)  

If the theme pops out and doesn't have an aligning of narrative or an understandable link, then it becomes gross, tacky, amateur film music.


----------



## vocalnick

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> So Vocalnik, when you watch E. T. flying across the moon you don't notice that soaring theme explicitly? And when you watch Rocky and that anthemic theme comes on you don't notice it explicitly?



Honestly, that feels like a fairly aggressive misreading of my post, but perhaps I just didn't phrase it clearly enough. 

First allow me to re-stress my use of the word "explicitly". And I'd also like to clarify that I'm referring to a first-viewing. Naturally on a second run (or beyond) I'll dive in and start to evaluate the components with a view to analysis & learning. But when I first sit down to watch a film, I'm there for the story.

So to come back to your question, of course I'm _aware_ of the soaring theme as a part of the mise en scène, but on that first viewing I'm ideally not thinking "what a lovely soaring theme", so much as "oh wow, they're flying, what a magical moment", or thoughts to that effect. I'm hopefully also not saying "what wonderful visual composition" or "hey, I can see the matte lines" or remarking on any other of the myriad elements that make up the whole.

EDIT: Also I want to stress that I'm not claiming this as any sort of objective truth with regard to evaluating film music. It's just how I feel about it at this point in time.



> And if you do, you consider these poor film scoring?



Sorry mate, I'm not falling into that hole


----------



## mducharme

I can see Vocalnick's point. Although I love the type of film score where the score can stand out a bit and still work fantastically to picture, it doesn't always work out that way, if the music that 'stands out' is not so great.

As an example, I saw "Prometheus" a few times and both times when I watched it, I didn't notice the score and it seemed to do its job, except for one part. There was a 'heroic' solo trumpet theme that seemed to represent the idea of exploring space / the unknown. The solo trumpet really stuck out, and I personally found that theme really cheesy to the point where I was annoyed by it and distracted and pulled out of the movie whenever it returned (and, no, I'm not talking about the quote of Goldsmith's original theme).

I would have preferred that the music be a little bit more background, in that one particular case.


----------



## Greg

mducharme @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> I can see Vocalnick's point. Although I love the type of film score where the score can stand out a bit and still work fantastically to picture, it doesn't always work out that way, if the music that 'stands out' is not so great.
> 
> As an example, I saw "Prometheus" a few times and both times when I watched it, I didn't notice the score and it seemed to do its job, except for one part. There was a 'heroic' solo trumpet theme that seemed to represent the idea of exploring space / the unknown. The solo trumpet really stuck out, and I personally found that theme really cheesy to the point where I was annoyed by it and distracted and pulled out of the movie (and, no, I'm not talking about the quote of Goldsmith's original theme).
> 
> I would have preferred that the music be a little bit more background, in that one particular case.



That theme is one of the only things I liked about Prometheus! I thought it was really pretty and not cheesy. Perhaps if I only heard the brass bit (sometimes that happens depending on acoustics or mixing) I would agree. But damn I love that theme!! This is the one right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzI3AdpA9e4


----------



## José Herring

If one views art as a objective thing, then one is apt to make the mistake of viewing this as better than that. Those views held are subjective at there base so even an objective observation is subject to the observer. 

If one views art as what it truly is, an expression or communication, then he/she chooses a mode of expression that connects with an audience within the established social criteria of his/her time. The technique is only as good as it serves that intention. No need to throw in a double retrograde inverted melodic motif if you're arranging a tune for Demi Levato, ect....

A piece of music only has validity with regards to the audience it was intended for. If your audience is preteen girls then that's what you gear your "artistic" efforts towards. A work of art only has life as long as an audience for it exist. 

Great works of art live beyond their lifetime finding some sort of universal truth that last generations. At rare moments a great work of art meets up with the right audience for it and a lasting popular hit lives beyond its time. 

Comparatively, if a work was only intended to wow at the box office for a few weeks and then nobody remembers it, is it an inferior work of art, or did it live up to what it was intended to do and was effective with respects to its intention. 

Good, bad, stupid school boy arguments. Almost infuriatingly stupid. Judge things as to whether or not they are effective and you can only do that subjectively while considering the intention.

Where that intention meets a universal lasting truth married with stellar technique the artist is considered a genius. Where any one of those elements are missing in a work of art, the artist then has time to sit, type at the computer while pondering the err of his preconceived ideas of what is good and bad.


----------



## dgburns

mducharme @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> I can see Vocalnick's point. Although I love the type of film score where the score can stand out a bit and still work fantastically to picture, it doesn't always work out that way, if the music that 'stands out' is not so great.
> 
> As an example, I saw "Prometheus" a few times and both times when I watched it, I didn't notice the score and it seemed to do its job, except for one part. There was a 'heroic' solo trumpet theme that seemed to represent the idea of exploring space / the unknown. The solo trumpet really stuck out, and I personally found that theme really cheesy to the point where I was annoyed by it and distracted and pulled out of the movie whenever it returned (and, no, I'm not talking about the quote of Goldsmith's original theme).
> 
> I would have preferred that the music be a little bit more background, in that one particular case.



Struck me as odd too,right away.Then thought about it for a moment,and realized there must have been a discussion at the director/composer spotting about it.

That's my best guess,having more then once shaken my head at what is sometimes requested during spotting sessions. 8)


----------



## mducharme

Greg @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> That theme is one of the only things I liked about Prometheus! I thought it was really pretty and not cheesy. Perhaps if I only heard the brass bit (sometimes that happens depending on acoustics or mixing) I would agree. But damn I love that theme!! This is the one right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzI3AdpA9e4



Yup, that is the one (except I recall a trumpet arrangement, might have been from later). I still don't like it, hearing it on its own, but that is fine - that is just a difference of personal opinion. It could be a very boring musical world if everybody liked the same thing.



dgburns @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Struck me as odd too,right away.Then thought about it for a moment,and realized there must have been a discussion at the director/composer spotting about it.
> 
> That's my best guess,having more then once shaken my head at what is sometimes requested during spotting sessions. 8)



Exactly the same conclusion I came to when watching it. I imagine the director saying "we want you to bring out the heroism when person x is talking about exploring". Meanwhile, people are dying left and right, the movie is very dark, and to suddenly have this very hopeful/uplifting (almost naive) exploration theme come out of nowhere (in very bright solo trumpet), it seems very misplaced, like it was for some other movie.

In contrast, the flying bicycles scene from E.T. doesn't bother me at all. It is a great piece of scoring. Partially because of how great the theme itself is and the orchestration, but mostly because of how well it fits the picture. However, I don't think the same music would work if you put another twist into the picture and threw in some mutant alien creatures gruesomely killing the police officers while the kids are flying around on their bicycles with E.T.. It wouldn't even have to be intercut, but simply knowing that something disturbing like that was going on at the same time would make that same music suddenly not work in the scene.


----------



## chibear

Kind of glad I'm on the sidelines on this one





I was finding myself agreeing with Piet earlier (opens another beer)


----------



## Musicologo

Daniel, Piet and others,

the divergence here seems to be the recognition of how music can be perceived to be judged in the first place.

Daniel argues that there are no objective universal standards, while Piet argues that there are and, furthermore, not all human being possess the pre-requisites to attain them, therefore this universal judgment is a "layered" one...

Back then someone posted a picture of Brad Pitt side by side with an ugly woman.

While there are not objective aesthetic standards I disagree with Daniel and say there are Evolutionary biological constraints, derived from the fact we are all humans living inside human bodies, and therefore we all share universalistic traits. 

Those traits allow for us all to feel "fast music" and "slow music" at more or less the same ratios because we all share a human heart at around 60 bpm. Those traits allow us to only hear music within 20-20000Khz...

Those traits allow for us all to empathise with the trait "melody" - because every monophonic line that resembles the countours of a human voice are hard-wired in our brain to be more "familiar" and therefore "more confortable" and empathetic to us, than say, melodies whose contours do not resemble the gestures human voices do and instead resemble a lion roar...

Therefore: while they are diffuse, and not easily detailed in a simple list, there are sets of UNIVERSALISTIC traits that make all of us feel closer to some works of art /musical pieces that others, in statistical terms. Using the same reasoning those traits combined with education and shared knowledge make us naturally recognize credit where it is due. 

Consistency and craft in the materials for instance (what Piet calls Idea and its realization). The same way I can instantly evaluate that woman versus brad pitt or a cockroach versus a kitten, I need not to be an architect to understand the difference between a monastery, a chapel or a shaft or a xxth century cheap condominium, I need not to be a composer to understand the difference between a pop song and beethoven - one can "recognize" the consistency and craft of materials and value them differently to some extent. (We are all able to recognize sonic patterns, repetitions, recurrences, the creation and deceiving of expectations, the creation and abolition of tension, release, and several other resources musicains use, even when we do not possess the vocabulary to articulate them in oral discourse, and eventually we end up just saying "I liked it" or "I felt goosebumps" or "That didn't feel right...").

NOW, IF I am an architect the recognition and value between a monastery and a condominum would be necessary more accurate and specialized... that's why I say that Piet's vision requires "layers" of expertise... (It requires expertize for one to say "the bass line did a chromatic passage there, that was absolutely brilliant!" versus someone just "hearing it" and recognizing "that was nifty!" without being able to explain what was nifty).

Because we are all humans and share a body we all share some hard-wired constraints that allow us to evaluate musical materials within some "consistent" shallow standards and at least recogize if they are more simple or complex (regardless of taste, of we like them of not); but that is not enough. If we add that up to some specific education and cultural expertize we become more accurate at performing that task, and therefore we become more accurate and "judging" and recognizing consistency, the same way a biologist is more expert in reconigizing why a cockroach make us feel repulsed. But those are secondary and terciary layers and layers that only come with maturity, experience and interest in the particular subject and what make someone an "expert".

I hope this brings some middle ground into this divergence, because I believe it's not really a divergence - it's just a degree of understanding on how music is perceived and sonic materials judged.


----------



## stixman

The more a person try's to portray that they know what their talking about even if they are intellectually articulate the less convincing they become, it then comes over pompous and snobbish! I will point out I not convinced either way about Epic music only that it is a valid ingredient. I'll get my coat :roll:


----------



## Stephen Rees

vocalnick @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> With regard to superior knowledge and experience, I figure you can use it to teach, enlighten and explain, as some in here do daily. Or you can use it to belittle, condescend and goad, as others seem to prefer.



Here's another good quote from Mark Twain (is he the most quotable person in the history of time ever? I think he could be…..)…

“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.”

I've had the good fortune to meet quite a few 'really great' people, some on this very forum


----------



## re-peat

guitarman1960 @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> So if I understand this correctly, you are saying there are the subjective qualities of a piece of music, I.e. Whether we like it or not, to put it simply, and then there are the objective qualities which are concerned with skills, craft and technique? Is that in very simple terms what you are saying?


Not really, no.

Let’s take Mahler's "Adagietto" from his Fifth Symphony — that most accomplished and respected of emo-jerkers — as an example. When you and I both listen to that piece, the experience is likely going to be completely different for each of us: we will each ‘finish’ (see my previous post) the piece quite differenty. You will absorb the music differently, pay attention to different musical ingredients, experience different emotional stirrings, wander off into completely different mindscapes, etc. … than I do. You might get overwhelmed by a feeling of utter sadness and tragedy, I might hear brooding passion and lust, or feel extreme bliss or whatever. And on the morrow, when we’re in a different mood and give this piece another listen, we both could well be experiencing entirely different things still.
Not to mention the fact that on most days of the week, I would much prefer to simply engage in a purely musicaly encounter with the piece: observe its shapes, follow its curves, pay attention to its suspensions, its ‘delayed melodic blossoming’, its harmony, its orchestration, its dynamics and to the way it is conducted, etc …

The power required to cause all these different sensations and responses — not just from you or me, but from millions of people — is there, nesting inside the music, and can’t be appreciated in any other way, I strongly believe, than as an objective force (or quality) of the music itself. Sure, being exposed to that power invariably becomes a highly subjective experience for each for us, but there is nothing subjective whatsoever about the musical invention that is capable of generating such power, and therefore, it can’t be recognized as anything else than as an objective asset of the music.

So, in short: what you do with music is subjective, but what music gives to you is objective.
And the stronger and more ambiguous this objective gift, the greater the scale, range and scope of subjective absorbation will be, and the greater and more universal the art that is giving us its gift.

--------- 

(I’m aware I’m not using the word ‘objective’ entirely correctly in these last two paragraphs — ‘objective’ obviously not being quite the same thing as ‘recognized or appreciated as objective fact’ —, and it bothers me rather a bit, but I chose to do so anyway to avoid having to write even more convoluted sentences than I’m already writing. I hope you’ll allow for this technical short-coming.)

_


----------



## Guy Rowland

Stephen Rees @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> vocalnick @ Sun Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to superior knowledge and experience, I figure you can use it to teach, enlighten and explain, as some in here do daily. Or you can use it to belittle, condescend and goad, as others seem to prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another good quote from Mark Twain (is he the most quotable person in the history of time ever? I think he could be…..)…
> 
> “Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.”
Click to expand...


A big +1 to both of those. Count me as another who would see Daniel's contributions here as not the most problematic. Daniel is infuriatingly young, damn him, but has nevertheless made an enviable career for himself with a combination of talent, drive and a remarkable work ethic. It's more than reasonable to deduce he's in demand because he's good at what he does. He's generous with his time and skills in helping others. I'll cheer him on every step of the way, and have no doubt that he'll continue to grow musically as the years go by. To not like his style of music is of course perfectly fine, but I find the need to publicly belittle him and his achievements by those old enough to know considerably better does not come under the definition of "constructive criticism" and is against the spirit of this forum.

The thread does appear to be following on traditional VI Control lines on this subject. We can expect a lock within the next 2 or 3 days at this rate, I'd say.

Meanwhile, to pick up on this old strand:



muk @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> Guy, without having seen 'Entourage' nor Kerman's review I'm not sure why you would assume that a multi-faceted evaluation would 'massively diminish the human appreciation of art'? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point here. Isn't it like in many a case when a work is published, that there are differing assessments about it's value? Over time 'society' will find a consensus about it's appreciation of the work, either in that it will continue to be received widely, or that it will be forgotten or appreciated only by a small number of 'insiders'. If it's value is deemed as 'average' it most likely will be forgotten. That's an oversimplification again, but isn't that what happens to anything published in our society? Sorry if I completely misunderstood you here, might be a language barrier or just me being stupid.



It's surely me making my point badly (I've got form of doing this).

My problem with your argument above is the notion that over time wildly differing opinions somehow coalesce into agreement, that history necessarily makes some kind of of objective final call on all art. I think it's a gross logical mis-step. I've no doubt whatsoever that there are pieces from any era of music that are still overlooked (indeed panning for gold is always something that has fascinated me, looking for those forgotten jewels). Little doubt also that other pieces might have achieved a prominence that other learned folks feels is undeserved. Societies and cultures are continually evolving, as indeed is history itself.

So partly I'm objecting to that notion that history makes inviolable judgements, and I'm also supporting notion that it is very difficult to make consensus calls about anything artistic at all. The spectacularly hostile review of Entourage versus its apparent public admiration makes that specific point. Who's right? It's one of those cases where finding a mean average score to determine worth is shown to be nonsensical, and perhaps in an odd way disrespectful to those who hold very strong views one way or other about something. It waters down, it removes the passion from a debate. I want to hear from the iconoclasts who challenge accepted wisdom one way or the other, the person who says that Howard The Duck is a misunderstood masterpiece (yes, some do) or that Citizen Kane never was all that beyond some technical skill.

It's those debates that keep art alive and interesting. It's ultimately how music evolves. Those who buck the trend and reject conventional wisdom are sometimes the innovators who go on to be heroes for the next generation.

And a final point on Piet's typically eloquent post above - I'm with you on pretty much all of that. Where the logical mis-step comes is perhaps over and above what you wrote, in ascribing those simplistic adjectives like "better" when comparing with something else. All those objective qualities that exist in that Mahler piece may or may not matter to a listener, as you acknowledge (_what you do with music is subjective_). And indeed to further that train of thought, I'm sure, Piet, you could pick on a perfectly accomplished piece with many admirable techniques and qualities, all of which could be considered objective, and yet conclude that its all for nought since the piece itself doesn't work. So the problem comes in assessing two pieces of music's bags of objective qualities (which might be totally different from each other), and mathematically deducing that one set of qualities, when taken together, is greater than another's, without bringing opinion into the matter and purely on the basis of the soundness of execution (whatever that may be) of the number of different techniques used. Translating a piece of music's numerous objective qualities into a simplistic objective inviolable final judgement remains my sticking point.


----------



## Stradibaldi

Maybe I'll write a post on the rest but this here just makes no darn sense:



re-peat @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> It’s the exact same mistake that made Guitarman’s juxtaposition of Warhol and Rembrandt such a hilariously ridiculous affair. (And the mistake is also why your language analogy doesn’t work.) The power of Warhol’s soup tin — which I certainly don’t deny is there — relies entirely on exterior factors (a.o. the questions it raises, the conventions it questions, the discussion it triggers, etc.), but the work itself is little more than a decorative gimmick, as most thinking men will agree. A Rembrandt portrait, on the other hand, not only offers image, (his)story and bi-directional empathy (contextual factors, for those who like that kind of thing), but gives us all that, captured in a work that is, above all, a magnificent display of stunning painting ability and talent. The Rembrandt, as a painting, has a layer of intrinsic ‘absolute’ artistry — talent, passion and phenomenal technique culminating in a great painting — which we seek in vain in the Warhol. Or, put differently: the Warhol only becomes art ‘conditionally’ (and again: I don’t deny that it does), whereas the Rembrandt is, first and foremost, ‘art from within’, and as such even immune to contextual interference.



Why did Rembrandt paint portraits?

As opposed to superbly painterly depictions of brick walls?

It's cuz people like looking at faces. We find them more interesting than walls. How is that not contextual?

All art is part of culture. You can't extract it. All art is what you call "conditional art." Indeed if there were such a thing as "absolute art" I doubt humans would find it interesting.

Rembrandt by the way worked on commission and made almost all of his living from portraiture (the rest from etchings). 

Just something to remember while you're dissing the "reactionary bourgois (sic!)". *Rembrandt LITERALLY PAINTED the bourgeoisie.* :lol: :roll: 

Truth is, very little "high art" started out as "high art" and very little of what is produced _qua_ "high art" is later recognized as such.


----------



## guitarman1960

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Sun Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I understand this correctly, you are saying there are the subjective qualities of a piece of music, I.e. Whether we like it or not, to put it simply, and then there are the objective qualities which are concerned with skills, craft and technique? Is that in very simple terms what you are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no.
> 
> Let’s take Mahler's "Adagietto" from his Fifth Symphony — that most accomplished and respected of emo-jerkers — as an example. When you and I both listen to that piece, the experience is likely going to be completely different for each of us: we will each ‘finish’ (see my previous post) the piece quite differenty. You will absorb the music differently, pay attention to different musical ingredients, experience different emotional stirrings, wander off into completely different mindscapes, etc. … than I do. You might get overwhelmed by a feeling of utter sadness and tragedy, I might hear brooding passion and lust, or feel extreme bliss or whatever. And on the morrow, when we’re in a different mood and give this piece another listen, we both could well be experiencing entirely different things still.
> Not to mention the fact that on most days of the week, I would much prefer to simply engage in a purely musicaly encounter with the piece: observe its shapes, follow its curves, pay attention to its suspensions, its ‘delayed melodic blossoming’, its harmony, its orchestration, its dynamics and to the way it is conducted, etc …
> 
> The power required to cause all these different sensations and responses — not just from you or me, but from millions of people — is there, nesting inside the music, and can’t be appreciated in any other way, I strongly believe, than as an objective force (or quality) of the music itself. Sure, being exposed to that power invariably becomes a highly subjective experience for each for us, but there is nothing subjective whatsoever about the musical invention that is capable of generating such power, and therefore, it can’t be recognized as anything else than as an objective asset of the music.
> 
> So, in short: what you do with music is subjective, but what music gives to you is objective.
> And the stronger and more ambiguous this objective gift, the greater the scale, range and scope of subjective absorbation will be, and the greater and more universal the art that is giving us its gift.
> 
> ---------
> 
> (I’m aware I’m not using the word ‘objective’ entirely correctly in these last two paragraphs — ‘objective’ obviously not being quite the same thing as ‘recognized or appreciated as objective fact’ —, and it bothers me rather a bit, but I chose to do so anyway to avoid having to write even more convoluted sentences than I’m already writing. I hope you’ll allow for this technical short-coming.)
> 
> _
Click to expand...


I think your last statement about not using the word 'objective' correctly sums up what is wrong with your argument really. I can see that you are trying to explain that music contains many layers, the communication and evocation of emotions, and also the skills and techniques used to construct the piece. 'The musical invention that is capable of generating such power' is not in any way an objective quality, and is certainly not a measurable fact that can be used to draw the conclusion that a piece by Mahler for example is a greater or better or more artistic work than a track by Motorhead for example.
One persons 'power' is another persons 'noise'.

When you say you sometimes like to engage in a purely 'musical' encounter with the piece, that sounds a lot like mathematicians who claim to see 'beauty' in a mathematical equation. Some people may get something from that, and that's fine, but that is not where I am coming from when I appreciate great music.

There are many other problems with your 'all that music can be' quote from earlier in the thread. With respect traditional classical music is nowhere near 'all that music can be'. Where is the interplay and amazing improvisation between musicians that you get in jazz fusion for example? Where is the 'groove' ??? Two very important musical qualities in my and many other peoples views.

There are no 'objective' measurements that show Mahler or Stravinsky or Mozart or Beethoven has more artistic merit than Motorhead, Jimi Hendrix, Tangerine Dream or Hans Zimmer.

It seems that you are quite desperate to search for some kind of 'measurement' that will prove that the classical music you value is of higher 'quality' than other music. You are on an impossible and futile quest IMHO, and it is never going to happen.

p.s. Just for the record your earlier statement 'It’s the exact same mistake that made Guitarman’s juxtaposition of Warhol and Rembrandt such a hilariously ridiculous affair.' Is exactly the kind of sneering, patronising, superior tone that gives elitists a very bad name.
I still stand by that statement by the way. A Rembrandt portrait does not have greater artistic merit than an Andy Warhol work. Any more than Canaletto is 'better' than Rothko, or Titian is better than Roy Lichtenstein. And please don't come back with any 'weight of history' argument. I have demolished that premise earlier. Also see Guy's post above re judgement of history.


----------



## Stradibaldi

Here are my thoughts on the whole classical music and "high art" thing


Basically it's surprising to see a number of you buying in to the idea that Mozart & Co. were "geniuses" who were "gifted" with "talent" and preternatural "inspirations" and wrote music on a higher plane.

Most laypeople (and in that group I include most music critics, many music historians and even lots of musicians) have this attitude towards composition.

Well folks *we are composers so WE SHOULD KNOW better!*

Composing is a craft. It's a skill. It's not magic. It's carpentry with noteheads and waveforms. 

*I argue that no composer should venerate or idolize the classical composers. Here's why.*

1. Nothing they did can be mysterious. By definition. The scores are out there. If you want you can transcribe, copy, study, find out what they did, puzzle out why it works and adapt their techniques to your own musical carpentry. Great music can be no more opaque to you, a composer, than great architecture to an architect who can not only walk around inside a cathedral but examine the _original_ blueprints. If you maintain an air of mystification and awe it can only be by deliberate, self-limiting stubbornness, a desire to see your musical inspirations as Magic Music Genies instead of mortal men. (all of this applies just as much to John Williams as it does to Stravinsky, btw. The scores are out there.)

Piet says _"Cathedrals have been built, and yet you and Guitarman expect us to swoon over cheap, prefab condominiums."_ I don't want you to swoon over either one. Swooning is for tourists at a museum, we are composers, we LEARN from our peers.

2. The means of the classical composers were limited. This is a cast iron historical fact. The instruments had huge limitations, the orchestra roster wasn't fully developed in either size or variety, the harmonic language and resources we have today didn't exist. And yes, modular synthesis didn't exist, DAWs didn't exist, giant mixing consoles didn't exist. It's interesting to speculate about what the classical greats could have written with our resources - Mozart after a few jazz piano lessons, or, dear god, Remote Control Bruckner - but they didn't have those resources. 

As guitarman says, _"With respect traditional classical music is nowhere near 'all that music can be'."_ 

The only reason people don't get how limited classical music language was, is that they lump in all modern accessible writing as classical technique (e.g. people calling Williams a "neoRomantic" because they don't grok how his jazz-tinged musical language would have been impossible before 1950).




Whenever someone comes and says "Beethoven is the #1 all time" - on what basis? Orchestration? Or harmonic language? Or are we expected to concede that Beethoven wrote the greatest melodies ever?

It's never about those things. It always boils down to arguing that these classical icons were great at form and structure. That Beethoven or Bach's music feels timeless and the development of each musical idea has an "inevitable" feeling to it.

For sure, this is an accurate appraisal of Beethoven's best traits as a composer. I feel that inevitability in his music (even more in Haydn's, just to be argumentative...)

BUT

Is this even what film music is supposed to do? The audience usually isn't listening to us closely enough to follow form and structure.

The audience is going to feel a greater emotional impact from "vertical" elements in music like harmony, timbre, orchestration, sound design - than from "horizontal" elements like form and structural development. Although some horizontal elements, like the development of themes across the storyline, do have an impact.

Even if - for some weird, perverse, "pure music" reason you idolize a guy from the 19th century because he represents "the deep end of the pool" - at least recognize that we're not in the same trade as him. 

IMO it is the case now, and probably always WILL BE the case in our profession, that the people you should be score-studying and transcribing are the people who are alive today and having success today. 

NOT ONLY should you be studying Williams and Zimmer, as devoutly as you can.

But suck up that ego and carefully lower yourself to studying Brian Tyler and Steve Jablosnky. 

Call em hacks all you want. I enjoyed "Now You See Me." o-[][]-o o[])


----------



## guitarman1960

Yeah, Brian Tyler is awesome!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei4eH-aYiRo

Love 'Now You See Me' !!! :D


----------



## re-peat

Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> (...) Why did Rembrandt paint portraits?
> As opposed to superbly painterly depictions of brick walls?
> It's cuz people like looking at faces. We find them more interesting than walls. How is that not contextual?


That may be so, but unless you're a descendant of the depicted, the actual faces in Rembrandt's portraits no longer mean much anymore to us, do they? As meaningful context to appreciate that particular aspect of the painting, I mean. We don't know who these people 'really' were (as living human beings), how good the physical likeness is, or if the image they had of themselves has been accurately captured by Rembrandt. 
So, that particular context -- which was important at the time -- has lost all its relevance to us, I would say, and what we're left with is 'paint on canvas'. But 'paint on canvas' so masterfully conceived and executed, so dripping with intrinsic quality, so undeniable radiant and timeless as a work of art, and so much more powerful than its intent or context required it to be, that it makes you make the mistake of saying that we like to look at it because we like looking at faces.

If that isn't absolute and objective proof of its intrinsic rather than conditional quality, I don't know what is.

_


----------



## guitarman1960

> But 'paint on canvas' so masterfully conceived and executed, so dripping with intrinsic quality, so undeniable radiant and timeless as a work of art, and so much more powerful than its intent or context required it to be,
> _



Can you tell me what parts of the above description are 'objective measurements' please ????

Answer: *NONE *


----------



## Markus S

Every notion of value is subjective.

However you turn it and how much superlatives you use, it still is a subjective POV.

I wouldn't want to live in a world with "objective values".


----------



## muk

I wouldn't want to live in a world where you can't distinguish a kindergarten doodling from a Rembrandt in terms of artistic value.
By the way, refinement, sophistication. A work of art is refined. While not being measurable with a yardstick it is not entirely subjective either. If you'd ask one hundred random persons which is more refined, a kindergarten doodling or a Rembrandt, I think the outcome would probably be something like 99 to 1, or 98 to 2 if you're unlucky. And yes, trailer music or a pop song can be just as refined as classical music.

On second thought, maybe it's the time where we all should go drinking a beer together and talk about soccer.


----------



## re-peat

guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Can you tell me what parts of the above description are 'objective measurements' please ????
> Answer: *NONE *


How much more does a work of art has to prove, I ask you, before you're prepared to accept it as an objective statement that it is ... a work of art.
(In as far as the word 'objective' can have meaning of course, for as diverse and unequal a species like the human beings. And I think that that is the *real* problem of this entire discussion).

Rembrandt's art has survived centuries of scrutiny, has withstood decade after decade of changing insights about what art precisely is, has been droolingly looked at by imbeciles and geniusses (and every degree of intelligence in between), portrays subject matter which is of hardly any contextual relevance to us in 2015 yet still speaks as strongly as it ever did, can stand next to EVERY single other creative expression that mankind has ever come up with since Altamira, is respected, admired and studied by every human being that ever took up a brush, has as such even acquired the stature of benchmark for what is humanly possible with paint and canvas ... and here you are, still trying to squeeze it in the narrow tube of petty subjectivity.

Like I never said, until now: art may well be a subjective affair to fools, idiots and ignorants, but its intrinsic objective value is unequivocally and shatteringly clear to those of us with intelligence, insight, humility and a beating heart.

_


----------



## guitarman1960

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what parts of the above description are 'objective measurements' please ????
> Answer: *NONE *
> 
> 
> 
> How much more does a work of art has to prove, I ask you, before you're prepared to accept it as an objective statement that it is ... a work of art.
> (In as far as the word 'objective' can have meaning of course, for as diverse and unequal a species like the human beings. And I think that that is the *real* problem of this entire discussion).
> 
> Rembrandt's art has survived centuries of scrutiny, has withstood decade after decade of changing insights about what art precisely is, has been droolingly looked at by imbeciles and geniusses (and every degree of intelligence in between), portrays subject matter which is of hardly any contextual relevance to us in 2015 yet still speaks as strongly as it ever did, can stand next to EVERY single other creative expression that mankind has ever come up with since Altamira, is respected, admired and studied by every human being that ever took up a brush, has as such even acquired the stature of benchmark for what is humanly possible with paint and canvas ... and here you are, still trying to squeeze it in the narrow tube of petty subjectivity.
> 
> Like I never said, until now: art may well be a subjective affair to fools, idiots and ignorants, but its intrinsic objective value is unequivocally and shatteringly clear to those of us with intelligence, insight, humility and a beating heart.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


You can tell when someone so bound up in their own importance is losing an argument by how insulting, hostile and childish they become.

I knew you would resort to the 'weight of history' argument which is why I asked you not to bother with it, as it proves nothing and is easily demolished by anyone with an open mind.

Your elitist arguments although dressed up in the trappings of eloquence are no better than the child in the playground shouting 'My favourite is better than yours!'

All of the elitist premises so far put forward as 'proof' have been easily and systematically shown to be the facile, hollow, self serving, patronising, delusional and childish snobbery that they are.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Markus S @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I wouldn't want to live in a world with "objective values".


Are you sure?
Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" right & wrong don't exist, 
Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" meaning is meaningless
Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" greatness is as valuable or meaningless as mediocrity, where all truth is in fact all opinion, that the enterprise of Science is as good as pretending Objective facts exist when they don't, where beauty is all in one's head, where goodness & harmony is all an illusion as valuable as Genocide, that the instinct for LIFE is completely and utterly subjective... where Melody, which was craved throughout History, but that this somehow still says nothing objective about Human Nature, still is as subjective as a "d-Minor Vacuum Cleaner drone", where ALL musicians KNOW ultimately nothing's great in the COLLECTIVE Human Experience... *where Nobody, and no artists "KNOWS" when a situation calls for a rational explanation from a non-verbal "intuitive" one...*

See the thing is, whether part of what constitutes your views is "nihilism, relativism or objectivity", there's always an ironical "certainty" of something, and if that isn't a clue that, in the Human experience, we're all fighting for some kind of objective truth or meaning that extends ourselves, then i don't know what is...

What a lovely thread, thanks everyone! *Musicologo*, my experience, intuition, but ultimately atomically small subjective view, tells me your post is AMAZING!
Thanks again everyone for a fantastic exchange! o-[][]-o 
I learned a lot about myself!
-A.s-


----------



## Stiltzkin

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> art may well be a subjective affair to fools, idiots and ignorants, but its intrinsic objective value is unequivocally and shatteringly clear to those of us with intelligence, insight, humility and a beating heart._



This is your opinion though, and an opinion only. This is in no way widely believed to be fact. If you have sources to an existing measurement that can be written down and expressed then please do let me know.


----------



## Sebastianmu

[edit]


----------



## Waywyn

I think I am going to study neurology and biochemistry, because when I know how the brain and my body works, ... and how when and why specific chemical and physical processes happen, it automatically let's me have better sex and I will be able to enjoy it way better than anyone else, right!?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

AlexandreSafi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Markus S @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to live in a world with "objective values".
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" right & wrong don't exist,
> Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" meaning is meaningless
> Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" greatness is as valuable or meaningless as mediocrity, where all truth is in fact all opinion, that the enterprise of Science is as good as pretending Objective facts exist when they don't, where beauty is all in one's head, where goodness & harmony is all an illusion as valuable as Genocide, that the instinct for LIFE is completely and utterly subjective... where Melody, which was craved throughout History, but that this somehow still says nothing objective about Human Nature, still is as subjective as a "d-Minor Vacuum Cleaner drone", where ALL musicians KNOW ultimately nothing's great in the COLLECTIVE Human Experience... *where Nobody, and no artists "KNOWS" when a situation calls for a rational explanation from a non-verbal "intuitive" one...*
> 
> See the thing is, whether part of what constitutes your views is "nihilism, relativism or objectivity", there's always an ironical "certainty" of something, and if that isn't a clue that, in the Human experience, we're all fighting for some kind of objective truth or meaning that extends ourselves, then i don't know what is...
> 
> What a lovely thread, thanks everyone! *Musicologo*, my experience, intuition, but ultimately atomically small subjective view, tells me your post is AMAZING!
> Thanks again everyone for a fantastic exchange! o-[][]-o
> I learned a lot about myself!
> -A.s-
Click to expand...


Alexandre is proof that one can be very young and still be very wise. Only my subjective opinion, of course. 

Here is a question for you all: Can a society collectively know (with dissenters, of course) in their hearts and minds that something is "great" without objectively being able to prove it? Previous generations would have mostly answered "yes." I am not sure that people here will.

I don't know about others but a handful of times in my life I have been in an audience where we listened to various artists and when one artist took their turn you could feel an electricity in the air and you could tell that almost the whole audience _knew_ somehow that this person had something special going on that blew the others out of the water.. You could not use words to objectively say why he/she was special, but almost the whole audience just _knew_ it.

I enjoy listening to Burt Bacharach more than I enjoy listening to Tchaikovsky or John Coltrane. But if you read Burt's autobiography, it is clear that while he holds his own work in high regard, all he was striving for was to make a good commercial record that would be popular and please his own muse and not aim for the level HE considered higher, like his teacher Darius Milhaud or his first musical hero, Dizzy Gillespie.

And while I may emotionally respond to Burt's music and Hal David's masterful lyrics and sometimes may even have shed a tear or two, I recognize that this is superficial emotion and not the deeper emotion I felt listening to a performance of Brahms' German Requiem when I really did feel the spirit of something divine.

So yes, I cannot prove objectively to you that there is higher and lower art but like millions before me, I _know_ it.

Your truly,
The Elitist


----------



## Pixelee

I came here for the John Walker reference. Hahahaha Made my day.


----------



## rJames

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I think I am going to study neurology and biochemistry, because when I know how the brain and my body works, ... and how when and why specific chemical and physical processes happen, it automatically let's me have better sex and I will be able to enjoy it way better than anyone else, right!?


Going to need a translation for this one...or a book on neurology.


----------



## re-peat

Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> (...) Composing is a craft. It's a skill. It's not magic. It's carpentry with noteheads and waveforms.
> (...) I argue that no composer should venerate or idolize the classical composers. Here's why: nothing they did can be mysterious. By definition. The scores are out there. (...)


Forgive me, *Strad*, but that is utter applesauce.
If there's nothing more to composing great music than skill and craft, than why — to ask the most glaringly obvious question — is history bulging with fully trained mediocrities, some of whom we vaguely remember but most of whom who have completely dissolved into oblivion? Why is that? Surely, you don't wanna attribute this to the fact that all they lacked was still more skill than they already had?

Some threads ago, I asked this exact same question to someone else who maintained that there is no such thing as 'talent', saying that writing music all comes down to skill and craft : well, if that is the case, I asked, as I ask you now, then why aren't you any better at it? Why don't you astound us with work of silencing beauty? Or are you still working on your skills?

How's this for a proposition: I give you 15 years to come up with the sequel to "Le Sacre du Printemps" — more than enough time I would think to develop whatever skill you deem necessary for the job. "Le Sacre du Stradibaldi", you think you can do it? And can we expect a contemporary equivalent of the "Hohe Messe" from you as well at some time in the foreseeable future? Just tell me how much time you think you need for that, and I'll be waiting with the greatest anticipation.

And if the scores, as you say, unlock all the secrets of great music so easily, why, pray, does there seem to be only one John Williams? I mean, it's not as if hundreds, if not thousands, haven't tried and tried *very* hard, to be the next Williams, is it not? Why do they all fail miserably? What's your explanation for all the awful, second-rate, ersatz-Williams that we have to endure? A mere 'lack of skill'?

You may wish it were that simple — many do —, but I'm afraid it isn't. Again, prove me wrong and give us something that is the musical equal of Williams' "March Of The Villains (from 'Superman')". 

Oh, one more thing: if you can't hear the jazz in Bach or Mozart, the swing in Brahms or Haydn, or the groove in Beethoven or Stravinsky, then you're not really listening. Which brings me back to my elitist opinion: one has to be equipped with the right antennae in order to receive all that great music is broadcasting.

_


----------



## KEnK

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> ...a handful of times in my life I have been in an audience where we listened to various artists and when one artist took their turn you could feel an electricity in the air and you could tell that almost the whole audience _knew_ somehow that this person had something special going on that blew the others out of the water...


But isn't that in itself "subjective" Jay?
Can you prove it w/ charts and graphs? :wink: 

Actually I'm sure you know I'm in the "Great Art Exists" camp, 
intangible though it may be.

I've been wanting to say that i find the overuse of the term "subjective" objectionable.
It's a tool often used to simply negate the "other's" perspective,
rendering all discussion moot.

Inevitably, once the terms "subjective/objective" are deployed,
the actual communication ceases
and an endless circular dance ensues
where nothing is heard
ideas no longer exchanged or considered.

It is a verbal or intellectual shield used to keep all ideas out.
A kind of childish knocking over of the chess pieces when the game is lost.
The last refuge of the insistent. 

I live in a World of Color.
I can Taste the food I eat.
I can hear music that is quite Incredible
and I've heard much that is entirely banal.

There are of course acceptable criteria by which we measure all our Experiences.
Art is no different.

To deny that is in itself a kind of nihilism.

But then again realty itself is "subjective" isn't it.
No one can really prove they Exist-
But does that mean they don't?

k


----------



## Sebastianmu

If people define 'greatness' in music in merely structural terms, they are in great danger! Music will turn into a crossword-puzzle-like mind game. You actually don't really have to listen to it anymore in order to enjoy all the structural beauty of a piece, it would be enough to just read the score, follow the lines on paper, look at all the inctricate details of the form etc. 

A different approach would be to define 'greatness' in music in terms of what it conveys and how efficient it does that job. In this case, it is possible to acknowledge some sort of _content _of a piece of music, that has nothing to do with its formal attributes or its structure. The traditional appreciation of Beethoven's last symphony was based on the experience, that it conveys something like a sublime and positive _vision for humanity_ in general, that could not possibly be put into words (please don't ask me).. 

For me personally, something similar is going on in the Mahler symphonies that use voices. Yet when I studied musicology, I encountered people who were criticizing Mahler's 2nd symphony (that I love), because in their opinion, at any given point the form was too unclear and - I guess - in their view a little 'messy'. These were ridiculously well educated and experienced musicologists who knew virtually every piece of music from the italian renaissance to Ádes. 

Then you have Simon Rattle, who clearly loves the piece, too - and is a very accomplished musician, to say the least. Which means, you have a disagreement of great experts in music in regard to the artistic value of a specific piece, and the disagreement is based on the distinction I tried to make above. 

How could you possibly decide who is correct? Rattle, because he is a better musician? The musicologists, because they know more pieces? 

And the next question is: What is it worth, anyway? Deciding that question: "Is Mahler's 2nd symphony 'great' or 'popular, but overrated'"? On a psychological level I always got the feeling that people who indulge in ranking pieces of art or music do so because it makes them feel very good about their own expertise.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

KEnK @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...a handful of times in my life I have been in an audience where we listened to various artists and when one artist took their turn you could feel an electricity in the air and you could tell that almost the whole audience _knew_ somehow that this person had something special going on that blew the others out of the water...
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't that in itself "subjective" Jay?
> Can you prove it w/ charts and graphs? :wink:
> 
> Actually I'm sure you know I'm in the "Great Art Exists" camp,
> intangible though it may be.
> 
> I've been wanting to say that i find the overuse of the term "subjective" objectionable.
> It's a tool often used to simply negate the "other's" perspective,
> rendering all discussion moot.
> 
> Inevitably, once the terms "subjective/objective" are deployed,
> the actual communication ceases
> and an endless circular dance ensues
> where nothing is heard
> ideas no longer exchanged or considered.
> 
> It is a verbal or intellectual shield used to keep all ideas out.
> A kind of childish knocking over of the chess pieces when the game is lost.
> The last refuge of the insistent.
> 
> I live in a World of Color.
> I can Taste the food I eat.
> I can hear music that is quite Incredible
> and I've heard much that is entirely banal.
> 
> There are of course acceptable criteria by which we measure all our Experiences.
> Art is no different.
> 
> To deny that is in itself a kind of nihilism.
> 
> But then again realty itself is "subjective" isn't it.
> No one can really prove they Exist-
> But does that mean they don't?
> 
> k
Click to expand...


Great post.


----------



## rJames

No more need for schooling in the arts. Yay!


----------



## Guy Rowland

KEnK @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...a handful of times in my life I have been in an audience where we listened to various artists and when one artist took their turn you could feel an electricity in the air and you could tell that almost the whole audience _knew_ somehow that this person had something special going on that blew the others out of the water...
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't that in itself "subjective" Jay?
> Can you prove it w/ charts and graphs? :wink:
> 
> Actually I'm sure you know I'm in the "Great Art Exists" camp,
> intangible though it may be.
> 
> I've been wanting to say that i find the overuse of the term "subjective" objectionable.
> It's a tool often used to simply negate the "other's" perspective,
> rendering all discussion moot.
> 
> Inevitably, once the terms "subjective/objective" are deployed,
> the actual communication ceases
> and an endless circular dance ensues
> where nothing is heard
> ideas no longer exchanged or considered.
> 
> It is a verbal or intellectual shield used to keep all ideas out.
> A kind of childish knocking over of the chess pieces when the game is lost.
> The last refuge of the insistent.
> 
> I live in a World of Color.
> I can Taste the food I eat.
> I can hear music that is quite Incredible
> and I've heard much that is entirely banal.
> 
> There are of course acceptable criteria by which we measure all our Experiences.
> Art is no different.
> 
> To deny that is in itself a kind of nihilism.
> 
> But then again realty itself is "subjective" isn't it.
> No one can really prove they Exist-
> But does that mean they don't?
> 
> k
Click to expand...


That's absolutely not the definition or use of 'subjective' that I'm talking about for one. I'm arguing the exact opposite, in fact - by declaring subjective opinion as objective fact, discussion is shut down, the status quo is never challenged, interesting voices are deafened and passion extinguished.


----------



## KEnK

Well, certainly Guy, no passions have been extinguished here. :wink: 

and I wasn't speaking of any particular individual's use of the term.
just a general semantic tendency or effect.

It's something I've noticed here and at other forums.
It becomes a kind of logic trap or loop,
where whether or not a thing is subjective/objective becomes the discussion-
leaving the exchange of the actual ideas behind

And whether or not you see that as subjective or objective
is possibly my point. :mrgreen: 

k


----------



## Sebastianmu

For the sake of emotional-/psychological wellbeing, everyone participating in discussions like this is well adviced to read David McRaney's book "You are not so smart"... :lol:


----------



## KEnK

To further clarify (if needed)-

I think it is a 'given' that certain individuals,
by the sum of their output or individual works
have created a vision that is so uniquely powerful
that it has altered the course of what is to follow
for decades.
(Musically, Paco DeLucia, Stravinsky, and Miles come to mind)

But in this thread, I'm seeing people insist that 
this very concept, held by a vast majority of 'students of history', 
is being reduced to mere unprovable opinion.

And this is the semantic trap that renders discussion moot.

k


----------



## Guy Rowland

KEnK @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> To further clarify (if needed)-
> 
> I think it is a 'given' that certain individuals,
> by the sum of their output or individual works
> have created a vision that is so uniquely powerful
> that it has altered the course of what is to follow
> for decades.
> (Musically, Paco DeLucia, Stravinsky, and Miles come to mind)
> 
> But in this thread, I'm seeing people insist that
> this very concept, held by a vast majority of 'students of history',
> is being reduced to mere unprovable opinion.
> 
> And this is the semantic trap that renders discussion moot.
> 
> k



Ah, again no at least in my case. The four examples you give show that an artist is influential, and that's an objective thing (pretty objective anyway). You then suppose that being influential equates to being the best in a given area, but whoops - that's subjective opinion.

Let me give you a counter-intuitive example to demonstrate that hopefully I'm not being argumentative just for the sake of it. Recently here on BBC4 there was a great documentary on Kraftwerk. It's thesis was this - "Kraftwerk are more influential than the Beatles". Sounds like clickbait, but it's actually a very reasonable notion with plenty of evidence - Kraftwerk leads to hip hop, electro, dance, EDM, modern pop. The Beatles leads to... umm... Beatles tribute bands. What the question does NOT ask or wisely attempt to even address is "Kraftwerk are better than the Beatles", which is a kind of childish nonsense thing to say.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Once again, ask yourself if you are willing to concede that it is possible to like something better but know that it is in fact not actually better.

i submit that if you cannot do so, that is not conducive to becoming much of an artist.


----------



## re-peat

Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> (...) Which means, you have a disagreement of great experts in music in regard to the artistic value of a specific piece(...) How could you possibly decide who is correct?


Great music can't be captured in theory, analysis or opinions. The very greatness of music laughs in the face of analysis and opinion. Which has been my point all along.
To quote Fry on Wodehouse, but it applies just as well to great music: “You don't analyze such sunlit perfection, you just bask in its warmth and splendour.” The quote serves me particularly well, come to think of it, in its recognition that in all great art there is something comparable to the warmth of the sun: a gift that exists entirely outside all subjectivity.

_


----------



## Guy Rowland

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Once again, ask yourself if you are willing to concede that it is possible to like something better but know that it is in fact not actually better.
> 
> i submit that if you cannot do so, that is not conducive to becoming much of an artist.



It's a nonsense question Jay, we really are back to page 1 here. Are Kraftwerk better than the Beatles? It's a childish question. You seem quite determined to keep comparing apples, oranges, North Sea gas, hammers and the colour Yellow. Why are you not content to love and admire music of differing kinds, happily acknowledging different musical depth / imagination / originality etc as it is found in different aspects without a need to bag and label every single piece of music ever written with a number on each one?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) Which means, you have a disagreement of great experts in music in regard to the artistic value of a specific piece(...) How could you possibly decide who is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Great music can't be captured in theory, analysis or opinions. The very greatness of music laughs in the face of analysis and opinion. Which has been my point all along.
> To quote Fry on Wodehouse, but it applies just as well to great music: “You don't analyze such sunlit perfection, you just bask in its warmth and splendour.” The quote serves me particularly well, come to think of it, in its recognition that in all great art there is something comparable to the warmth of the sun: a gift that exists entirely outside all subjectivity.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


I like it!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Rowland @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, ask yourself if you are willing to concede that it is possible to like something better but know that it is in fact not actually better.
> 
> i submit that if you cannot do so, that is not conducive to becoming much of an artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a nonsense question Jay, we really are back to page 1 here. Are Kraftwerk better than the Beatles? It's a childish question. You seem quite determined to keep comparing apples, oranges, North Sea gas, hammers and the colour Yellow. Why are you not content to love and admire music of differing kinds, happily acknowledging different musical depth / imagination / originality etc as it is found in different aspects without a need to bag and label every single piece of music ever written with a number on each one?
Click to expand...


I am very content to do that Guy and in my life I spend little time doing what I am doing here. What I am not content to do is to let go unchallenged what I consider the destructive notion that there is not greater or lesser art that has _nothing_ to do with personal taste. 

It leads to nothing but the elevation of mediocrity.


----------



## Musicologo

> Great music can't be captured in theory, analysis or opinions.



It has to be captured _somehow_, if not how do you know it's there in the first place? It has to be _perceived_. And then one has to make a _judgment/inference_ upon it to realize it exists and it is great.

Then how do you do it?
You capture it with your body, your senses, your "right antennae" like you mentioned.

And we all have a body. Then what is different? Your cultural background.
So the divergences in antennae happen because of this last one (and this can be worked of course, and changes over time). You can also argue that your body changes over time, and so, your physical antennae might also change over time.

Still, in the end, there seems to be common ground (the body) and subjective ground (the cultural experience) playing in what one perceives as music in general (and of great music in particular).


----------



## Sebastianmu

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I asked this exact same question, some threads ago, to someone else who maintained that there is no such thing as 'talent', saying that it all comes down to skill and craft : well, if that is the case, I asked, as I ask you now, then why aren't you any better at it? Why don't you astound us with work of silencing beauty? Or are you still working on your skills?



Piet,

Most musicians start playing their instrument at an very early age. The greatest among them usually dedicated most of their lives to practicing. Lang Lang, I think, started at three essentially never stopped since.

Strad's point might have been , that "genius", as perceived by the layman, is usually the result of a huge amount of work dedicated to one thing, a result of a significantly greater effort than 99.9% of people are willing to put into it. It's clear, for example, that John Williams never did anything but making music, from a very early age and with very good teachers.

People say you can be a professional in any given field after putting an amount of 10.000 h of work into it, but of course it requires a whole life dedicated to one field to accomplish something that will be perceived as truely groundbreaking. And I think Jay's revelation - that at some point he stopped to pursue greatness, because he considered himself lacking some magical property - has this weird sting to it because one might think: if you would have given your life, who knows what the outcome would have been?

I, too, believe that strong idolization of masters has undesirable psychological effects and should not be imposed on creative people (as it usually is, at least implicitly, by most teachers). Because no one ever knows _in advance_ what he or she or someone else is capable of.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Sebastien, I could have devoted my life to practicing basketball but I would never have played in the NBA. I just lacked the native athletic ability.

Similarly as a composer, I lacked the level of talent, and boldness to become truly great, even if I had devoted 18 hours a day to it. 

Could I have become better than I am? Yes. But I still would not be a John Williams or a James Newton Howard. So I chose to spend a fair amount of time balancing my life.

That same is probably true for 98% of the people here. The difference is, I was willing be brutally honest with myself about my potential and a lot of people here are, IMHO only of course, really kidding themselves.


----------



## JohnG

Guy Rowland @ 22nd June 2015 said:


> Are Kraftwerk better than the Beatles? It's a childish question.



I don't think it's such a childish question -- in fact it would be fun to discuss it.

But either way, I keep seeing posters who argue for a hierarchy of any kind accused of all kinds of things they are not saying. They aren't trying to bag-and-tag everything, for example, or press for rigid rules or hidebound out-of-date music, or that only orchestral music is / can be good, or that some kind of traditional harmony / orchestration / whatever makes it better. Yet that seems to be the reaction -- _as if _that were being said even when it isn't.

I think what is being argued by me and a few others, that:

1. there are some works of art and music that are better than others,

2. some of these works have more bits to them (though that obviously doesn't "make" them better by itself; as Piet wrote, there is an ocean of rubbish produced every year by the learned),

3. some creators seem to have a kind of magic that lifts their work from merely fine craft to another level (call it whatever you like -- sublime? elevated? great?)

Jay adds, I think quite reasonably, that it's possible to prefer a piece of music / art or have some affection for it even though we know it's kind of -- dumb.

I don't see that this is so controversial.


----------



## JohnG

another perspective:


----------



## KEnK

Guy Rowland @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> The four examples you give show that an artist is influential, and that's an objective thing (pretty objective anyway). You then suppose that being influential equates to being the best in a given area, but whoops - that's subjective opinion.


Well Guy- This "subjective opinion" is held by most people who work in those respective genres.
I think a view, nearly universally held by the practitioners of a given Art Form should be afforded some weight or merit.



Guy Rowland @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Let me give you a counter-intuitive example to demonstrate that hopefully I'm not being argumentative just for the sake of it. Recently here on BBC4 there was a great documentary on Kraftwerk. It's thesis was this - "Kraftwerk are more influential than the Beatles". Sounds like clickbait, but it's actually a very reasonable notion with plenty of evidence - Kraftwerk leads to hip hop, electro, dance, EDM, modern pop. The Beatles leads to... umm... Beatles tribute bands. What the question does NOT ask or wisely attempt to even address is "Kraftwerk are better than the Beatles", which is a kind of childish nonsense thing to say.


I've always loved Kraftwerk.
That they were and are hugely influential is something beyond debate.
But the above sentence "The Beatles leads to... umm... Beatles tribute bands."
simply ignores the contributions made by the Beatles.

Expanded song form in the R&R context
Actual 1st use of a synthesizer
1st use and introduction of Sitar and Indian Music&Philosophy to Westerners
Extended production techniques (George Martin's work)
And a lot more, but we don't need to get into that here.
And the Beatles probably led to Kraftwerk- but let's ask them
:wink: 

k


----------



## Greg

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Great music can't be captured in theory, analysis or opinions. The very greatness of music laughs in the face of analysis and opinion. Which has been my point all along.
> 
> _



re-peat:

"The difference between me considering Beethoven’s music great and you considering Jablonsky’s great, is that I can built my case entirely on strictly musical arguments, whereas you are obliged to drag in a whole non-musical context — film and emotion — to validate Jablonsky’s music. "

....


----------



## Stradibaldi

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) Why did Rembrandt paint portraits?
> As opposed to superbly painterly depictions of brick walls?
> It's cuz people like looking at faces. We find them more interesting than walls. How is that not contextual?
> 
> 
> 
> That may be so, but unless you're a descendant of the depicted, the actual faces in Rembrandt's portraits no longer mean much anymore to us, do they? As meaningful context to appreciate that particular aspect of the painting, I mean. We don't know who these people 'really' were (as living human beings), how good the physical likeness is, or if the image they had of themselves has been accurately captured by Rembrandt.
> So, that particular context -- which was important at the time -- has lost all its relevance to us, I would say, and what we're left with is 'paint on canvas'. But 'paint on canvas' so masterfully conceived and executed, so dripping with intrinsic quality, so undeniable radiant and timeless as a work of art, and so much more powerful than its intent or context required it to be, that it makes you make the mistake of saying that we like to look at it because we like looking at faces.
> 
> If that isn't absolute and objective proof of its intrinsic rather than conditional quality, I don't know what is.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


I don't even know how to reply to this. You've literally captured the opposite of what is so great about the Dutch Golden Age painters. :lol: 

You might be one of _those people_ who wants everyone to know how much of a tasteful art _gourmand_ you are, in which case we have little to discuss, but just in case you're not, Rembrandt is remembered because he was a great PORTRAITIST.

When I look at a portrait by Rembrandt, or one of his just as good contemporaries Frans Hals:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/hals/laughing.jpg

There's no way I'm thinking "this subject matter has no contextual relevance to me in 2015!"

I'm thinking this painter has managed, strangely and wonderfully, to capture a real person's unique nature in a painting. Almost so I can imagine what their voice would sound like, what their personality would be. I can truly feel that the artist and his subject were real people, like me, who just happened to be alive 350 years ago instead of today.

It's not just "paint on canvas which happens to be masterfully executed."

It's paint on canvas which happens to *depict* something that is deeply relevant and resonant with people in any time and place: your fellow humans.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Lord this thread is moving fast....



KEnK @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I've always loved Kraftwerk.
> That they were and are hugely influential is something beyond debate.
> But the above sentence "The Beatles leads to... umm... Beatles tribute bands."
> simply ignores the contributions made by the Beatles.
> 
> Expanded song form in the R&R context
> Actual 1st use of a synthesizer
> 1st use and introduction of Sitar and Indian Music&Philosophy to Westerners
> Extended production techniques (George Martin's work)
> And a lot more, but we don't need to get into that here.
> And the Beatles probably led to Kraftwerk- but let's ask them
> :wink:
> 
> k



I used to play Kraftwerk and the Beatles... the former more, mind you. But I can call you on your Beatles facts - this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zodiac:_Cosmic_Sounds - used a synth in '67, Switched on Bach '68, the Beatles terribly passe in '69.

It would be interesting to really go into their influence - admittedly more than my Beatles covers bands, but I'd be staggered if - as objectively as is possible to be - Kraftwerk didn't win. And it's an important point, because again you maintain there's a causal link between influence and greatness. How about the pop of Stock, Aitken and Waterman? Hugely influential (and grudging respect is certainly due, they sure could crank out a tune) but it in no way makes them the greatest thing to happen to music in the 80s, or any decade for that matter. Was Cher's I Believe In Love one of the greatest pop songs of all time because it influenced countless others to heavily use autotune? It seems plain and obvious to me that influence is but one factor to judge an artist on, not the be all and end all.

The point I and I think some others make is not that there aren't artists that are near-universally admired, and that there aren't reasons for this. I have no problem whatsoever with people praising Bach or Davis to the skies. I have no problem acknowledging their influence. And I have no problem saying that Beethoven is compositionally more sophisticated than Kraftwerk. Indeed, if any artist (only Kanye might actually do this) actually compared themselves favourably to Beethoven, they'd be laughed off the stage. But not because Beethoven is "better" than Kanye - any attempt to compare a contemporary rapper to a near-universally admired classical musician who lived 200 years ago deserves all the derision it gets because its comparing 200 year old oranges with brand new hammers. It's just plain stupid.

It's frustrating that this debate is so binary - continually it feels like a fight to get any nuance whatsoever raised between "all art is equal" and "there is a rigid pecking order for all art".


----------



## germancomponist

Huh ..., what a thread! 

There is much truth in your posts, Peat, Jay and John.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Stiltzkin

Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great music can't be captured in theory, analysis or opinions. The very greatness of music laughs in the face of analysis and opinion. Which has been my point all along.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat:
> 
> "The difference between me considering Beethoven’s music great and you considering Jablonsky’s great, is that I can built my case entirely on strictly musical arguments, whereas you are obliged to drag in a whole non-musical context — film and emotion — to validate Jablonsky’s music. "
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


:roll:


----------



## Sebastianmu

Yes, let's take a break and pat each other on the shoulder for a moment.


----------



## Stradibaldi

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> If there's nothing more to composing great music than skill and craft, than why is history bulging with fully trained mediocrities, some of whom we vaguely remember but most of whom who have completely dissolved into oblivion? Why is that?



Because they weren't great at their craft? Because training & degrees aren't synonymous with craft? Just as an MD does not make me the world's best neurosurgeon?

You really like asking easy questions!

it's funny that you would even choose this line of attack because it's YOUR great-artist theory that moots education and training. Some of us - according to YOU - are pre-ordained to be Mozarts and the rest "mediocrities."



> And if the scores, as you say, unlock all the secrets of great music so easily, why, pray, does there seem to be only one John Williams?



That question turns around on you:

*If the score does not contain 100% of what the music consists of, where is the rest?*

What is John Williams' secret ingredient that isn't in the score?

Do you imagine he gets on stage at the LSO and sprinkles fairy dust on the players?

I mean at least with someone like Jablonsky, Zimmer, etc we could get into an argument about maybe he has great custom synths, maybe his mixing setup has such-and-such plugins...

John Williams is LITERALLY NOTES ON A PAGE my friend! They hold concerts of those same notes, different orchestra, different conductor, John Williams could be continents away, and it's just as magical every time.

You really seem to resist this essential truth that there is no magical or supernatural ingredient in music. If you have music education, music is transparent to you. You have the capability to learn from other composers because all composers - no matter how 'great' - are your peers through sheet music. 

I'm not saying that we can all become as great as Williams (or insert your other favorite composers here), I'm just saying they are not some Oz behind a curtain. 

You like _Superman_? Great. Go study it. The full score is out there (sadly, still in bootleg only). You will never ever ever ever ever ever become a greater composer than you are today just by listening to and "appreciating" it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy, I am not arguing for "a rigid pecking order." I am arguing for the idea that there is higher and lower art based on the fact that if one accomplishes a deeper and more difficult artistic endeavor, based on the dictionary definition of depth that i posted earlier, that it is higher art than when one accomplishes a less deep and difficult artistic endeavor.


----------



## Sebastianmu

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.



So why even try, right?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why even try, right?
Click to expand...


You should of course try to become the best you can be but you should not delude yourself into thinking you are more than you are.


----------



## Stradibaldi

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.



Can you define genius for me in some way that doesn't make it seem like a genetic equivalent of "He was touched by the Music Angel"?

"Genius" to me is just one of those words invented by laypeople to explain that they _don't understand_ why music makes them feel.

We're on the other side of the curtain guys! We're composers! We understand music!



> you should not delude yourself into thinking you are more than you are.



My point was not that everyone has unlimited potential, my point was that everyone here can LEARN from the greats.

All it takes is putting down the altar and incense and picking up the scores


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define genius for me in some way that doesn't make it seem like a genetic equivalent of "He was touched by the Music Angel"?
> 
> "Genius" to me is just one of those words invented by laypeople to explain that they _don't understand_ why music makes them feel.
> 
> We're on the other side of the curtain guys! We're composers! We understand music!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should not delude yourself into thinking you are more than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not that everyone has unlimited potential, my point was that everyone here can LEARN from the greats.
> 
> All it takes is putting down the altar and incense and picking up the scores
Click to expand...


Then we agree.


----------



## Greg

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.



That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Geniuses are born geniuses.


----------



## Greg

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Geniuses are born geniuses.
Click to expand...


I disagree, and completely pity you friend. In an empathetic manner, not attacking your character. I'm sure you pity me for living my life under the delusion of inner purpose and striving blindly for greatness.


----------



## Sebastianmu

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> You should of course try to become the best you can be but you should not delude yourself into thinking you are more than you are.



I honestly believe that "thinking you are more than you are" is much less of a problem than the self-defeating believe "I don't have what it takes"!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Not at all, Greg. I admire you you for striving for greatness and I am totally open to hearing something you eventually create where you think you have achieved it.

EDIT: If somebody thinks that last remark is me being sarcastic., it isn't. I mean exactly what I wrote.


----------



## Darthmorphling

JohnG @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Guy Rowland @ 22nd June 2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are Kraftwerk better than the Beatles? It's a childish question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's such a childish question -- in fact it would be fun to discuss it.
> 
> But either way, I keep seeing posters who argue for a hierarchy of any kind accused of all kinds of things they are not saying. They aren't trying to bag-and-tag everything, for example, or press for rigid rules or hidebound out-of-date music, or that only orchestral music is / can be good, or that some kind of traditional harmony / orchestration / whatever makes it better. Yet that seems to be the reaction -- _as if _that were being said even when it isn't.
> 
> I think what is being argued by me and a few others, that:
> 
> 1. there are some works of art and music that are better than others,
Click to expand...


Agreed and even Daniel and guitarman would agree with this from what I have read of their posts.



> 2. some of these works have more bits to them (though that obviously doesn't "make" them better by itself; as Piet wrote, there is an ocean of rubbish produced every year by the learned),



Agreed and even Daniel and guitarman would agree with this from what I have read of their posts.



> 3. some creators seem to have a kind of magic that lifts their work from merely fine craft to another level (call it whatever you like -- sublime? elevated? great?)



The problem I see from Piet, Jay, and others is that there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to what the "magical, sublime, elevated" thing that makes music great. Many here are using very descriptive terms to justify their thinking on this matter, but they are still not explaining what this is. Jay is basically just using the ever popular tone that academics use, "I know why it is better, and you can't possibly come to any conclusion that disproves my educated view, so just accept what I say as gospel."

They are also not conceding that music outside of their personal sphere of listening can meet this magical greatness. I know that Piet and Jay have both said they prefer some music that isn't great over music that is, but at no time have they mentioned music outside of their little musical bubble as being great. What this shows is that their percieved criteria for greatness is not something that can be put up to quantify greatness in all musical genres. Therefore, if it is not what they have learned, or experienced, then it is not great.

You cannot compare the greatness of Mozart with the greatness of Pink Floyd. They are simply too different from each other to argue that. Would Jay and Piet say that The Dark Side of the Moon is a monumentally great album? They might, but then the question remains is why is that so? What criteria can be set to state this?

I don't have the answers either, but neither do they. Where Daniel, Guitarman, and others come from, is that you may look down on a style of music as being inferior, and that any monkey with a DAW can do it, but that doesn't mean that there are not some truly talented people out there creating "great" music in that genre.

I know that Jay also states that Two Steps From Hell is fine example of excellent Epic music. However, has he listened to enough metal to find its "great" bands? EDM? Country? Texas Blues? Hip Hop? I really doubt it.



> Jay adds, I think quite reasonably, that it's possible to prefer a piece of music / art or have some affection for it even though we know it's kind of -- dumb.
> 
> I don't see that this is so controversial.



Again I don't think that anyone in this thread would disagree with this. But what about that music you find dumb, because you have no experience with and actually is great? Just because you feel it is dumb, does not necessarily mean it is not great.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Jay is basically just using the ever popular tone that academics use, "I know why it is better, and you can't possibly come to any conclusion that disproves my educated view, so just accept what I say as gospel." 

I am saying no such thing. I am under no illusion that people will accept what I say as gospel nor do I think I have earned the right to have people just accept what I say as gospel. I am just stating my convictions.

However, I do believe and always will believe that in most cases an educated opinion is worth more than an uneducated opinion. Not a popular view I know.


----------



## Vin

EastWest Lurker @ 22/6/2015 said:


> Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Geniuses are born geniuses.
Click to expand...


You might find http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930?tag=honestlyhones-20 (this book) interesting.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I read it a long time ago. Some interesting things but like all of his books, a superficial view.

I have spent way more than 10,000 hours and I am still not a genius


----------



## tokatila

Vin @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ 22/6/2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Geniuses are born geniuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might find http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930?tag=honestlyhones-20 (this book) interesting.
Click to expand...


You might find this study interesting.


----------



## re-peat

Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> (...) Some of us - according to YOU - are pre-ordained to be Mozarts and the rest "mediocrities. (...)


Yup, I am completely of that belief, yes: no amount of studying by anyone is going to give us another Mozart, unless they were born with Mozart's talent. Craft can be acquired, yes, but talent is a gift.

And there is nothing transparent whatsoever about talent, Strad, I’m sorry. (It’s usually those who don’t have a lot of it, that like to minimize or even dismiss it, and understandably so of course, but trust me: the only difference between average-to-good music and great music is talent, not craft.)

Anyway, if my questions are so easy, as you say, why did you answer only one — and disappointingly feebly so — and did you carefully avoid all the others? (How about that "Hohe Messe", do you have one gestating inside you, or not?)

If solid training and education isn’t synonymous with craft, what else, I wonder, is required? What exactly, in other words, separates the world’s best neurosurgeon from every other merely good neurosurgeon? (If you’re only going to answer one more question again, please, let it be this one.)

And as for a score fully disclosing the mystery (talent, inspiration) that makes a composer able to write that score: do you truly believe that? Do you really believe you can write (the equivalent of) Beethoven 10 by simply having a good, long look at Beethoven 1-9? That’s like saying that anyone with a solid grounding in science, who studies E=mc2, is ready to be the next Einstein. 

And finally: I know of no greater Williams student and Superman-connaisseur than Mike Verta. I think you will find that Mike will be the first to agree that all that knowledge doesn’t even begin to make him Williams’ equal.
What Mike knows about, and knows about better than you or me or anyone else, is Williams' technique and craft, down to the tiniest detail, but even that hasn't brought him an inch closer to unravelling the mystery that is Williams' unique talent.

_


----------



## Vin

tokatila @ 22/6/2015 said:


> Vin @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ 22/6/2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Geniuses are born geniuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might find http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930?tag=honestlyhones-20 (this book) interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might find this study interesting.
Click to expand...


Great comment down there that pretty much sums it up:



> This research isn't debunking anything. If anything, it confirms EXACTLY what he was saying. That the difference between being. An 18% difference is sports is huge! Think about what that does at a team level, an 18% difference in scoring, or an 18% difference in win percentage? Thats enormous. Gladwell wasnt trying to say that if you do 10,000 anything you will automatically be the best, he's saying that to truly maximize the impact of practicing - to truly make it effective and pull out all of the stops, you are selling yourself short if you aren't doing 10,000.
> 
> Either they didn't read his book, or the Princeton researchers just don't get it - seems like they might be a bit dense.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Asking science to explain art is like asking the Pope to explain atheism  

The creative spirit cannot be reduced to theorems and formulae.


----------



## mducharme

Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Basically it's surprising to see a number of you buying in to the idea that Mozart & Co. were "geniuses" who were "gifted" with "talent" and preternatural "inspirations" and wrote music on a higher plane.
> 
> Most laypeople (and in that group I include most music critics, many music historians and even lots of musicians) have this attitude towards composition.
> 
> Well folks *we are composers so WE SHOULD KNOW better!*


This post, and this comment in particular, bothered me enough that I felt compelled to respond, although I hate getting caught up in these types of arguments. There have been music theorists and composers who have studied Mozart, Beethoven, etc. all their lives, and they bought in that they wrote music on a higher plane. Particularly in the romantic era, the composers idolizing Beethoven. Are you saying that Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Liszt, etc. should have all known better?

Even in modern day, professors of music theory who have studied Mozart all their lives and analyzed dozens of his scores would still call it genius, and Beethoven, and others.

Or are you saying that your view is superior to their views? "We should know better" comes across as an extremely arrogant viewpoint.



Stradibaldi said:


> *I argue that no composer should venerate or idolize the classical composers. Here's why.*
> 
> 1. Nothing they did can be mysterious. By definition. The scores are out there. If you want you can transcribe, copy, study, find out what they did, puzzle out why it works and adapt their techniques to your own musical carpentry.


I'm sorry, but understanding why something works is very different from being able to come up with it on your own. Otherwise, every composer in the romantic era would have been writing stuff that was better than Beethoven/Mozart/Bach. Music theorists in modern day who analyze Mozart like crazy and understand what makes it tick would be able to reproduce it.

Even understanding why it works is a challenge. Most people look at only the surface level of music and give up there, but there are different levels of the music, different levels of structure. There are tools such as Schenkerian analysis that help to uncover some deeper understanding of why the music works, but that is going beyond the level of theory understanding of most composers. And, even if you do go to those deeper levels and figure it out, how do you reproduce it, without merely copying it?

I'm not saying that one can't improve through score study - of course it's necessary and helpful. But just studying Mozart by itself isn't going to make one capable of writing at his level of mastery.



Stradibaldi said:


> The only reason people don't get how limited classical music language was, is that they lump in all modern accessible writing as classical technique (e.g. people calling Williams a "neoRomantic" because they don't grok how his jazz-tinged musical language would have been impossible before 1950).


There is nothing at all wrong with using "neo-Romantic" in this context. It doesn't mean 'writing exactly like they did in the Romantic era' any more than neo-Classical was 'writing exactly like they did in the Classical era'.



Stradibaldi said:


> Whenever someone comes and says "Beethoven is the #1 all time" - on what basis? Orchestration? Or harmonic language? Or are we expected to concede that Beethoven wrote the greatest melodies ever?
> 
> It's never about those things. It always boils down to arguing that these classical icons were great at form and structure. That Beethoven or Bach's music feels timeless and the development of each musical idea has an "inevitable" feeling to it.
> 
> For sure, this is an accurate appraisal of Beethoven's best traits as a composer. I feel that inevitability in his music (even more in Haydn's, just to be argumentative...)


Here you are unfortunately simply parroting Leonard Bernstein's unfortunate comments to Maximilian Schell. Because Bernstein said it, it must be right, right? Of course many developments have been made since Beethoven's time in terms of harmony, the enhancement of orchestral instruments (such as a valve horns and trumpets, etc.). However, dissing those elements of Beethoven besides the form I feel is in very bad taste and is not reflecting his true compositional genius. Check out Thomas Goss' gentle rebuttal to the Bernstein video. Bernstein was oversimplifying to make his point.



Stradibaldi said:


> Is this even what film music is supposed to do? The audience usually isn't listening to us closely enough to follow form and structure.
> 
> The audience is going to feel a greater emotional impact from "vertical" elements in music like harmony, timbre, orchestration, sound design - than from "horizontal" elements like form and structural development. Although some horizontal elements, like the development of themes across the storyline, do have an impact.
> 
> Even if - for some weird, perverse, "pure music" reason you idolize a guy from the 19th century because he represents "the deep end of the pool" - at least recognize that we're not in the same trade as him.



This is something that you say that I am in agreement with. I feel that in film music there are many methods of musical development that often do not work, but work in standalone concert music. There are many different ways of developing a musical motive that work when the music is foreground and the listener is paying attention only to the music, but a lot of the possible developments of a musical motive are lost when listeners are watching the movie, and the music is background. If you play a theme in retrograde for instance, people watching the movie are not going to know "hey, that is the theme backwards" and it loses its meaning. Film composition is therefore by nature limited in scope of development as a necessity, and that is why it is unfortunately looked down upon by many concert composers.

That being said, there are still quite a few developmental possibilities remaining that are often underused.


----------



## tokatila

Vin @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> tokatila @ 22/6/2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vin @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ 22/6/2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secret ingredient in JW's music is genius.And while even geniuses must work really hard, you cannot practice and study your way into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a cop out Jay. Genius is _achieved_ not _bestowed_. I'd say the secret to John Williams success is his inspiration and his yearning for greatness. He often mentions that the tragic loss of his wife made everything suddenly click for him and inspired his great sense of purpose through his music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Geniuses are born geniuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might find http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930?tag=honestlyhones-20 (this book) interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might find this study interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great comment down there that pretty much sums it up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This research isn't debunking anything. If anything, it confirms EXACTLY what he was saying. That the difference between being. An 18% difference is sports is huge! Think about what that does at a team level, an 18% difference in scoring, or an 18% difference in win percentage? Thats enormous. Gladwell wasnt trying to say that if you do 10,000 anything you will automatically be the best, he's saying that to truly maximize the impact of practicing - to truly make it effective and pull out all of the stops, you are selling yourself short if you aren't doing 10,000.
> 
> Either they didn't read his book, or the Princeton researchers just don't get it - seems like they might be a bit dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I remember reading study, which I'm too lazy to search for now, which compared IQ with creative abilities. The result was that the researches saw IQ as a threshold. If you have enough, the surplus doesn't really matter. 

So you just might need to be genius "enough". But if I remember correctly the threshold wasn't that high, I'm sure most of the members here will pass it by flying colours.


----------



## Vin

EastWest Lurker @ 22/6/2015 said:


> Asking science to explain art is like asking the Pope to explain atheism
> 
> The creative spirit cannot be reduced to theorems and formulae.



You do have a thing for (pointless) analogies, don't you?  

Creative spirit maybe, but art can be perfectly explained. Music, painting, architecture...are all math.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Musical genius is not the same as IQ. One can be either or both but they are different things.


----------



## tokatila

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Musical genius is not the same as IQ. One can be either or both but they are different things.



Sure, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correlation.


----------



## Darthmorphling

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Jay is basically just using the ever popular tone that academics use, "I know why it is better, and you can't possibly come to any conclusion that disproves my educated view, so just accept what I say as gospel."
> 
> I am saying no such thing. I am under no illusion that people will accept what I say as gospel nor do I think I have earned the right to have people just accept what I say as gospel. I am just stating my convictions.
> 
> However, I do believe and always will believe that in most cases an educated opinion is worth more than an uneducated opinion. Not a popular view I know.



This I agree with whole heartedly. When an educated person never listens to what others say, they are really just learned people that no longer have a desire to step outside of their comfort zone and realize that what they have learned may not be the be all end all. However, you and Piet are both espousing your educated views as being the absolute final say in what makes "great" music "great". You do what many politicians do and speak around issues enough to never fully backup what you say. You can claim that you recognize greatness in various genres of music, but I still don't think you will ever recognize greatness in any genre that is outside of your little bubble. This is where an educated opinion is wrong.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Vin @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ 22/6/2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking science to explain art is like asking the Pope to explain atheism
> 
> The creative spirit cannot be reduced to theorems and formulae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a thing for (pointless) analogies, don't you?
> 
> Creative spirit maybe, but art can be perfectly explained. Music, painting, architecture...are all math.
Click to expand...


But inspiration is not math and that is what separates the best art from the run of the mill. You may be able to mathematically explain the end result but you cannot mathematically explain the soul and talent that created it. Genius is genius.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Darthmorphling @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay is basically just using the ever popular tone that academics use, "I know why it is better, and you can't possibly come to any conclusion that disproves my educated view, so just accept what I say as gospel."
> 
> I am saying no such thing. I am under no illusion that people will accept what I say as gospel nor do I think I have earned the right to have people just accept what I say as gospel. I am just stating my convictions.
> 
> However, I do believe and always will believe that in most cases an educated opinion is worth more than an uneducated opinion. Not a popular view I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This I agree with whole heartedly. When an educated person never listens to what others say, they are really just learned people that no longer have a desire to step outside of their comfort zone and realize that what they have learned may not be the be all end all. However, you and Piet are both espousing your educated views as being the absolute final say in what makes "great" music "great". You do what many politicians do and speak around issues enough to never fully backup what you say. You can claim that you recognize greatness in various genres of music, but I still don't think you will ever recognize greatness in any genre that is outside of your little bubble. This is where an educated opinion is wrong.
Click to expand...


I have no expectations that my views are or should be the final say. But I find It ironic that when I state my convictions in a confident manner that is the conclusion some reach. Isn't an unequivocable belief in something exactly what a conviction is?


----------



## Darthmorphling

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Asking science to explain art is like asking the Pope to explain atheism
> 
> The creative spirit cannot be reduced to theorems and formulae.



If the creative spirit is so ambiguous, you cannot claim that you completely understand what makes great music great. If greatness has no definable markers to demonstrate why it is great, then you cannot just state that something is great while something else is not. It is not enough to just state that this piece of art is great, but this piece of art is rubbish.

I can fully admit that Mozart, Williams, and Coltrane are masters at their art. I can also admit that Chuck D, Steve Vai, and Primus are masters of their art. Yes they are different styles of art, but they are all great.

All Daniel and Guitarman are asking you to do is define what greatness is so we can apply that rubric to all art.


----------



## re-peat

Stiltzkin @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Greg @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great music can't be captured in theory, analysis or opinions. The very greatness of music laughs in the face of analysis and opinion. Which has been my point all along.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat:
> 
> "The difference between me considering Beethoven’s music great and you considering Jablonsky’s great, is that I can built my case entirely on strictly musical arguments, whereas you are obliged to drag in a whole non-musical context — film and emotion — to validate Jablonsky’s music. "
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Stiltzkin,

You feel those two statements of mine contradict one another? Well, I don't. They would have (contradicted one another), if I ever had pretended to be omniscient about everything that makes great music as great as it is, and how to write it. Unfortunately, I don't have that knowledge. Nobody has, I believe. I recognize sublime music when I hear it, I can even point out most of the elements that contribute to that greatness, but the final element — that elusive, eternally-enigmatic, impossible-to-pin-down ingredient which gives great music, and its listeners, wings — remains an unanalyzable mystery to me.

_


----------



## Darthmorphling

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay is basically just using the ever popular tone that academics use, "I know why it is better, and you can't possibly come to any conclusion that disproves my educated view, so just accept what I say as gospel."
> 
> I am saying no such thing. I am under no illusion that people will accept what I say as gospel nor do I think I have earned the right to have people just accept what I say as gospel. I am just stating my convictions.
> 
> However, I do believe and always will believe that in most cases an educated opinion is worth more than an uneducated opinion. Not a popular view I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This I agree with whole heartedly. When an educated person never listens to what others say, they are really just learned people that no longer have a desire to step outside of their comfort zone and realize that what they have learned may not be the be all end all. However, you and Piet are both espousing your educated views as being the absolute final say in what makes "great" music "great". You do what many politicians do and speak around issues enough to never fully backup what you say. You can claim that you recognize greatness in various genres of music, but I still don't think you will ever recognize greatness in any genre that is outside of your little bubble. This is where an educated opinion is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no expectations that my views are or should be the final say. But I find It ironic that when I state my convictions in a confident manner that is the conclusion some reach. Isn't an unequivocable belief in something exactly what a conviction is?
Click to expand...


Ken Hamm has an unequivocable belief, a conviction if you will, that T-Rex was an herbivore before Adam ate the forbidden fruit. A conviction isn't a fact.


----------



## Darthmorphling

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I recognize sublime music when I hear it, I can even point out most of the elements that contribute to that greatness, but the final element — that elusive, eternally-enigmatic, impossible-to-pin-down ingredient which gives great music, and its listeners, wings — remains an unanalyzable mystery to me.
> 
> _



If you cannot figure out this mystery, then perhaps the greatness in a piece of art you find lacking, is beyond your ability to recognize it as great.


----------



## Stradibaldi

> talent is a gift.



Talk about saying the same thing twice with different words and explaining nothing!



> "We should know better" comes across as an extremely arrogant viewpoint.



There is necessarily a distinction in *music comprehension* between people who can read/write music, and people who can't. 

To people on the other side of that line, the process of creating music is mysterious because they don't understand the building blocks of music's language yet they recognize that music has such a tremendous emotional impact. So to them, music is practically abracadabra, a magical formula that conjures something from nothing.

I believe this is the genealogy of terms like "genius" "talent" "gift" to describe composers.

As composers, yes, we SHOULD "know better." That's not arrogance, it's literacy. We know that a rising minor sixth feels a particular way, i-bVI feels a particular way, etc.

*We can use techniques or elements of compositional craft with conscious deliberation and we can discover those elements of craft in the works of other composers.*



> I'm sorry, but understanding why something works is very different from being able to come up with it on your own.



It's a first and necessary step. The rest is craft -



> If solid training and education isn’t synonymous with craft, what else, I wonder, is required?



Experience, practice, a body of work, the courage to experiment, the willingness to learn from your own mistakes, the humility to realize everyone successful has something to teach you, the ability to spot patterns and figure out what different successful works have in common.



> I know of no greater Williams student and Superman-connaisseur than Mike Verta.



With much respect to Mike, I'd put Jeremy Soule first in line.

Also this idea that nobody has ever written in JW's style before or since JW is rather odd. Have you never heard of William Walton?


----------



## Darthmorphling

Here is a phenomenal article that everyone here should read:

http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-sm ... bad-ideas/

"That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring."


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Darth, I can't. No one can. But over the centuries, people collectively seem to know it when they hear it or see it and that is why it endures.

Not everything that is true is quantifiable.

Here is what I think some of you are missing about me. i am 66. I didn't start thinking about this stuff _yesterday_. As a student at Boston Conservatory in the '60's I spent countless hours with my fellow students discussing and pondering the nature of art and I have continued to think about it over over 40 MORE YEARS.

This of course does not necessarily matter to anyone but myself and it does not make my views empirically correct. And my views have changed somewhat over the years but it is not surprising that they have been distilled to some core beliefs:

1. There is higher and lower art and depth and complexity are part of it. The rest cannot necessarily be measured but collectively over time, people usually recognize it.

2. While hard work and study can make one approach greatness, true artistic genius is a gift that relatively few have.

3. That you don't have to cognitively understand everything that makes something great to know it is great. And vice versa.

OK, I think I am done as there is little that remains to be said that has not been said and I have no interest in throwing labels at people or swapping insults. My views are my views and I wholeheartedly believe in them. If you do not, that is just fine.


----------



## Stradibaldi

> Here you are unfortunately simply parroting Leonard Bernstein's unfortunate comments to Maximilian Schell.



I'm aware of those comments but this is also based on my study of Beethoven. The idea of color for color's sake which is so crucial to film, just doesn't seem to come along until the 20th century.



> "That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring."



I like this. Like I said above, "anyone successful has something to teach you." 

The whole conversation seems tangential in that light. Like when I sit down to transcribe some Brian Tyler, do I care if he's high art or not? Do I care if he's TRYING to be high art or not?

I just care that there's some elements of craft there that I can learn.


----------



## Stiltzkin

re-peat @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Stiltzkin,
> 
> You feel those two statements of mine contradict one another? Well, I don't. They would have (contradicted one another), if I ever had pretended to be omniscient about everything that makes great music as great as it is, and how to write it. Unfortunately, I don't have that knowledge. Nobody has, I believe. I recognize sublime music when I hear it, I can even point out most of the elements that contribute to that greatness, but the final element — that elusive, eternally-enigmatic, impossible-to-pin-down ingredient which gives great music, and its listeners, wings — remains an unanalyzable mystery to me.
> 
> _



Yes I feel they do. The second section of the quote, saying that you can reduce an argument down to musical terms as to why something is "great" is not something you would be able to do without also allowing for counter arguments. For example, if you took the 5th and expressed why it was just an amazing symphony (as you did earlier in this thread) about how clever he was to use one single idea and turn it into a huge symphony, that's a technical excersice in composition. Beethoven did of course pay extremely close attention to harmonic interest throughout the piece, but if he hadn't, would that still be a great piece of music? Would it be remembered throughout time? There is a lot of concert music that is extremely clever but almost certainly won't stand the test of time, but does it make it any less great? The moment taste comes in to it, I do not feel there is any argument possible in terms comparison, you can't convince someone to like something. And then if left to simply an analysis of compositional technique, there is a lot of experimental music that isn't considered great that would qualify but doesn't, simply because they decided to express their ideas with atonality which the masses will generally dislike.


----------



## mducharme

Perhaps somebody can answer my related question, which is an honest question, about "Hybrid" music (I have never composed any "Hybrid" pieces, as a background). It is something that I have often wondered about, but never found the time or place to ask. It seems to fit with this discussion, so I thought I would throw it in here (since most 'epic' music is hybrid as well).

I think I understand the appeal of hybrid music, to create new and interesting sounds going beyond the 'traditional' orchestra. I can understand and appreciate that.

The one part that I do not understand is that in most cases the 'hybrid' music which is written strikes me as using such a limited palette of what the orchestra is actually capable of. There are so many different sounds that the orchestra can make, so many different unique timbres, which are often going underutilized in 'hybrid' music that I hear. Instead, I hear a lot of very 'traditional' articulations and instrument deployments, and reliance entirely on synthesizers to create new and unusual timbres.

Is it that people do not have an understanding of what the orchestra is capable of in terms of creating unusual timbres, or is it that the sample libraries cannot pull off those unusual timbres in a convincing way (unlike a live orchestra)? Otherwise, I cannot fathom why people would limit the orchestra to doing only straightforward timbres and textures when it can do so much more? It seems to me to be a contradiction to do such unusual and interesting things with the synthesizers and limiting the orchestra to doing things that are so traditional and standard (aside from increased section sizes ex. 18 horns).

I am asking in all seriousness, with no intent to insult anybody. It is just something I have not quite wrapped my head around and would like some enlightenment.

EDIT: When I say 'orchestra' I mean the traditional orchestral complement, not including ethnic instruments, choirs, etc.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Oooh good, three hours of posts and not everyone's arguing about a slightly different old chestnut, thank goodness for that. I'm actually wholeheartedly with Piet and Jay et al on this occasion. Graft isn't enough on its own to be the best in pretty much any field. It's one of those daft false choices like nature / nurture, when it's clearly both.

I'll leave you all to it for now, it's exhausting just trying to keep up. Guess I won't be the best thread reader and contributor in history,


----------



## Sebastianmu

It is very unfortunate that things are being turned into ad hominem arguments on both sides rather unnecessarily. I find the ideas that are being discussed even at this stage of the thread very interesting!


----------



## re-peat

Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> (...) Strad's point might have been , that "genius", as perceived by the layman, is usually the result of a huge amount of work dedicated to one thing, a result of a significantly greater effort than 99.9% of people are willing to put into it. It's clear, for example, that John Williams never did anything but making music, from a very early age and with very good teachers.
> People say you can be a professional in any given field after putting an amount of 10.000 h of work into it, but of course it requires a whole life dedicated to one field to accomplish something that will be perceived as truely groundbreaking. (...)


Sebastian,

Firstly, no one — and I mean no one — is going to spend the best part of his or her life studying something for which he/she has no talent. That amount of studying, which far exceeds the regular hours which a ‘normal’ student puts in — requires an all-consuming passion and curiosity that can never be present without there being a remarkable talent to begin with.

Secondly, if talent doesn’t exist, or is of minor consequence, how do you explain the precocity of a Barenboim, barely seven when he gave his first public concert? Or Mendelssohn: sixteen-going-on-seventeen and already producing the wonderfully inspired ouverture to Midsummer Night’s Dream and an unbelievably good String Octet? Music on a level that most mature and fully educated composers never reach. How? And what about Mozart? Or Korngold? Or Saint-Saëns? Or Bizet: allowed to enter the Paris conservatory well before the minimum age and composing a magnificent first symphony only a few years later. How did that happen? 
Entire libraries can be filled with books discussing the music of Beethoven while most of the members here will never see the day that there’s a single paragraph written about theirs. Why is that? 

Talent, that’s why. Most people have none. Many have some. And a very select few have a phenomenal amount. 

I consider talent a fixed quantity that you're born with. I was given what I was given and that’s it, no more no less. I can increase my knowledge, yes, I can increase my mental well-being, yes, I can train and improve my technique, yes, but there’s nothing I can do, should I want to, about my talent, other then exploit it honestly, proudly and with integrity. 

_


----------



## guitarman1960

Darthmorphling @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Here is a phenomenal article that everyone here should read:
> 
> http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-sm ... bad-ideas/
> 
> "That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring."



Yes, that's a great read!

It's a shame that the elitists always deliberately misunderstand the opposing arguments and twist it into something that suits them to ridicule.

For example:
No-one is saying that there is no difference between a Rembrandt and a kids kindergarten doodle. 
No one is saying that there isn't great art and that everything is the same.
No-one is saying that prefab housing is artistic. 
No-one is saying there is no such thing as talent.
No-one is saying that skills and craft don't matter.

What I AM saying is that there are no measurements by which great classical music can be shown to be a superior artistic statement than for example great rock music, or great jazz music, or great electronic music. Or that a Rembrandt portrait is a superior artistic statement to a Roy Lichtenstein or Andy Warhol for example.
That IS just *OPINION !*


----------



## mducharme

Stradibaldi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> ducharme -
> 
> If you're talking about things like key clicks and multiphonics, look no further than INTERSTELLAR.
> 
> yes there is a certain line or lineage of epic music which probably traces through Gladiator, Pirates, etc. - muscular brass/string unisons, whole-note trombone stacks, spiccato ostinatos etc. but this is not all that hybrid has to offer.
> 
> but... extended techniques are extended for a reason. They're mostly pretty awkward and rarely sound great. if an extended technique is successful it will eventually just become part of the toolset (e.g. is _sul pont_ considered extended technique anymore?)



I should probably listen to Interstellar at some point, I haven't listened to any film scores in years outside of the film. I'm not necessarily including key clicks since that sound is usually much too quiet to really be of use (most performers adjust their instruments so that their keys do not make noise, or make as little as possible, which increasingly makes their use problematic). Such techniques that are too quiet generally fail in an orchestral performance, even on a concert stage.

The lineage you speak of is what I hear most often - those big loud unisons. I just often don't hear nearly as much variation in orchestral color in 'hybrid' music as I do in modern 'art music' (ex. Saariaho) or even in fully symphonic film scores (which are usually older).

Extended techniques can work really nicely, but I am not only talking about extended techniques. Some extended techniques are very quiet, and that would not work when you want a big loud full sound. Still, in quiet textures, some are quite usable, and are going underused or completely unused in film scoring. A good example I can think of for a composer who uses extended techniques nicely in film scoring is the composer for "True Blood", the score used the fingernail-on-the-piano-string in a creative way that worked nicely to picture. I rarely hear that, it is more common to use a synthesizer to create that "interesting timbre" element.

Even outside of extended techniques though, there are still many more inventive ways to use the orchestra that perhaps do not use articulations that are too unusual, but rather employ novel doublings of instruments or use of unusual register or spacing etc. I do not usually hear a lot of interesting new things there in 'hybrid' music, instead, mostly the 'lineage' you refer to. Although, perhaps my exposure to hybrid music has been limited (I have mostly been focused on modern 'art music' since that is what I am writing during my University studies).


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I think that anything that is a hybrid, by nature will reduce the detail of each part that is being combined. In my experience, something has to give from each part in order to create something new. The downside is that people who are looking for the complete version of each style will be disappointed. In an earlier part of my career, I used to combine electroacoustics and electronic/dance beats and sounds. The purists on each side were not convinced, to say the least!!

BTW, isn't it ironic that this thread is becoming... epic?! o[])


----------



## re-peat

Stiltzkin @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> (...) For example, if you took the 5th (...) that's a technical excersice in composition. (...)


There’s a lot more to it than just that, Stiltzkin. A lot more. Solid technique will get a composer through several bars of development, or through a variation or two, and help him knit a few transitions and a couple of endings, and probably even assist him with the broad lay-out of the entire piece, etc. … but it certainly doesn’t explain the avalanche of perplexing musical imagination and inventiveness that this symphony really is.
And I say 'perplexing', because in the presence of music like this, I am just like every article, every paper, every study, every analysis and every single book that’s ever been dedicated to the subject: quite unable to fully explain why things are happening the way they do, and even more unable to explain the talent that made it happen.
Let’s maybe ask Stradibaldi.

_


----------



## mducharme

Stiltzkin @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> And then if left to simply an analysis of compositional technique, there is a lot of experimental music that isn't considered great that would qualify but doesn't, simply because they decided to express their ideas with atonality which the masses will generally dislike.



Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are generally considered to be great (Webern especially), as are later composers such as Ligeti, etc. A lot of what they wrote was atonal, yet their works are the subject of much study and critical analysis. Just because something is not popular with the 'masses' does not mean that it cannot be great.


----------



## Sebastianmu

I know enough classically trained composers (that write contemporary concert music) that would laugh at the idea of considering John Williams to be a genius on the level of Mozart or Beethoven or Schoenberg or Ligeti. (just by the way)


----------



## Stiltzkin

mducharme @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Stiltzkin @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then if left to simply an analysis of compositional technique, there is a lot of experimental music that isn't considered great that would qualify but doesn't, simply because they decided to express their ideas with atonality which the masses will generally dislike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are generally considered to be great (Webern especially), as are later composers such as Ligeti, etc. A lot of what they wrote was atonal, yet their works are the subject of much study and critical analysis. Just because something is not popular with the 'masses' does not mean that it cannot be great.
Click to expand...


That's the point I was getting at.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Sebastianmu @ 22/6/2015 said:


> I know enough classically trained composers (that write contemporary concert music) that would laugh at the idea of considering John Williams to be a genius on the level of Mozart or Beethoven or Schoenberg or Ligeti. (just by the way)



Apples and oranges. Compare Williams to Herrmann, for eg, not to composers of concert music.


----------



## mducharme

Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I know enough classically trained composers (that write contemporary concert music) that would laugh at the idea of considering John Williams to be a genius on the level of Mozart or Beethoven or Schoenberg or Ligeti.



I know many such composers as well, but to me that's a really awkward comparison. If I were to list 20th century musical geniuses, Williams would probably be on there, but for a different reason than the others.

Schoenberg developed a new musical language (atonality, serialism) that broke with the past. Ligeti also developed a new musical language that moved away from melody and traditional harmony and instead directly implemented registral shapes, micropolyphony, interesting textures, etc.

On the other hand, John Williams achieved a synthesis of pre-existing musical genres but brought a level of craft to it that had been seldom achieved before. His gift for writing melodies and creating long developmental arcs is clear. But in terms of a brand new musical language, he didn't really create one as much as he synthesized what was already existing from different sources and different influences.

I think what happens sometimes is some 'art music' composers don't look at him as a genius because he wasn't trying to do something completely new with his music, he wasn't going off in a new experimental direction. I think it would be a mistake to dismiss his writing on that basis though.

Part of it is also likely because it gets so irritating to write experimental music and have people (who are not familiar with 'experimental art music') say "that sounds like it's from a horror movie" or "I don't like it, it sounds weird, why can't it be happy, there's no tune" etc. I think this in some cases fosters a type of resentment towards composers who write in a more traditional way that is more approachable to the audience, which comes across as a summary dismissal of their music, because those tonal composers take the "easy way out", in their way of thinking. 

It's also an over-correction for the imbalance of how experimental music is regarded - one who composes experimental music is tempted to dismiss other forms of music. They do this to counterbalance the usual dismissal of experimental music as a "bunch of noise" that anybody can make playing "random notes" on the piano etc. (Anybody who has written experimental music knows it's not that easy to get something good, playing 'random notes' just gets you a bunch of, well, random notes.) Having someone say "my cat could have composed that in 1 minute by walking on my keyboard" is an unfortunately common comment that is obviously horribly insulting and insensitive towards a composer who has spent hundreds of hours working on an atonal piece and carefully given it a clear motivic unity and logical form and interesting development. (Then, the same people who gave those comments wonder where this 'elitism' about 'art music' comes from.)

I also compose experimental 'art music'. Although I am frequently frustrated with how experimental music is looked down upon, I don't see trashing other more accessible forms of music as the answer.

Perhaps the situation with epic music bears some similarity to this.


----------



## dgburns

Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I know enough classically trained composers (that write contemporary concert music) that would laugh at the idea of considering John Williams to be a genius on the level of Mozart or Beethoven or Schoenberg or Ligeti. (just by the way)



Maybe I misunderstand the thrust of your argument.I understand it to mean that they judge Williams on his film scores?If so,I would put forward that writing for picture is a whole other enchilada then program music.
Again,maybe I misunderstand,but in my experience,music with picture is on a whole other playing field,where the interactions with dialog,action etc can have unforeseen consequences on what music will get syncronized up with it.And that music should not always be judged on it's own.
Actually I would rgue that sometimes the best film music actually is not complete without the other things,dialog,sfx and picture.And it takes alot of courage to write incomplete music that completes a higher purpose(the film).

Anyone who can keep a melody going in that comtext is ok in my books.


----------



## Markus S

muk @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> I wouldn't want to live in a world where you can't distinguish a kindergarten doodling from a Rembrandt in terms of artistic value.
> By the way, refinement, sophistication. A work of art is refined. While not being measurable with a yardstick it is not entirely subjective either. If you'd ask one hundred random persons which is more refined, a kindergarten doodling or a Rembrandt, I think the outcome would probably be something like 99 to 1, or 98 to 2 if you're unlucky. And yes, trailer music or a pop song can be just as refined as classical music.



I doubt simple aspects of quantity make a judgment more objective. If 99 out of 100 find something nice, it IS not nice, it is just perceived as nice by 99 out of 100 people. Still subjectively, though. If you believe this thing IS nice that one person who perceives differently is either objectively wrong, or has a false perception of the world. This is why I wouldn't want to live in a world with objective values. If you have even been this one person you will understand.


----------



## Markus S

AlexandreSafi @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> Markus S @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to live in a world with "objective values".
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" right & wrong don't exist,
> -
Click to expand...


Let's just take this. If you look at history you will see that people who believe they are "objectively" right can be very dangerous to others. Many times in life you will find that what you think is right, is not what another person might think is right. If one of you is objectively right, then the other one is objectively wrong. See the problem?


----------



## Guy Rowland

Markus S @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> Let's just take this. If you look at history you will see that people who believe they are "objectively" right can be very dangerous to others. Many times in life you will find that what you think is right, is not what another person might think is right. If one of you is objectively right, then the other one is objectively wrong. See the problem?



I agree with you. It's quite a tangent, but I notice certainly here in the UK the language of politicians has moved very much to the phrase "this is the right / wrong thing to do", presented as an inalienable fact when it's just opinion / politics / self interest. Genuine facts and moral complexity are ignored. We go to wars on this basis of a leader assuring us "it's the right thing to do".


----------



## blougui

dgburns @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> Sebastianmu @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough classically trained composers (that write contemporary concert music) that would laugh at the idea of considering John Williams to be a genius on the level of Mozart or Beethoven or Schoenberg or Ligeti. (just by the way)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand the thrust of your argument.I understand it to mean that they judge Williams on his film scores?If so,I would put forward that writing for picture is a whole other enchilada then program music.
> Again,maybe I misunderstand,but in my experience,music with picture is on a whole other playing field,where the interactions with dialog,action etc can have unforeseen consequences on what music will get syncronized up with it.And that music should not always be judged on it's own.
> Actually I would rgue that sometimes the best film music actually is not complete without the other things,dialog,sfx and picture.And it takes alot of courage to write incomplete music that completes a higher purpose(the film).
> 
> Anyone who can keep a melody going in that comtext is ok in my books.
Click to expand...


When in high school, some 30 years ago, a school mate trained in classical music (oboe) laughed at my admiration for Williams because for him, William's music was so heavily derivative (copy pasted) than from masters of the recent past. Of course, there was a bit of bragging int that assertion but as I grew older I understood what's involved into it.
More on that : I don't remember whose composer was who said he doesn't see the fun of listening to film music on a record, I mean out of the context of a film - probably Elfman.

Erik


----------



## guitarman1960

Guys, I have deleted this post, it was way over the top. Apologies!


----------



## Guy Rowland

Post deleted that quoted guitarman1960's own deleted post.


----------



## muk

Now you've gone completely over the top in my opinion.



guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> It's a shame that the elitists always deliberately misunderstand the opposing arguments and twist it into something that suits them to ridicule.
> 
> For example:
> No-one is saying that there is no difference between a Rembrandt and a kids kindergarten doodle.
> No one is saying that there isn't great art and that everything is the same.
> No-one is saying that prefab housing is artistic.
> No-one is saying there is no such thing as talent.
> No-one is saying that skills and craft don't matter.



This thread was interesting for me up to the point where personal accusations were made instead of trying to understand what each person is saying. Nowhere in this whole thread did I misunderstand anything *deliberately*. If I did misunderstand anybody I apologize, it was stupidity, not purpose.

But talking about misunderstandings:



guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 22 said:


> What I AM saying is that there are no measurements by which great classical music can be shown to be a superior artistic statement than for example great rock music, or great jazz music, or great electronic music. Or that a Rembrandt portrait is a superior artistic statement to a Roy Lichtenstein or Andy Warhol for example.
> That IS just *OPINION !*



If you read my comments you'll find that on every occasion I tried to make clear that in my opinion greatness is not something inherent to style. Not even inherent to the artform. And I don't remember any post claiming any such thing. In fact, I think this is as close to a deliberate misunderstanding of the purportedly elitist standpoint as it gets.


To end on a more positive note: Great post on page 10 JohnG.


----------



## guitarman1960

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Tue Jun 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markus S @ Tue Jun 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexandreSafi @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markus S @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to live in a world with "objective values".
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> Are you sure you would want to live in a world where everyone "KNOWS" right & wrong don't exist,
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just take this. If you look at history you will see that people who believe they are "objectively" right can be very dangerous to others. Many times in life you will find that what you think is right, is not what another person might think is right. If one of you is objectively right, then the other one is objectively wrong. See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly why elitists who claim their opinions of what is great are right and your opinion is wrong are one step away from Nazism, Racism, White Supremacists, ISIS etc. And being open minded is not Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good lord, there it is - Godwin's Law strikes again. From Epic Music to Nazism in 12 pages.
Click to expand...


I have deleted my post, it was over the top, wrong and offensive. Apologies.


----------



## guitarman1960

muk @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> Now you've gone completely over the top in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that the elitists always deliberately misunderstand the opposing arguments and twist it into something that suits them to ridicule.
> 
> For example:
> No-one is saying that there is no difference between a Rembrandt and a kids kindergarten doodle.
> No one is saying that there isn't great art and that everything is the same.
> No-one is saying that prefab housing is artistic.
> No-one is saying there is no such thing as talent.
> No-one is saying that skills and craft don't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was interesting for me up to the point where personal accusations were made instead of trying to understand what each person is saying. Nowhere in this whole thread did I misunderstand anything *deliberately*. If I did misunderstand anybody I apologize, it was stupidity, not purpose.
> 
> But talking about misunderstandings:
> 
> 
> 
> guitarman1960 @ Mon Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I AM saying is that there are no measurements by which great classical music can be shown to be a superior artistic statement than for example great rock music, or great jazz music, or great electronic music. Or that a Rembrandt portrait is a superior artistic statement to a Roy Lichtenstein or Andy Warhol for example.
> That IS just *OPINION !*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read my comments you'll find that on every occasion I tried to make clear that in my opinion greatness is not something inherent to style. Not even inherent to the artform. And I don't remember any post claiming any such thing. In fact, I think this is as close to a deliberate misunderstanding of the purportedly elitist standpoint as it gets.
> 
> 
> To end on a more positive note: Great post on page 10 JohnG.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that you personally have deliberately misunderstood, but others here have certainly tried to claim that I am inferring a Rembrandt is no better than a kindergarten doodle, or prefab housing is as artistic as a cathedral. Even to the point that my open mindedness has been accused of being Stalinist.


----------



## asherpope

Geez for a forum that attracts a lot of "full timers", there seems to be a whole lot of jibber jabber going on


----------



## artsoundz

Welcome to V.I Control! 
And...uh..... your name is so friggin ironic.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Phew! Lots of different view points here.....

Continuing in the spirit of not being on topic in this thread which has become far more interesting for me anyway.

Sure, one can study all there is to study in music. I suppose, one should always learn as much as possible about the craft. 

But in my experience so far, I do believe that no matter how well you are educated or no matter how much experience you have, it is still not enough to write music like any of the greats in any genre of music. When I mean music _like_ any of the greats (any genre), I mean sure you can write something like that. But to come up with that imagination and inventiveness is not the same thing.

We can go through Beethoven's 5th note by note and analyse it. Yes, we can understand how it works, we can play it. 

But, the music came first. The _invention_ and the _imagination_ fired up, gave us that music and _then_ we analysed it. 

You can understand the craft of it and appreciate the brilliance in the music. But, does that help you in creating something equivalent in terms of pure composition - coming up with something that brilliant in any genre?

I am not sure. The craft and the tools are there to help you realise your imaginative, inventive and ground breaking ideas. 

But, first you must have the idea. Beyond a point, it becomes clear in one's life that it does not have much to do with training but something that cannot be explained. However, the training must first be there for this unexplained entity to take shape. Wow, that sounds contradictory but I don't know how else to put it. 

I worry very little about these things. I just submerge myself in the learning. But on occasion when you do think about it, it does become very clear.

There is no reason to be depressed about this. I am not looking for greatness through my music. I just want to be able to write till I want to write. I want to get better at writing music, work with really great people and enjoy the process of making music. 

If I can do that successfully for the better part of my life, I will be happy. 

For me to think that my music will ever amount to anything monumental is border line crazy. I could (unknowingly) write something like that - just because there is a possibility from a scientific stand-point. However, all the evidence so far will point you against that 

Someone surely will in some genre of music. It could be anyone. There is no way of predicting surely or for anyone to do something that will surely lead to this result except work on your chops and allow for this to happen through your technique. 

But, once someone does - it is abundantly clear and this is where *Peit's* point of music changing from being subjective to objective makes complete sense to me. 

I guess what Piet and lots of other people are trying to say is that the imagination of one's mind has little to do with craft. But solid craftsmanship must be there in the first place to realise this imagination.

If it makes any sense!


Tanuj.


----------



## guitarman1960

I agree with 99% of what you are saying there. The idea and the creativity are what takes something beyond the craft and technique. Yes for sure. Hans Zimmer mentioned in a previous thread about everyone copying The Dark Knight thing, that it is the 'idea' not the notes or the exact sounds that are important. 
The sticking point for me is how you can say that this creativity becomes an 'objective' fact. Not sure how you arrive at that?
It obviously can't be based on popularity. Look how many millions love X-Factor.
It is not an objective fact because lots of 'experts', critics and academics write grandiose analysis of it, expressing their subjective opinion that it is deep or great.
In what way is it objective?

p.s. Just for the record in case I get misunderstood again, I am not saying that art cannot be deep or great BTW.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Yay, great post Tanuj.


----------



## Ozymandias

guitarman1960 @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> p.s. Just for the record in case I get misunderstood again, I am not saying that art cannot be deep or great BTW.



If I'm following you, you believe individual things can be great, but your problem is with collections of things being great (e.g. classical music).

Is that right? If so, what is special about collections of things that makes the notion of a "great genre" elitist?

Just trying to get a handle on your perspective.


----------



## guitarman1960

Ozymandias @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Wed Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. Just for the record in case I get misunderstood again, I am not saying that art cannot be deep or great BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm following you, you believe individual things can be great, but your problem is with collections of things being great (e.g. classical music).
> 
> Is that right? If so, what is special about collections of things that makes the notion of a "great genre" elitist?
> 
> Just trying to get a handle on your perspective.
Click to expand...


Hi, it's not a problem with a collection of things being great. Stravinsky, Ravel, Mahler, Bach, can all be great. In the same way that Zimmer, Williams, Morricone call all be great film music, and Miles Davis, Coltrane, and Billy Cobham can all be great jazz music. There is a lot of music in every genre that is great, average, and also a lot of 'going through the motions' rubbish too. However, if you try to say that it is an objective fact that great classical music is on a level above great rock music, or great jazz music, that is, and can only ever be subjective opinion. There are no objective measurements that prove that.

The purpose, ideas, intention, skill set, and intended audience are all completely different, you cannot compare them in order to draw the conclusion that one has more artistic merit than the other. I got a lot of ridicule for saying that there are no objective measurements that prove a Rembrandt portrait has more artistic merit than a piece of Andy Warhol art. I still stand by that statement. That doesn't mean I am saying that a Rembrandt is not great art.


----------



## Ozymandias

Okay. But if an objective measurement is needed to prove that a Rembrandt work is better than a Warhol, why is a metric not needed to prove that a Rembrandt work is great by itself?


----------



## guitarman1960

Ozymandias @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Okay. But if an objective measurement is needed to prove that a Rembrandt work is better than a Warhol, why is a metric not needed to prove that a Rembrandt work is great by itself?



That's a fair question, but really comes down to how well it expresses it's idea and communicates that expression to its audience, maybe also together with some appreciation of the techniques and skill set, although that of course varies from genre to genre. Some genres aren't concerned with technical skills at all.

A Rembrandt can be judged on how well it achieves it's aim, and also how well the artist uses his talent and technical skills to convey what he wants to say.

A Warhol work can also be judged on how well it achieves it's aim, and communicates it's idea, not through painterly craft and technique, but by questioning in a very original and influential way the very nature of what is traditionally called 'art'.

They both succeed, but in completely different ways.

To return to Epic music.
It is as pointless to say that an Epic Hybrid trailer track does not have the technical complexity, subtlety, or extended harmonic development of traditional classical music, as it is to say where are the glitched risers, reverse impacts and sub-bass in a traditional classical piece.


----------



## ed buller

guitarman1960 @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> To return to Epic music.
> It is as pointless to say that an Epic Hybrid trailer track does not have the technical complexity, subtlety, or extended harmonic development of traditional classical music, as it is to say where are the glitched risers, reverse impacts and sub-bass in a traditional classical piece.



I'm really sorry. I don't mean to be rude.......but i must say I think that utter nonsense .


e


----------



## guitarman1960

That's fair enough for you to think that, but would you care to explain in what ways it is nonsense?
I am merely showing that the two things are different languages, created with completely different intentions for completely different purposes.
It's like a heavy metal fan complaining that dubstep is rubbish because it doesn't have any guitar solos. Now THAT of course is nonsense.

Traditional orchestral classical music is not some god like template of quality to which all other forms of music are to be compared to. It is merely a style, and quite a dated and restrictive one at that.


----------



## Guy Rowland

guitarman1960 @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Traditional orchestral classical music is not some god like template of quality to which all other forms of music are to be compared to.



Looked at logically, it's hard to come to any other conclusion really. Music has been with us for at least 30,000 years. Mankind kept developing musical instruments in different cultures, slowly getting more sophisticated as the ages rolled by. The western orchestra is a mere 400 years old, which is one specific collection (with variations) of reasonably sophisticated man-made instruments, each with limited timbre. It couldn't possibly be argued that this is the ultimate musical palette to which mankind, and its greatest artists, will ever have at their disposal. Of course that's true now, logically, although even crude electric instruments have only been with us for 70 years, hardly any time at all to start getting to grips with them.

It's interesting to speculate where music will go in the next 400 years (should mankind manage to make it that long, which is reasonably doubtful). Surely things won't just stay as they are in perpetuity, endless similar variations of jazz, classical, EDM, rock. But if not that - what? Where WILL it go? (I know - John Williams' Cantina Band, right?)

What I presume those of the higher-art camp will wish to argue is that the composition itself of the greats given the limited palette available, has achieved greater depth in the classical form than any other (jazz in 2nd place presumably?). We have, of course, been there many many times in this thread, hardly worth bothering again - we all think what we think on that.

But I find myself wondering what a composer with a gift such has Mozart, Bach or Beethoven might have done with a different palette entirely. It's an interesting thought experiment - throw out the notions of what higher-art music is supposed to actually sound like, but keep that magical gift of composition (however we each choose to define that).

It wouldn't all sound like "experimental music", I don't think. Many of the masters had too great a melodic gift, and their music was accessible to all then and now. Neither, I suspect, would be like Tomita, which was really a fairly literal interpretation substituting electronic for traditional instruments. Easy to think what it wouldn't sound like - but much harder to imagine what it WOULD sound like, isn't it?

Unless it's Kanye all along.


----------



## Greg

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Wed Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional orchestral classical music is not some god like template of quality to which all other forms of music are to be compared to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looked at logically, it's hard to come to any other conclusion really.
Click to expand...


>8o >8o >8o >8o >8o >8o >8o >8o >8o >8o

Thanks for the discussion y'all but at this point it's obvious that this has become a creative stifling hell hole. I will be sticking only to topics about gear and technique from now on. Unless I feel the need to force up some bad lunch.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Way to engage with rationality, Greg. Did you read the rest of the post, I wonder?

People believe what they want to believe, and - I also think - read what they want to read.


----------



## Greg

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Way to engage with rationality, Greg. Did you read the rest of the post, I wonder?
> 
> People believe what they want to believe, and - I also think - read what they want to read.



Yeah I read it it's nice aside from that first line. I just don't want to engage anymore, this discussion has too many toxic undertones. See you guys in some other thread


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

guitarman1960 @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> I agree with 99% of what you are saying there. The idea and the creativity are what takes something beyond the craft and technique. Yes for sure. Hans Zimmer mentioned in a previous thread about everyone copying The Dark Knight thing, that it is the 'idea' not the notes or the exact sounds that are important.
> The sticking point for me is how you can say that this creativity becomes an 'objective' fact. Not sure how you arrive at that?
> It obviously can't be based on popularity. Look how many millions love X-Factor.
> It is not an objective fact because lots of 'experts', critics and academics write grandiose analysis of it, expressing their subjective opinion that it is deep or great.
> In what way is it objective?
> 
> p.s. Just for the record in case I get misunderstood again, I am not saying that art cannot be deep or great BTW.




I think there is some confusion here and a fair amount of overly hyper one directional thinking. 

Not saying that about what you have written. Just generally speaking. 

I am not comparing genres or saying classical music is better than any other form of music. 

When people say that there is more depth in music that was written 200 years ago than what many artists are dishing out today, this is largely true if you account for what you call the 'X-factor' crowd (Never seen the show). There are about a dozen now even on Indian television. 

This is not only applicable to music. You look at manufacturing of many products. 

Go back in time and think about those sturdy IBM laptops. They used to call them think pads I think. 

And look at a thousand models from Lenovo or other brands today. They are flimsy and do not last very long. Still enough companies making really great products though. 

Nobody here is trying to compare 'Barbie Girl' to Beethoven's 5th. No argument there on which is better musically and more satisfying on a deeper level. This is in our weird world of music an almost objective fact. 

If you throw out all objectivity completely, what are the teachers to teach children in music schools? Nobody was great, anyone can do anything and it does not matter.

I am not getting into any genre bashing. I like a lot of music. There is so much fantastic music from so many genres. Some of them are not to my personal liking but nonetheless so much great music. 

Western classical music holds its high ground because of many factors. Like Guy has said, it was developed over many many years. They figured out polyphony, panning, depth, frequency range etc. What we have now in our tool set, much of it is derived from this wonderful history of orchestral music. 

I am from India. We on the other hand have not witnessed this kind of evolution. Indian classical is largely monophonic music, passed on from a guru. There is a lot of interpretation and free form development. Each time something is performed, it will be different. 

Now I am not going to say that Western classical music is better or that Indian music is better. It would be an absurd comparison. 

But there is a massive respect for Indian classical music even today. There are many reasons for it.

Nothing is really out-dated. Perhaps only in production music and in certain styles. 

Older orchestral music has so much to offer. It is very rich and complex. It was championed over hundreds of years. 

At my university in Leicester, massive research was being conducted in electro-acoustic music when I was studying there. There is still no strict nomenclature. We can say oh...mark a staccato here, arco there. What do you say for electronic music? Not much can be at the moment. 

These are still early days for a lot of genres. 

So, there will be a deep respect for orchestral music always for many reasons. 

Why do people like listening to Mozart or Beethoven after hundreds of years? 

Do you think its because of marketing or that by now it is clear, a sort of judgement has been passed? 

The greats from traditional orchestral music are greats for many reasons. This is irrefutable for me personally at least. Of course, much of other kind of music has had less time.

If anything is out-dated, it is electronic music from the 70's, 80's etc. 

You write something in the style of Mahler today and it still works better.

Try doing a 70's electronic piece of music in the next film and then we can have further discussions!

Early electronic music is good too but it is so new and currently it does not age well. Not all of it I suppose but a lot of it!

All my opinions of course, you may disagree with them.


----------



## KEnK

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> ...I find myself wondering what a composer with a gift such has Mozart, Bach or Beethoven might have done with a different palette entirely. It's an interesting thought experiment - throw out the notions of what higher-art music is supposed to actually sound like, but keep that magical gift of composition (however we each choose to define that)...


We've heard that those guys were great improvisors.
(Though I can't imagine how Beethoven managed w/ the hearing loss)
So I think maybe like Ellington, or even Gil Evans, w/ a tad of Sun Ra thrown in.

And as a nod to the Indian Classical Tradition-
Julian Bream, the great Classical guitarist said that 
Ali Akbar Khan was like Bach.
They worked together briefly.
Bream was quite enamored w/ Khan's mind as a player.
Quite a complement.

I did have the great fortune of seeing Ali Akbar Khan w/ Zakir Hussain.
An astounding musical experience.

k


----------



## blougui

Tanuj Tiku said:


> If anything is out-dated, it is electronic music from the 70's, 80's etc.


I won't go into the old classical vs new modern argument, but on a side note and on this very point I think electro clash acts (to sum up ) or even the French Touch, or the Moroder come-back or the score from the remake of Maniac, or the score from Virgin Suicide have proved that the electronic music from the 70's or the 80's can be reused, rearranged, reproduced and find a large audience who appreciate such a revival and do not find it outdated at all.

What I do find myself is that albums from the 60's, 70s, 80s are really dated soundwise, because of the sound production, the overhyped sounds coming from some presets or some specific gear or some arrangements, orchestration, whatever. And to say the least, it's easy for someone a tad educated to know when a - lets say - classical piece was composed, because it is dated, "covered with signs" of its era of inception.

Furthermore, let's not forget that "the crowd" - and I include myself into it - only knows who stood the test of time. A LOT of music has been written which have disappeared for one reason or another, some of them might be just because they were not worth remembering. I know it's not contradictory to anything anyone has said here, but I keep saying to myself, ok, there's a lot of ridiculous electronic stuff published in the 70's - and Youtube is a place to start to fetch one of these nuggets - but still, the 2 first JM Jarre album stand the test of time, as a lot of Vangelis or Kraftwerk, and I cannot say I find them outdated at all and don't feel like I'm the only one thinking so .

Erik

_sorry for my english..._


----------



## Living Fossil

Tanuj Tiku said:


> We can go through Beethoven's 5th note by note and analyse it. Yes, we can understand how it works, we can play it.
> 
> But, the music came first. The _invention_ and the _imagination_ fired up, gave us that music and _then_ we analysed it.
> 
> You can understand the craft of it and appreciate the brilliance in the music. But, does that help you in creating something equivalent in terms of pure composition - coming up with something that brilliant in any genre?



Actually, that's a bit of a oversimplified view...
Composers never were zombies, driven only by their inner inspiration, leaving their creations for an analyzing world of admirers.

Composition technique always consisted on tons of analysis.
When Beethoven wrote his 5th (and also other pieces that didn't became mere name-dropping-clichées for people, who don't know much about Beethoven, but like to her themselves speaking about Beethoven),
he had an immense knowledge in his mind that was part of the extensive training he had, and also of his own efforts in the fields of musical analysis.

And basically that's what's one of the reasons why the european traditional "classical" music became so complex:
it was analyzed an taught in a very comprehensive way, and throuh this clear analysis composers with more originality could better work on borders of the models and surpass them.

Today, there is more accurate analysis in the fields of production technique (and in fact, there is a lot of well produced music out there).
The strucural complexity is on the decline, the use of tonality has an average level that's around early renaissance. And polyphony is something that has been erased from many stiles.

But: if there is an inner need for those parameters that are not so popular at the moment, they will find their way back into music..


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

@Living Fossil

I don't know why you need to bring up something like 'people like to hear themselves speaking of Beethoven' while quoting my post?

I find it ridiculous and snobbish as if I could never understand Beethoven and used the 5th as an example because that is the only piece of music I have ever heard from Beethoven.

The structural complexity today is not on a decline because you are saying it on some forum - care to provide any proof? 

You speak of Beethoven's music and someone like me who cannot possibly understand it because apparently Beethoven wrote it for a small group of super-intelligent humans. 

To all the people who seem to have lost their common sense -

It is fairly simple - Millions of people study things even outside of music but only a few of them are classed geniuses. 

Why this basic concept is so difficult to understand for people is beyond me. 

And please stop taking jabs at fellow members. This is absolutely disgusting behavior. We are all trying to have a meaningful debate here. 

Fine, you do not agree with me. No worries there absolutely! But to assume that I am some idiot, who likes to quote Beethoven even though I do not understand it, is just ridiculous!


----------



## dgburns

I read both posts Tanuj,and I'm not sure there is any negative in his post(living fossil).I also agree with what you said too,so go figure.
I think it's not so easy to make blanket statements these days,I'm a little lost at trying to figure out where we are all at musically.But I can say for sure that there is this need for those of us who write and compose to try and find something new to say,so maybe that's where the challenge lies.What do you write today that is not derivitive of something that came before,and so loses a bit of the newness that makes music so exciting.
I do think music takes on the complexion of the times,and back on the classical period,things were much more formal,and so maybe music took on that same structure.More emphasis on form and analysis that showed craft.
To say that music today does not follow the same level of craft is a blanket statement that simply cannot be true for everyone.We are all at differing levels of skill and technical knowledge.And it is up to us to be open to the fact we all have much more to learn .More needs to be learned then what we already know.In fact it's so vast that at times I feel it is simply ridiculous that I have any confidence to put pen to paper and think anything I come up with is worth the time/effort to apply myself in the first place.
In my particular case,I am on a schedule for the next year on a project that requires delivery every week,so the agony of confusion at my lack of skill is put aside by the terror of not delivering on time.Somehow it all works out and I write what makes others happy.But it remains that without that formal structure of a schedule,I would simply not write anything that would likely make me happy enough to show it to anyone.
Somehow I can't help thinking that it might have been the same throughout the ages,that is,composers needing to write to make a living rather then for the sport of it.After all,music should be about making others happy too,it's the sharing that gives you that feedback loop so ever elusive to those without a formal outlet like a film or tv show or whatever as a platform.

Just some rambling....And after all is said,what the hell do I know anyway.


----------



## guitarman1960

Maybe we could get back to the original topic for a while, that's if the elitists (you know who you are) can actually manage to climb down from their high horse for a while and try to actually have a rational discussion.
I feel that the 'Epic' style has become very popular for a few fairly simple reasons. One of those is that it conveys an instant sense of grandeur, and lends instant gravitas to the most banal of films, games, TV series, sports events, etc etc. Because it takes stylistic and sonic cues from the world of epic classical and soundtrack music and then mashes that together with hybrid production techniques for that larger than life wall of sound and throws in sounds and compositional techniques from EDM and Dubstep in an attempt to sound 'relevant' and 'cred' and appeal to as wide a demographic as possible, with the biggest most adrenalin filled sound possible, to sell tickets, games, make you sit glued to Sky Sports, or whatever by generating as much fake excitement and lending an air of monumental earth shaking importance to everything from The Champions League football, to choosing the winner on Masterchef, to the latest mega million dollar Hollywood blockbuster. Everything has to have the appearance of being even more earth shatteringly monumental than everything else.
So the market for music that fulfills that purpose has grown, a lot of people see it as a lucrative opportunity, and all the sample libraries are there to create it with.
Like any genre that spawns legions of imitators, most of it is very average at best, some truly dire, and some really great, with some works of genius thrown in.
No different to any popular genre, and no different to the genre of traditional classical music either, which is not a 'superior' genre in any way shape or form.
Thank you!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Grandiosity more frequently than grandeur and gravitas, in my elitist opinion.


----------



## guitarman1960

EastWest Lurker said:


> Grandiosity more frequently than grandeur and gravitas, in my elitist opinion.


Yes, grandiosity certainly, when I said 'instant grandeur', and 'instant gravitas' that was kind of what I meant, it pushes those buttons by using stylistic cues from classical and film music etc, such as screaming choirs and massive horn stabs and ostinatos, that are immediately associated with grand, important things to add 'fake gravitas' if you like.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Guiarman - I think you've very neatly summed up my problem with where Epic has gone. It was used last year to adverstise BBC Parliament, a narcoleptic's dream of a channel where even those on screen fail to stay awake.

What of course has happened is that since it is so ubiquitous, now everything sounds... kinda boring. When you have 48 french horns, 64 cellos, a choir of a 1,000, dubstep bass modulated with 14 LFOs, glitch fx, 12 layered kick drums and another dozen snares... where do you go from there exactly?

It's become a product of available technology. Back in the day, getting a big sound was hard and everyone aspired to it with their meagre resources. By accident, some found that less could be more. But now there are no brakes - there's always the temptation to just add another 100 players because they're right there on the template.... look, just record enable, bash in some stuff, hit quantize and there you go. It's way harder to get a subtle and nuanced performance out of a single acoustic instrument - gee, you gotta set up the mic in a half decent room for a start, and then get in someone with talent who can play the damn thing.

But hey, let's not beat ourselves up over it. The real problem is the marketing bozo from BBC Parliament who decided that making parliamentary debate sound like the apocalypse made sense in the first place.


----------



## guitarman1960

Guy Rowland said:


> Guiarman - I think you've very neatly summed up my problem with where Epic has gone. It was used last year to adverstise BBC Parliament, a narcoleptic's dream of a channel where even those on screen fail to stay awake.
> 
> What of course has happened is that since it is so ubiquitous, now everything sounds... kinda boring. When you have 48 french horns, 64 cellos, a choir of a 1,000, dubstep bass modulated with 14 LFOs, glitch fx, 12 layered kick drums and another dozen snares... where do you go from there exactly?
> 
> It's become a product of available technology. Back in the day, getting a big sound was hard and everyone aspired to it with their meagre resources. By accident, some found that less could be more. But now there are no brakes - there's always the temptation to just add another 100 players because they're right there on the template.... look, just record enable, bash in some stuff, hit quantize and there you go. It's way harder to get a subtle and nuanced performance out of a single acoustic instrument - gee, you gotta set up the mic in a half decent room for a start, and then get in someone with talent who can play the damn thing.
> 
> But hey, let's not beat ourselves up over it. The real problem is the marketing bozo from BBC Parliament who decided that making parliamentary debate sound like the apocalypse made sense in the first place.



Totally agree, and although I do really like some modern epic trailer music when it is done exceedingly well, it has reached total saturation point now. I watch a lot of Sky Sports and every single trailer for everything on Sky Sports is now some portentous voice-over with frantic Epic music blasting away in the background. Don't know where we go from here really, because once everything is always turned up to 11, it's kind of difficult for the marketing people to actually want something that is subtler.

My personal hate with advertising music at the moment is that nauseatingly sickly deliberately 'naive' kind of 'folk' style used on a lot of bank and car advertising, with someone singing all hyper delicate and partly out of tune while slowly picking some beginners level guitar, where the whole thing deliberately sounds like they recorded it in their bedroom on a smartphone. The exact opposite of Epic, but so absolutely nauseating, you can just picture the marketing meeting it sprang from.


----------



## almound

I find it difficult to reply without mentioning Beethoven or "grandiosity."

EPIC. Why its over-done. That's one reason to avoid the style. And yet, I would be the first to encourage someone to write an EPIC piece were they able to say something new in the genre. As dgburns commented,


> there is this need for those of us who write and compose to try and find something new to say



And that's the real problem, in my opinion. What to say? 

In this day and age, many people can buy the means to create music, and most of those that can buy can figure out thereafter how to get a sound out of the box. Once accomplished, though, the choice then becomes whether to join in with the rest of the crowd in small talk, senseless chatter, drivel, etc. ... the sonic equivalent of gossip ... or else to attempt to say something individual, perhaps not original yet nevertheless unique, a statement of one's existenz (yeah, with a "z"). The history of music shows us over and over again that some composers have found something new to say in every genre of music and in every time period, and often without having to invent an entirely new genre.

So, EPIC. Ok. What about EPIC? It is not the first time that composers have insisted upon bigger, badder, louder, meaner, grander, superlative, supercilious, and troglodyte. It is just the first time it can be done by those who may or may not have a vested interest in their professional reputation.


----------



## dgburns

ok so here's the deal,I actually find the genre really fun to write.I'm just not sure I like to listen to it,especially out of context 

hey If "they" want to be epic,well good for freaking them! who am I to judge it anyway...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Rowland said:


> Guiarman - I think you've very neatly summed up my problem with where Epic has gone. It was used last year to adverstise BBC Parliament, a narcoleptic's dream of a channel where even those on screen fail to stay awake.
> 
> What of course has happened is that since it is so ubiquitous, now everything sounds... kinda boring. When you have 48 french horns, 64 cellos, a choir of a 1,000, dubstep bass modulated with 14 LFOs, glitch fx, 12 layered kick drums and another dozen snares... where do you go from there exactly?
> 
> It's become a product of available technology. Back in the day, getting a big sound was hard and everyone aspired to it with their meagre resources. By accident, some found that less could be more. But now there are no brakes - there's always the temptation to just add another 100 players because they're right there on the template.... look, just record enable, bash in some stuff, hit quantize and there you go. It's way harder to get a subtle and nuanced performance out of a single acoustic instrument - gee, you gotta set up the mic in a half decent room for a start, and then get in someone with talent who can play the damn thing.
> 
> But hey, let's not beat ourselves up over it. The real problem is the marketing bozo from BBC Parliament who decided that making parliamentary debate sound like the apocalypse made sense in the first place.



I think you largely have it right. Epic, or at least what a lot of folks mean by that, has become the proverbial pig with lipstick. Still a pig


----------



## Dean

EastWest Lurker said:


> I think you largely have it right. Epic, or at least what a lot of folks mean by that, has become the proverbial pig with lipstick. Still a pig



Sounds hot! D


----------



## muk

Recently there was an ad for a newspaper in tv over here. It showed a person sitting on a bench, reading the newspaper, and - nothing else. No taiko drums of hell, no 64 horns playing in unison. Not even a single horn. In fact, there was no sound at all. Complete stillness. And guess what. It drew me to the tv to see what was going on like no bombardement of epicness could have done.
I guess that's the good thing about overloads of certain trends: they leave room for converse ideas and make them much more effective.


----------



## Guy Rowland

muk said:


> Recently there was an ad for a newspaper in tv over here. It showed a person sitting on a bench, reading the newspaper, and - nothing else. No taiko drums of hell, no 64 horns playing in unison. Not even a single horn. In fact, there was no sound at all. Complete stillness. And guess what. It drew me to the tv to see what was going on like no bombardement of epicness could have done.
> I guess that's the good thing about overloads of certain trends: they leave room for converse ideas and make them much more effective.



I know this is OT but what the hell...

It was something I really noticed with Breaking Bad. Especially around season 2 / 3, they seemed to start every episode in silence or near-silence. Super-effective at getting your attention (with the less welcome side effect that you think there might be something wrong with your amp / their transmission). Not only getting your attention - it positively forces you to concentrate.

Sorry for the OT, back to the epicness.


----------



## hirnkatheter

I assume because "we can". These certain libraries are so tempting to go for a quick and dirty epic track. Simple melody lines are sounding much better played by 64 horns, 105 Cellos etc. than played with a little flute. You can impress some of your friends while they can blow dry their hair in front of your subwoofer. 
When I first purchased Damage it was kinda disaster because I used it in every single track. So you have all the toys to make a lot of noise. Now it's time to let go, explore the silent side of music. Music that works. But I still do love "epic" music. There will be always a market for it. But there is so much more to explore.


----------



## Christof

Maybe I should specify my initial post at the very beginning of this thread:
I have no problems with EPIC music, I just hear so many "Epic Hybrid Adventure Action" tracks without any craftsmanship, emotions or something like a theme.
Many composers think it's all about that BIG sound, but it takes much more than that.
I could post some terrifying soundcloud examples,there are thousands, but I won't.

Listening to epic pieces such as Inception is very enjoyable because it is very well done even if there is no real theme in a traditional way.


----------



## Dean

In every single genre of music the majority of it is uninspired,forgettable,repetative,poorly written or much/much worse,..'Epic' music (whatever the hell that is these days?)is no exception.Even the musical genious and innovator that is David Bowie has tons of album fillers! You cant have the wheat without the chaff! D


----------



## Living Fossil

@Tanuj Tiku: Just saw that you took my reply as offensive. It was absolutely not meant to be it... anyhow, sorry if you got that impression...i was rather reflecting in a general way...

But to reply:



Tanuj Tiku said:


> You speak of Beethoven's music and someone like me who cannot possibly understand it because apparently Beethoven wrote it for a small group of super-intelligent humans.



It's not that Beethoven wrote for "super-intelligent humans", but in fact he was paid for his music usually by people - often aristocrats - who had a comprehensive musical knowledge.
And i think this is one aspect that gets very often lost, when people are mentioning names like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven in the context of popular film music.
They didn't work for a mass market, they usually were paid by people who were specialists themselves.
(sorry for simplifying this a bit....)

In today's world, the appreciation of culture has lot to do with a mass audience. If Bill Gates goes to the cinema to see Jurassic world he can get a ticket for the same money as you and i.
So the relevant aspect is not if some specialists like those movies, scores etc, but if the masses like them.

And therefore, if we are speaking about populistic culture (since it's the topic of this thread) i just think it would be better to use historical comparisons with composers who a comparable.
Why has it to be Beethoven?
Why is Lully never mentioned?
He was really popular in his time.
Why there is Badarzewska never mentioned?
She wrote the maybe most successful piece of the 19th century (La prière d'une vierge).

By asking the question why "La prière d'une vierge" was so successful, it's easier to find an answer to the question why the so-called-epic style is so popular today:
It's has to do with the pretension of something simple to be complex art and the increased self-esteem of the listener who thinks that his now in the elitist circle of those "who understand art".
And then there is the topic of the piece which obviousley was relevant at that time.
Etc, etc.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Oh please, folks, is it really no longer possible for people to aspire to achieve or even appreciate something "higher" without being labelled elitist?

I know, there is no "higher" or "lower", just personal taste :(
I am calling total bs to that.


----------



## Living Fossil

EastWest Lurker said:


> Oh please, folks, is it really no longer possible for people to aspire to achieve or even appreciate something "higher" without being labelled elitist?



it is, as long as one does it in secret.


----------



## AlexRuger

I've kind of skimmed a lot of this thread, so these are my thoughts on the OP and might not have anything to do with the meat of this thread. Warning, lots of text, because this is something that is kind of difficult to put in to words, and when it is, it's ultimately pretty clunky.

The thing that strikes me over and over is that the "epic" style (and its "cousins," such as the music on crime-drama shows) all have one thing in common--there's no specific emotion driving it. To back up and clarify:

I think that when someone produces a work, be it music or a novel or what have you, whatever emotion(s) the artist is trying to convey will become distilled in the act of producing the work. To give a really simple example, if I'm writing a piece of music that is exceptionally happy--the emotion I'm looking to convey is the type of beautiful joy people only experience once or twice in their lives--then the resulting work will not be able to convey that feeling as strongly as I feel it. It's not a 1:1 transmission of feeling from my head to the work. Something is lost when craft (the way I get this feeling out of my head) enters the equation. Or maybe it's because art is simply a representation ("This is not the greatest feeling in the world--this is just a tribute") of a feeling and not the original feeling itself. Whatever the reason, the end result is the same.

Meaning, to create a work that really hits people hard, you need to be feeling that emotion(s) that you're conveying more than just about anyone. You need to _really_ feel it.

For example, Shostakovich's music often conveys an immense feeling of sadness. But sadness is far too simple--emotions aren't primary colors like my "joy" example above. They're complex and full of contradictions and variations. When I've felt that perfect feeling of beautiful joy (that I described above) in actual real life, its potency came from its complexity. For example, one small part of it was that I was feeling sad that I knew that perfect joy would end. And tons of the other facets that I can't explain. A truly strong emotion is like that.

Back to Shostakovich--his music conveys an immense feeling of sadness because what he often felt (as you know, if you've read an biographies of him) was a powerful, complex, and potent concoction of emotions that, on the whole of it, could simply be called "sadness." What we feel from his music, he felt a hundred times more strongly.

There aren't many people that feel _any_ emotion that strongly. How many musicians' music do we listen to, and come away feeling...not much? Often times it's not for lack of trying for their part--they might just not have something terrible important they feel they need to say, _and are instead trying to repeat the feeling that other music gave to them._ They're starting with a distilled emotion, and distilling it further. The original feeling doesn't come from inside them, but is something that they're simply trying to copy.

Furthermore, analyzing how best to convey that emotion is a wholly separate issue. Some people feel things incredibly strongly but don't know how to get it out there. Or maybe their craft hasn't caught up with what they want to say (there's a famous Ira Glass quote about that). 

Hans is a great example here--the "epic" style can be pretty well traced back to him. His music is all "in synch" with him and the present zeitgeist: he feels certain emotions very strongly (that sense of grandeur, "there's something more to life"-ness that many of his scores convey) and feels them strong enough to have them shine through in his music bright enough so that even the ultimately distilled product of the "head-to-speaker" process gives other people a strong version of that feeling. He also knows how best to convey these feelings (craft). Lastly, how best to convey his versions of those emotions lines up with popular taste--such as his use of slow, rock-inspired chord progressions; big drums; his particular use of synthesizers. And then mix all *that* with an amazing work ethic, and there you have it--music that is almost _destined_ to be copied.

And all this "epic" music is created by people who are inspired not by the "original" thought of grandeur/"more-to-life"-ness that Hans (or Howard Shore, or whoever) is feeling (I'm not sure what inspires Hans, but obviously it all resonates in his head quite well), but down the line. Their inspiration likely comes from the feeling that Hans' music gave them, and they want to repeat that. A copy of a copy.

Beyond that, many don't have the analysis or tech chops to actually produce the music themselves--for example, convey these emotions purely in music it's necessary to have a strong mix, or to not distract your audience and break the illusion of real instruments with samples that aren't programmed well. These are purely craft-based and, like everything else in music, have an indispensable or track-ruining effect on the final product. A potent emotion, transmitted purely from head-to-speaker, might not get through to anyone because the mix is bad. But a great mix (or rather--the _right _mix) can make that feeling that much more potent, that much closer to the source.

Many people that might be feeling these feelings of grandeur (that, let's face it--everyone wants to feel like their lives matter, that there's something more to it all) and get it from their head to the speaker with as little distillation as possible, and are able to analyze and produce what makes the emotion work *for them*--well, maybe the musical choices they make just don't line up with the zeitgeist. Maybe, for some, giant horns don't jive with their own personal version of the emotion "there must be something more to life" and grandeur. For person A, maybe it's small, Arvo Part-type music. Maybe Schoenbergian atonality is the truest expression of that feeling for person B. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to express an emotion in music. Because, besides, what makes _that_ version of _that_ emotion unique is the person that's feeling it.

Lastly, the final element is time. It takes a long time to get any emotion worth feeling out in to a concise and listenable form. So much work is so rushed that there just isn't any time to get any, for lack of a better word, "authentic" expressions out. Sometimes it's due to deadline, or maybe our composer just has ADD.

To exemplify all this with a personal experience of mine:

I worked on a crime-drama show, writing additional music. The lead composer was actually a forum member here. It was an invaluable experience--I learned a ton. But one problem I had was that the music required for the show was, at the heart of it, expressing an emotion I'd never felt before. I'm not sure that many people have. It's this sort of "tension is infinitely rising, this situation is bad, oh man, it's about to get worse," just getting darker and rising tension to seemingly infinity. _OR, _it's that emotion I just described, but somehow minimized into wallpaper, simply giving pace to a scene that is, at its core, attempting to express that same emotion.

This wasn't specific to the show. Pretty much all crime dramas follow this template.

I've felt emotions similar to that (such as "this is bad"), but what we were doing musically isn't how I personally would choose to convey that--the musical, craft-based choices I would make would be completely different. And of course, because it was TV, there was not time. But, the show has a sound and has to be scored, and that sound was what was desired, and there's a deadline, so--I empathized with what I think that emotion might feel like (this job is kind of like being an actor, isn't it?), did what I could, let my craft (and sleeplessness) guide me, and hey, the producers were pleased. Was it art? Absolutely not. But it was certainly good enough, and that...well, was good enough.

The vast majority of music in this medium, be it TV, film, video games, whatever, is all rushed. It's all not as good as we'd like it to be, and save for the rare rush of inspiration, we composers lean on our craft and synthesize an emotion that is as close a carbon copy as we can muster in the time allotted. That's just the reality of the job.

The "craft-based" decisions that make up this carbon copy of the feeling of "epic" are, for one reason or a thousand, relatively easy to make "good enough." The musical ideas are simple and easy to digest. The TV show I spoke of was that way (not exactly "epic," but like I said, sort of a cousin to it), reality shows are this way, Marvel movies are this way. They get the point of an emotion _everyone _wants to feel across in a way that is _good enough. _Enter lack of time into the equation, and...

That is why they want it to be EPIC.


----------



## Frederick Russ

Daniel James said:


> How the f#@% did you come to that conclusion.
> 
> Your use of Quality in that sentence is one of subjectivity. What defines quality? there is amazing music of true quality in all styles and genres since the dawn of music. A deep understanding of orchestral orchestration may differentiate quality in a classical setting but its useless when applied to the intricacies of musical sound design or thrash metal.
> 
> Things that define quality to the types of music you enjoy do not universally apply to all types of music. Again there is well crafted and poorly crafted music everywhere.
> 
> And ------ with your down the nose comments like 'lofty' as though you speak from the fucking heavens and are bestowing your infinite wisdom to us peasants.
> 
> -DJ



Hey man, just checking in here. Not taking any sides - anyone who knows me knows that I like Epic as much as the next guy - but its not okay to publicly and verbally attack an opposite debater regardless of how right or wrong they are. I get the passion and how crazy it might seem if others don't share it. Truth is that some people just don't like Epic just like some people don't like heavy metal. Just asking for some calm reason please in posting, thanks.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Whaddya know, Moderators actually moderating, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!!!!


----------



## Daniel James

Frederick Russ said:


> Hey man, just checking in here. Not taking any sides - anyone who knows me knows that I like Epic as much as the next guy - but its not okay to publicly and verbally attack an opposite debater regardless of how right or wrong they are. I get the passion and how crazy it might seem if others don't share it. Truth is that some people just don't like Epic just like some people don't like heavy metal. Just asking for some calm reason please in posting, thanks.



Heh not sure why a month old post I made managed to get highlighted again after I had clearly left the thread. But in context I was responding to a passage of personal digs and passive aggressive comments coming my way. I decided to respond directly instead of cowering behind all the bullshit and snide remarks, again people seem to only notice my response as I am actually saying directly what they are beating around the bush to say to me. 

I guess in future I'll have to stick to calling people out on their crap in a roundabout way instead of just being direct and open. Lol its literally like being back at school. Fuck me.

-DJ


----------



## mbagalacomposer

Not speaking to anyones post specifically....but there does seem to be a bit of snootiness in the premise of this conversation. 

So epic is big right now....so what? There are a lot of people who are out there who do it poorly and a lot of people who do it well. Why do the ones who do it poorly represent the genre as a whole? The music industry is cyclical when it comes to certain genre's being in vogue and film music is just as much a part of that as anything else. 

Our only options as composers is to adapt to the trends and be a bit of a chameleon or just decide on the one thing you're really killer at and try to be "The guy who does really kickass medieval music on analog synths" and try to get all the jobs for analog synth medieval music. The option that we shouldn't take is looking down on the music (and composers who write it) thats in vogue right now to make ourselves feel better about the fact that no one really cares about our particular genre. 

and to directly address the question (not sure if someone has said this already...): I think the reason epic seems to be so in vogue is that everything else movie wise is getting bigger to. The theaters, the amount of speakers, the special FX....sort of makes sense that the music would have to keep up with the scale. Maybe its not so simple, but thats my take.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I keep thinking the same thing: most people here under 35 probably first appreciated music when playing video games. And what what style were many of the soundtracks in? First movies? Star Wars? LOTR? Harry Potter? POTC? Epic.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Living Fossil said:


> @Tanuj Tiku: Just saw that you took my reply as offensive. It was absolutely not meant to be it... anyhow, sorry if you got that impression...i was rather reflecting in a general way...
> 
> But to reply:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that Beethoven wrote for "super-intelligent humans", but in fact he was paid for his music usually by people - often aristocrats - who had a comprehensive musical knowledge.
> And i think this is one aspect that gets very often lost, when people are mentioning names like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven in the context of popular film music.
> They didn't work for a mass market, they usually were paid by people who were specialists themselves.
> (sorry for simplifying this a bit....)
> 
> In today's world, the appreciation of culture has lot to do with a mass audience. If Bill Gates goes to the cinema to see Jurassic world he can get a ticket for the same money as you and i.
> So the relevant aspect is not if some specialists like those movies, scores etc, but if the masses like them.
> 
> And therefore, if we are speaking about populistic culture (since it's the topic of this thread) i just think it would be better to use historical comparisons with composers who a comparable.
> Why has it to be Beethoven?
> Why is Lully never mentioned?
> He was really popular in his time.
> Why there is Badarzewska never mentioned?
> She wrote the maybe most successful piece of the 19th century (La prière d'une vierge).
> 
> By asking the question why "La prière d'une vierge" was so successful, it's easier to find an answer to the question why the so-called-epic style is so popular today:
> It's has to do with the pretension of something simple to be complex art and the increased self-esteem of the listener who thinks that his now in the elitist circle of those "who understand art".
> And then there is the topic of the piece which obviousley was relevant at that time.
> Etc, etc.



@Living Fossil...Good to hear from you that it was not intended directly for me. Sorry about my rant but your response seemed directed at me, at the time.

I hope you can see how it would seem like that to me. I had just used Beethoven's 5th as a general example and you had quoted it. 

Anyway...No hard feelings!


----------



## muk

The pace and cuts of todays films play an important part as well. I recently watched 'Once upon a time in the west' again, and it's pace is not even comparable to what you mostly see today. The way many of the current movies are cut there is simply no time for expansive orchestral melodies.


----------



## creativeforge

EastWest Lurker said:


> Exactly Alexandre.
> I suspect from listening to a lot of it that people write what is easy for them to write and make sound ok thanks to the tools and never question, "is this any good? Am I settling because it is easy?"
> Instead they say to themselves,"I like the way this sounds and it expresses my mood." and that is as far as the introspection goes. And that is a recipe for shallow, poor work.



Possibly so, but also - maybe a few are hired exactly for this ability, to deliver quick, fast, MOR music, patterned on what "sound" is in vogue for their particular stream of products and audience. 

Thankfully there are explorers, adventurers, sound and composition cosmonauts who keep smithereening the boundaries of mediocrity ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

_"I suspect from listening to a lot of it that people write what is easy for them to write and make sound ok thanks to the tools and never question, "is this any good? Am I settling because it is easy?"
Instead they say to themselves,"I like the way this sounds and it expresses my mood." and that is as far as the introspection goes. And that is a recipe for shallow, poor work."_

Exactly! One forum member asked for critiques and since I don't do so publicly, I wrote him privately that I thought it was rather poor and that he needed to study some harmony and counterpoint so that he would learn how do something that was less one dimensional and uninteresting.

His response almost exactly WAS indeed: _"I like the way this sounds and it expresses my mood and that's enough for me."_

What really saddened me is that a bunch of guys here then publicly praised it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

One of the first things I learned from a teacher at Berklee - before actually writing for an orchestra - was that the orchestra is going to make you sound good to a certain point just because it's an orchestra.

That applies to virtual orchestras too. Lots of instruments playing something makes it sound like you know what you're doing.

Now, as soon as you get beneath the surface it's different. But it's true.


----------



## IoannisGutevas

EastWest Lurker said:


> Exactly! One forum member asked for critiques and since I don't do so publicly, I wrote him privately that I thought it was rather poor and that he needed to study some harmony and counterpoint so that he would learn how do something that was less one dimensional and uninteresting.
> 
> His response almost exactly WAS indeed: _"I like the way this sounds and it expresses my mood and that's enough for me."_



Boy oh boy what a thread..
I dont like replying in these kind of threads but since Mr. EastWest Lurker clearly refering to me with that "anonymous" general quote to support a claim of his own i feel at least obliged to reply to set some things right.
I think we have exchanged like 100 lines or more of conversation, and that was like the 1/20 of what i said.

I would post our private conversation here but i have no idea how to find your msgs in this new forum so i wont post only mine cause thats one sided. First of all when a member posts his song here he expects and wants some constructive critisism something that you also in your private msgs clearly admited that it wasnt what you offered, and i took it as it was then, someone's opinion. Telling someone that needs to study harmony and counterpoint isnt critisism is a statement that can apply to almost every musician in this site from the most experienced to the most newb one. I never claimed that as you bluntly stated "it was enough for me". No composer ever feels that way and if i did i wouldnt be posting it here in the first place to ask for advice from the most experienced and professional guys. What i did say is that i know im fairly amateur i never had any classical training but my ears know when they are pleased or bored with what i hear. I said also that i try to get better every day but if the level of my compositions are not enough for you then i cant do nothing, it doesnt mean that i dont try my best its just means that my best is not enough for you, and thats ok. I dont strive to please every ear possible on the planet im just writting to the best of my abilities and ask on consructive critisism so i can make my compositions better. So please when you at least refering to me state at least my name and dont portait me as naive and ignorant as that line you quoted to support your original statement on "epic music".

Also to give my 2 cents to talk about the topic of the thread, im a big fan of epic music. Im a sucker for Thomas Bergersen, Immediate Music, Daniel James, Peter Crowley, Ennio Moriccone, Hans Zimmer and lots lots LOTS of other composers whose names if i were to mention it would take 10 forums but you get the jist. Music is something very special for me its memories and power combined. I played lots of Ad&d and i love rpg games and roleplaying games. And this kind of "bigger than life" combination of classical music and hybrid sounds to amplify the impact on someones emotions is carved deep in my heart and soul. I dont understand why people like jazz or soul it sounds utterly boring to me but i dont judge them, for them it might mean something. When my 1st Ad&d character died DM started a monologue and the Nocturne song from Secret Garden started playing. To me that song holds a dear place in my heart cause it symbolises something. To some other person it might sound drivel. And for me Nocturne is epic. Cause for me it tells a tale. An "epos" (έπος) as we call it in Greece. What im trying to say is that in all music genres you can answer the question "Why do they want to be -epic-" (you can subsitute epic word with classical, soul, pop, rock, heavy metal, punk..ect) ... like this: 

"Cause we love it to be so!"  And that is the most honest and analytical answer you can ever find


----------



## EastWest Lurker

If you feel I mischaracterized our conversation, then I apologize as that was not my intention. But I do remember that I came away with the impression that your attitude was, "it sounds good to me and expresses my emotions and that is all I really care about" and that my suggestion that you should study counterpoint and harmony, which the music betrayed to me that you had not done much of, did not exactly resonate. And that was IMHO a _constructive_ criticism but you chose to react defensively rather than say perhaps, "Yes, I know that for my music to grow I need to do that and I plan to."


----------



## creativeforge

IoannisGutevas said:


> Music is something very special for me its memories and power combined.



Et voila. At the risk of showing my ignorance... 

As much as there is an honourable race for perfection and quest for flawless techniques, or even mastering of techniques (and do agree, I think Jay has a very good point he's making) music resonates differently with different people. And composers have a much different approach and expectations than the rest. I think if someone says that the mood delivers what they had in mind, then that's it. The problem would be if his music was a commission, or a contract for a project, and he failed to satisfy his employer, and couldn't care less about their negative feedback. It would be harder for this person to evolve and improve, or maybe he didn't have time or energy to revisit it.

I understand you don't always have the luxury or budget to really push things as far as you'd want. But if someone is hired because they deliver a certain sound, mood, experience, then I think if the client is happy, the goal is reached, and I suspect Jay's words will meet him there too, he will remember them at some point.

Epic can be so cheezy too, sounding all the same and you wonder sometimes if the director when for an "-ish" sound, or original music of a genre that would be made to espouse the product. Movie scores that move me have "epic moments." They don't sacrifice the rest of the movie with bombastic or empty fill-ins. I think it's an art...


----------



## IoannisGutevas

EastWest Lurker said:


> "Yes, I know that for my music to grow I need to do that and I plan to."


You admited that what you were saying to me it wasnt constructive criticism. That was your exact words. If you have the msgs you can read them mate. And i said im not perfect but im trying the best of my abilities to make my compositions better and one way is asking for advice here. I never posed as a great composer or a know-it-all guy and i admited in a billion different ways that my harmony and counterpoint and compositions in general need improving. But if the rate im improving them is not the best for you i cant do anything about it or if the state my knowledge is at the moment there is nothing i can do about it also. I didnt act defensively i have no reason to act defensively against a guy that states his opinion which pretty much sums up as "Your song sucked. You need to study counterpoint and harmony". Thats hardly a constructive criticism. The first part is an opinion. The second part is a statement that can be said to anyone in this forum and stand true.

But you are right 1000% in one thing expressing my emotions is all i care about. They are MY songs im not writting them for any client im writting them so i can express what i feel at best. For that to happen of course techniques through the study of theory of music are an inevitable step that someone has to undertake in order to evolve as a composer and improve. I never denied that and thats one of the very reasons that im a memeber of this forum. Being amongst so many wonderful and amazing composers and people who know so much about music theory and do what i do for hobby as a working daily job (which is only a dream in my reality) is a paradise for me.

I have been said that you know your topic (i mean mastering music theory and know what you are talking about when you say words like harmony and counterpoint) and i really admire you for that Mr EastWest Lurker but to me and there rest of (if there is anyone else here) "muggles" that dont know that much of music theory as we wished for advices like "You need to study more harmony and counterpoint" is not an advice is just a honest statement 
Anyway, i hope you listened to my last composition ( https://soundcloud.com/ioannis-gutevas/epic-pirate-music-ghosts-gold-and-rum ) and you felt that this muggle had made a slight improvment ^^ .

Anyway since our conversation is not the topic of the forum i'll leave now  I rumbled enough..


----------



## EastWest Lurker

In my first PM to you I wrote: "I don't think you will think this constructive, but it is honest. IMHO, of course."

Notice that I did not say my criticism was not constructive but said that I didn't think you would _think_ it constructive. And I did not say "your song sucks." You replied to me that is what I was saying and I responded that I would never say that, it is not the way I express myself. The rest of my message went on admittedly to diss the genre as a whole as largely being cliche' and suggest that you had indeed written cliche's. Admittedly, not my best self, I must have been cranky that day, sorry.

But as I also write to you in a subsequent pm, the idea that "expressing my emotions is all I care about" is IMHO a shallow aesthetic. It reduces composing music to the equivalent of masturbation and surely, music should strive for more than just that, professional or amateur.


----------



## creativeforge

I listened to your song Ioannis, and I think you have a great foundation, imho. It does feel constrained, though, if I may dare bring a bit of feedback. I kept waiting for it to lift off, but it kept pounding the same basic sound. I like the way you bring the "syncopation" (again, uneducated man talking here), if you know what I mean. 

If you could at some point "free" the chords at about 0:50, and instead of having an obstinate base remaining the same note, allow that basic note to get up and fly off, sing along with the chords, sustaining the action still, but fluctuating with the few chord changes, to be lifted and create a new level of action, more lyrical. I can almost hear it, breaking away and showing us more. 

Imagine this against a movie clip, you'd want people to feel there is a movement of sort coming from the title. Where's the gold, the treasure found or stolen - emotions go with that. What about the rum? Celebration, libations, light-heartedness? And the ghosts? A little cold trickle down the back of the music? 

I don't know the musical terms, but since you speak of mood, I hope this brings a perspective that can be helpful? I hope so...  Mood, yes, technique can probably really help make this happen and enhance the intensity, I think if you can feel it yourself, picture it, maybe you can try playing around with the idea. Just a thought...

I hope this isn't received wrongly, I mean well... 

Regards,

Andre


----------



## IoannisGutevas

Thank you for your kind words and advices creativeforge! I wont go back and redo this song but i'll keep your advice and try to make the next one better


----------



## mwarsell

Great read, guys, this thread (absolutely no sarcasm intended). A bit OT, but I think guitarman1960 has summarised it pretty well. It's something that my father has been saying all along as well: there is no good or bad music - just music _suitable for that particular occasion/frame of mind/context. A Mozart symphony, so at home at a Vienna concert hall, would be totally useless in another context, a death metal festival - and vice versa. So neithermusic is good or bad, it's just suitable or not suitable for that particular context.


----------



## muk

There's *a lot* more to music than just context and taste. At least to art music, that is. So yes, a Mozart symphony is actually good. But it takes theoretical knowledge, a musical background, an understanding of the parameters of music to see what is so good about it and why it is good. Simply listening to a lot of music - though a very good start - is not enough to acquire these understandings. You need to read about music, about music theory, learn it's parameters (counterpoint, harmony, voice leading, orchestration to name a few), study scores. Talk about it with people more knowledgeable than oneself. In short: it takes time and dedication. After that it's actually not very difficult to see that a Mozart symphony explores the potential of music - all that it can be - a lot more thorougly than Lordi's Eurovision Song Contest contribution. In fact, it is positively baffling to hear people state that they can't.
Is that an elitist view? I don't think so, but frankly I dont care. Basically I'm just of the viewpoint that people who study music are not just indulging themselves in mere conversations about taste, and may know a thing or two more about it than people who don't. To say that they are and that they don't is actually mildly insulting.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

This is dead on, Muk, but it will never fly with this crowd.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

And the beat goes on!







I think my opinion is the best.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Great pic, I want that!


----------



## Wooloomooloo

Wow, what a thread. I'll add my newbie 2 cents...

There is a lot of elitism in music in general, and it's reflected here too. Part of the reason some folks are so sniffy about this style of music now, is that it's reasonably easy to do. 30 year ago, you'd have needed an orchestra, a hoard of professional producers and mixers and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment to produce 'big' music. Now, a laptop, some sample libraries, a decent pair of headphones and some skill is all you need to get 'that sound'. 

There are many sample libraries that help out... Damage, Action Strings, Evo Grid, Albion IV etc... all make it relatively easy to throw together a track that sounds huge with little effort. There are even libraries dedicated to making music for movie trailers. In fact, many of the companies doing so will make some of their money from hobbyiests and wannabes, so it's in their interest to make it easier for them.

But it's a mirage. Because regardless of the increase in accessibility, and pervasive nature of pseudo orchestral scores composed on laptops in Starbucks, there is still a vast difference between good music and poor music. That's because there is colossal skill required for arrangement, mixing and producing scores with a palette of sounds almost unimaginable only a few decades ago, and still differentiating yourself from the ever swelling capabilities of hobbyists. I frankly respect anyone is brave enough to bare their soul and ask for feedback on their music. I am petrified of doing that and almost die of a cold sweat when I ask even my closest friends to comment on my music.

It does therefore seem a little sad to me that people would use artificial constructs and create necessary barriers, by making statements like "you need to study counterpoint and harmony".

Did these guys study counterpoint and harmony?


----------



## Guy Rowland

muk said:


> Simply listening to a lot of music - though a very good start - is not enough to acquire these understandings. You need to read about music, about music theory, learn it's parameters (counterpoint, harmony, voice leading, orchestration to name a few), study scores. Talk about it with people more knowledgeable than oneself. In short: it takes time and dedication.



When the bright-eyed film lover begins their film studies course, the first thing they learn is that they know nothing about film whatsoever. They have to learn how to READ a film, which opens up a whole new world of understanding. They learn about image systems, colour palettes, mise-en-scene and a thousand other techniques, all of which (at least in theory) have been lovingly crafted by the film-makers. Crafted it may have been, but nevertheless all this craft and sometimes deeper meaning is invisible to Joe Schmo watching in screen 10 at the local multiplex. 

It's not perhaps entirely analogous to music appreciation, but there are similarities. As a scholar of film or of music, there are all kinds of richness that knowledge can unlock. And I've little doubt that just as Citizen Kane has more treasures to be unlocked than Entourage or San Andreas, different kinds of music contain greater depth to mine. And there's also little doubt that someone with some appreciation of film studies is likely to get more out of Citizen Kane than someone with a burger in one hand and Twitter in the other, with the TV on TCM in the corner drowning out the silence of their meaningless existence.

What to me is a logical non sequitur however is the notion that one has to fully understand a film - or a piece of music - in order to appreciate it _in its most profound way._

Many pages ago, I mentioned the Marriage of Figaro scene from Shawshank Redemption and posed the question - whose experience is more profound? The true lover of classical music who can understand all the technical musical brilliance that went into that composition, or the grunt prisoner in the movie who was transported by something they could never hope to understand in that way? I don't think anyone attempted to answer my question which is a shame, because I thought it was rather a good one.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Wooloomooloo said:


> Wow, what a thread. I'll add my newbie 2 cents...
> 
> There is a lot of elitism in music in general, and it's reflected here too. Part of the reason some folks are so sniffy about this style of music now, is that it's reasonably easy to do. 30 year ago, you'd have needed an orchestra, a hoard of professional producers and mixers and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment to produce 'big' music. Now, a laptop, some sample libraries, a decent pair of headphones and some skill is all you need to get 'that sound'.
> 
> There are many sample libraries that help out... Damage, Action Strings, Evo Grid, Albion IV etc... all make it relatively easy to throw together a track that sounds huge with little effort. There are even libraries dedicated to making music for movie trailers. In fact, many of the companies doing so will make some of their money from hobbyiests and wannabes, so it's in their interest to make it easier for them.
> 
> But it's a mirage. Because regardless of the increase in accessibility, and pervasive nature of pseudo orchestral scores composed on laptops in Starbucks, there is still a vast difference between good music and poor music. That's because there is colossal skill required for arrangement, mixing and producing scores with a palette of sounds almost unimaginable only a few decades ago, and still differentiating yourself from the ever swelling capabilities of hobbyists. I frankly respect anyone is brave enough to bare their soul and ask for feedback on their music. I am petrified of doing that and almost die of a cold sweat when I ask even my closest friends to comment on my music.
> 
> It does therefore seem a little sad to me that people would use artificial constructs and create necessary barriers, by making statements like "you need to study counterpoint and harmony".
> 
> Did these guys study counterpoint and harmony?



Sorry you feel that way but it is my honest opinion that if you want to write Western "Classical-Late Romantic period" style music, which most Epic is a watered down version of, you will do so better because you will have more crayons in your crayon box that you know how to use if you study harmony and counterpoint. I don't think too many of those Zulus are creating that music


----------



## synergy543

EastWest Lurker said:


> Sorry you feel that way but it is my honest opinion that if you want to write Western "Classical-Late Romantic period" style music, which most Epic is a watered down version of, you will do so better because you will have more crayons in your crayon box that you know how to use if you study harmony and counterpoint. I don't think too many of those Zulus are creating that music


Jay, you clearly didn't listen to the Zulu music all the way through. What were you thinking? 
Starting at 2m26s, the sequencer drums kick in. Its totally Epic.

This clearly shows Zulus do NOT need more colored crayons and Epic pre-dates the Western "Classical-Late Romatic period.

Threads such as these are mish-mash of clashing ideas moderated by PC group-police hopelessly full of gems and Epic garbage. An Epic Troll Pot. Although useful for their humorous and entertaining content, I long for focused threads with more meaningful topics. Whether Zulu or Classical Romantic, it really doesn't make sense to discuss these all in the same pot. When it comes to topics, it seems better if we can discriminate a bit and be selective about what we are discussing in order to have a more meaningful conversation regardless of the subject. Epic idea huh?

Epic trolls, carry on...


----------



## creativeforge

Fascinating how many rabbit trails can come off of a simple question...  Allow me to share these thoughts...

So many valid perspectives, but yes, very few people could make "Epic" music if they didn't know, understand, master classical music. Thanks to amazing technological advances and creative geniuses, we have more and more access to the building blocks to create it. 

There's always some genius that defies the rules, but one thing is certain: if ONE MUSICIAN is working ALONE on a project, he/she will need not only the "real sounds" but also know how to use them. 

However, most of the time, it's a team effort. Where does the composer start, and where do other members of the team come in, how does it all evolve and morph together, how is it all assembled in the end to create a full score that is perfectly cued to a movie? 

Music for picture is evocative and tied to a story, but the best most solid epic scores can often be listened to and enjoyed on their own, but not as a whole symphony. Movie scores move along more quickly these days because the picture demands it. And musically, it could be said that the music suffers from it too, to an extent. As someone mentioned re: Once Upon a Time in the West, time and space are rare nowadays. 

Philip Glass scores for Godfrey Reggio's movies of the Qatsi Trilogy are to me a great example of music knowledge, one cannot create such scores without a strong foundation. *Salvador Dali said: "Only after you perfected the technique of the masters can you develop your own style." *

Dali was young when he started studying painting, and study meant "training." He was trained in the style of the masters, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Velazquez, then under different teachers he was trained in the Renaissance masters, and finally Dadaism and Cubism led him to Surrealism. 

Dali wasn't trained in just what he preferred, he studied those who have created a rich legacy of painting in history over the centuries, these became his school books, techniques range from learning to "see," picking or building canvas, mixing colors, finding or making brushes, themes, light/shadows, and much more I'm sure. Through all this, his own style would emerge strong and unique, historical too. 

I believe we don't study history to repeat it, but to find our place in it, discover our own artistic calligraphy, our own sound. Vangelis is still using most of the same instruments he's had for decades, and still creating inspiring scores and albums. 

I think the "epic" style is so everywhere, I would argue that it must be seen as building a bridge between the past and the future, reconnecting musicians and audiences with the great traditions that give us great art. That's why I could never claim to be a bona fide composer - I'm a musician, I play piano but I'm not a pianist, I'm a sound explorer. I'm interested in sounds that make me come alive, "feel" alive, like a sympathetic resonance that highlights a dimension of my soul and give me an awareness of who I am beyond words or mental concepts.

We "react" to music, it is more "felt" than heard. It's a metaphysical force that has so much power over us, that the powers that be will hire those who can create the best tools for their propaganda, be it marketing, political or religious events, entertainment, arts, etc. 

Epic is a music genre that resonates a whole lot with a whole lot of people, it is part of a story-telling tradition now, it speaks of the human quest, the journey from asshole to hero, from victim to leader, from pauper to ruler, from invisible to influential. It's drawing from the great composers tradition, and is a musical punctuation for narratives greater than life. This present generation is being surrounded by this kind of sound, is soaking in it. I think we need to free it from limitations because it will become something else eventually. 

History takes a long time to become legacy.


----------



## Wooloomooloo

EastWest Lurker said:


> Sorry you feel that way but it is my honest opinion that if you want to write Western "Classical-Late Romantic period" style music, which most Epic is a watered down version of, you will do so better because you will have more crayons in your crayon box that you know how to use if you study harmony and counterpoint. I don't think too many of those Zulus are creating that music



Do you think the music they have passed down for a couple of thousand years was originally 'created' by people with knowledge of theoretical harmony and counterpoint? I'm pretty sure you understood my point, so I'm not sure why the reply was so pedantic.

And yes, a solid grasp of musical theory could be helpful, maybe, but certainly isn't a pre-requisite. Understanding inferential role semantics (a field of language theory) doesn't necessarily make you a better story teller, does it?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Wooloomooloo said:


> Do you think the music they have passed down for a couple of thousand years was originally 'created' by people with knowledge of theoretical harmony and counterpoint? I'm pretty sure you understood my point, so I'm not sure why the reply was so pedantic.
> 
> And yes, a solid grasp of musical theory could be helpful, maybe, but certainly isn't a pre-requisite. Understanding inferential role semantics (a field of language theory) doesn't necessarily make you a better story teller, does it?



Knowledge is power, baby. In every human endeavor. Picasso could do the best non-representational art because he had a masterful command of representational art. Schoenberg could do 12 tone because first he could do tonal.

Knowing those things may not make you better than a more talented guy who doesn't know them, but they WILL make "you" as a composer a better "you" as a composer.


----------



## KEnK

mwarsell said:


> I think guitarman1960 has summarised it pretty well. It's something that my father has been saying all along as well: there is no good or bad music - just music


Just wanna say this about that, to no one in particular-
cuz I think it's funny-

My 1st composition teacher said in one of the 1st classes,
"90% of music is bad",
and in my youthful enthusiasm I was horrified at such a concept.
Gradually I grew to agree w/ him, but now I think he was wrong. 
More like 95% of music is bad 

k


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

KEnK said:


> More like 95% of music is bad
> 
> k



That leaves one with a depressively scarce spectrum to choose from. Isn't it terribly wearisome having to keep listening to the same stuff over and over again? I mean, you GOT to get bored of "Baby Got Back" _eventually_.


----------



## mc_deli

Surely more than 95% is bad now. I actively dislike, even hate, about 66% of music I come across. I don't want to say "hear" because most music I come across I can't bear to listen to! As for this thread? OMG. Some seriously high horses around here. Shame about the offensive stuff. Bad Epic is like other bad music, soulless, without space. You have to have balls of steel to post beginner work on VI!


----------



## mc_deli

I like some of the bad examples in this thread. I put the lyrics of Barbie Girl up for debate in a lyric writing class and the students discovered that it is a much better written and performed than a lot of non-native English pop. And I saw the homecoming party for Lordi in Helsinki. If I had one night on earth and I had to choose between 25000 people partying to my dizzy tune or finding out I got placed on the straight-to-DVD trailer for Transformers Revenge 7, I would go with the former.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Wow, and I thought I was cynical about the overall quality of music. I certainly would not say 90% is bad. IMHO 50% is just mediocre with about 15% bad, 10 % dreadful, 15% good, and 10% terrific.


----------



## mc_deli

17.5% of statistics are reliably made up. The rest are reliably unreliable.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

mc_deli said:


> 17.5% of statistics are reliably made up. The rest are reliably unreliable.




Indeed we are all pulling these out of of thin air just to illustrate our relative levels of approval and disapproval.


----------



## guitarman1960

Hey guys, glad to see this thread is active again after a short break! Not at all surprised that the 'elitists' are still continuing to flog their moronic high horse to death, and are still claiming that in depth study of traditional western classical music is necessary to produce and/or appreciate great music that is 'factually' and 'objectively' superior to other music. How sad to be imprisoned forever within the cage of your own snobbery.
You guys need to study post modernist theory, let go of your worship of dated and restrictive traditions and get real !!!!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

When in doubt, throw a label at someone, eh?


----------



## creativeforge

EastWest Lurker said:


> When in doubt, throw a label at someone, eh?



Hmmmm... there was some substance behind that labelling, imho... we need balance, AND forward movement.


----------



## guitarman1960

p.s. Anarchy in the UK has just as much if not more meaning than Beethovens 5th, in the same way that Warhols Soupcans have just as much if not more meaning than a Rembrandt portrait. Context is all. There is no truth, everything is relative. Post Modernism forever !!!!!


----------



## creativeforge

guitarman1960 said:


> p.s. Anarchy in the UK has just as much if not more meaning than Beethovens 5th, in the same way that Warhols Soupcans have just as much if not more meaning than a Rembrandt portrait. Context is all. There is no truth, everything is relative. Post Modernism forever !!!!!



I'm all for post-Post-Modernism, the world our grand-kids will live in...


----------



## guitarman1960

Very true. I like to wind up the elitists with post modernism. 
We are living in a post modern world. It is important to live in the moment and not the past.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."


----------



## guitarman1960

Daniel Dennett's views are of course subjective and entirely relative, just like everyone elses!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

guitarman1960 said:


> Daniel Dennett's views are of course subjective and entirely relative, just like everyone elses!



Of course, but I don't call those who disagree with me names, which is an intellectually vapid form of making the argument.


----------



## guitarman1960

EastWest Lurker said:


> Of course, but I don't call those who disagree with me names, which is an intellectually vapid form of making the argument.


Wasn't aware that I had called anyone names. Elitist is a fairly accurate description of a particular viewpoint put forward by a few people in this thread. It is only an insult if you take it as one. And IMHO most elitism when related to the arts is grounded in snobbery of one kind or another. I think if you look back through this thread the most offensive, insulting, and passive-aggressive comments have come from the elitist side.
Anyway its still an interesting discussion.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Well, I have nothing more to say to you since you continue to prove that you cannot make a convincing argument without resorting to labeling those who disagree with your point of view.


----------



## guitarman1960

Jay, maybe I'm a bit tired and cranky, its late over here in the uk. No offence intended. This is quite an ironic turn around from earlier in the thread when I was trying to get you to have a rational argument though! (or was that a different thread? Maybe the consumer rights argument?) 
Anyway enough for tonight. More soon no doubt!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

creativeforge said:


> Somebody, please...



I have dissed the genre and questioned the skill set of some of its practitioners but I have called nobody any names or attached any labels to them as you are implying as far as I remember, If I am wrong, please quote where I did.


----------



## creativeforge

I'm sorry Jay, I should have more to the point, but you said it best - "I have dissed the genre and questioned the skill set of some of its practitioners." I don't know where and when you may or may not have used words or expressions that could be considered offensive, I am just reading the short exchange between you two and don't quite understand how you got to where it ended. I'm just going to leave it there, I don't doubt you get the positive reinforcement/encouragement...


----------



## Farkle

I'm not taking any side... but I'm 2 glasses of wine in, and the discussion of "elitism", et al, suddenly reminded me of this skit in "Kentucky Fried Movie"... and now I have the giggles...



Again, no sides... just a moment of (hopefully) levity... 

Mike


----------



## creativeforge

May I? The essence of the conversation: “Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.” _- Bruce Lee_


----------



## sleepy hollow

Farkle said:


> "Kentucky Fried Movie"


Epic!


----------



## patrick76

Farkle said:


> "Kentucky Fried Movie"


A classic. "Now, take him to be tortured!"


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 said:


> Not at all surprised that the 'elitists' are still continuing to flog their moronic high horse to death, and are still claiming that in depth study of traditional western classical music is necessary to produce and/or appreciate great music that is 'factually' and 'objectively' superior to other music. How sad to be imprisoned forever within the cage of your own snobbery.



Didn't you say all of that on page 19? or was it page 12? or 7?
By your own definition, you are the most extreme elitist here.
You add nothing but noise to this by now done to death discussion.
Your mantra "That's subjective" is nothing more than a childish "Nyah nyah nyah!"
I can't take your continuous trolling at all seriously.
Give it a rest, or just post a pic of the middle finger.
That's really the entire content of your tiresome and admitted baiting.

k


----------



## EastWest Lurker

creativeforge said:


> I'm sorry Jay, I should have more to the point, but you said it best - "I have dissed the genre and questioned the skill set of some of its practitioners." I don't know where and when you may or may not have used words or expressions that could be considered offensive, I am just reading the short exchange between you two and don't quite understand how you got to where it ended. I'm just going to leave it there, I don't doubt you get the positive reinforcement/encouragement...



I am with you, it is time for me to let it go and I will.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Probably won't be good enough, and perceived as elitist, but really at the end of the day, if that's so elitist, then why not push Relativism a little further and make it the core "belief" (and belief is everything...) which dictates everyone's life, just watch what would happen not only (& already...) to art, but outside your window...
-A.s-


----------



## creativeforge

Excellent, very clear. Never heard of Terence McKenna, will look for more of his material! Gotta share this... 

I think we have phenomenon that has never been seen before, or recorded in history, where a good portion of humanity, in different cultures and locations, have access to massive amount of information but hasn't learned to develop knowledge. We are conditioned to think about a lot of things, but rarely in-depth, act in many avenues, but rarely as a result of reflection, rather as a need to conform socially. All very interesting, thanks for sharing this!


----------



## Guy Rowland

Tell you what is striking. Though a number of us have put forward arguments at neither extreme, these tend to get ignored by those who represent a position at one end of the other. They tend to repeat their same arguments without advancing them, and refuse to engage with the more difficult questions. I find that rather interesting.

For the next topic of conversation, I suggest religion.


----------



## creativeforge

Guy Rowland said:


> Tell you what is striking. Though a number of us have put forward arguments at neither extreme, these tend to get ignored by those who represent a position at one end of the other. They tend to repeat their same arguments without advancing them, and refuse to engage with the more difficult questions. I find that rather interesting.



Could be helpful to go back to the first post. Christof made a very good point. It did trigger a passionate conversation between people sharing their experiences and opinions. Some tongue-in-cheek, others pretty intensely. I think it became diluted at that point.

But it has brought interesting perspectives challenging me - do I know HOW to think in ways leading to truth and objectivity, or am I wading in comfortable waters confirming my tastes and life choices. Can I break free from that when it comes to creative work. Thanks for making me think.



Guy Rowland said:


> For the next topic of conversation, I suggest religion.



Oh you wouldn't dare...


----------



## creativeforge

EastWest Lurker said:


> I am with you, it is time for me to let it go and I will.


Jay, I just think the real topic got lost along the way, I felt that the conversation became about the relational divide that seemed to be deepening. Thanks to Alexandre and Guy's posts just now, I see some things I couldn't before. 

Awesome!


----------



## guitarman1960

That Terrance Mckenna clip is very interesting, and of course he makes some good points, and political correctness has certainly become its own facism. No one in the uk at least seems to be able to express an opinion that someone somewhere might deem in any way offensive, or the political correctness police will force them to make a public apology. Our free speech is being eroded by political correctness.
However, when it comes to foolish and illogical beliefs, trying to maintain that studying craft and technique will create more meaningful and deeper art is right up there. You would think punk rock never happened.
Studying craft and technique will enable you to create music within a genre that requires that particular skill set, of course that is true. It does not make it deeper or more meaningful art than a genre which is based on expressing complex and passionate ideas more directly through less schooled and more visceral approaches.


----------



## guitarman1960

To expand on the above if I may. Craft, technique and studying the greats is genre bound. If I wish to express myself by creating a traditional classical orchestral piece, then of course studying the greats of that genre and developing an understanding of all their techniques is very important. If I want to express myself by creating a jazz fusion piece, then I wont get too far without a good understanding of jazz theory and a pretty advanced level of technique on my chosen instrument.
If I want to express myself by creating a punk rock track, or an album of electronic soundscapes for example, then classical or jazz theory and techniques are irrelevant to those genres.
Is expressing myself through classical or modern jazz a deeper or more meaningful form of expression than expressing myself through punk rock, electronic soundscapes, or even delta blues for example? No, of course not.


----------



## creativeforge

guitarman1960 said:


> However, when it comes to foolish and illogical beliefs, trying to maintain that studying craft and technique will create more meaningful and deeper art is right up there. You would think punk rock never happened.
> Studying craft and technique will enable you to create music within a genre that requires that particular skill set, of course that is true. It does not make it deeper or more meaningful art than a genre which is based on expressing complex and passionate ideas more directly through less schooled and more visceral approaches.



I think it may help if it was expressed differently - whatever craft and technique you learn are only tools that you can use to either repeat and mimic the school it comes from, or you can use them to empower your creative process to reach beyond what has been done, or more modestly at least develop your own sound. 

Tell an athlete they don't need to study or understand the basic functions of their bodies, how to preserve energy while exerting effort, learning to breathe, to move through space, etc. That they can just run. Or a student violinist or oboist they don't need to learn to read music to play in an orchestra. It's basically the same, and it has nothing to do with elitism. 

IF someone wants to compose movie scores, or game soundtracks using a classical orchestra, they will usually need to know how to write for the various orchestra instruments so that the musicians will know what to play. That requires a pretty good understanding of each instrument, their range, how long winds and brass can hold a note before needing to breathe again, what instruments will work best in a certain register, etc. 

Experience can only teach us so much. We watch videos, listen to interviews with a composer speaking about the creative process for a specific movie, and that helps, but I get that I will never be able to - by myself - render well epic or classical music if I don't have, working with me, someone who understand that world from a scholarly and practical point.

There are composers who create beautiful and inspiring scores, and who don't use orchestras but other medium, genre, etc. Christof was speaking of those who try to conquer the epic genre but lack a depth of vision because they cannot venture beyond the "sounds" they have, as if the sounds made the whole act of creation linear. Experimentation will be satisfying up to the point where it's not enough anymore. We will want to continue improving and making better music. 

It's not denying new advances or that punk rock happened, but learning to use these languages in a good way to create our own synthesis of all those genres we love, that resonate with who we are, that help us express our emotions best.


----------



## creativeforge

guitarman1960 said:


> Craft, technique and studying the greats is genre bound. If I wish to express myself by creating a traditional classical orchestral piece, then of course studying the greats of that genre and developing an understanding of all their techniques is very important.



For some yes, exactly because they may just love that genre and don't see themselves playing or composing anything else really. But many more will keep exploring, for example studying jazz to understand things classical music cannot teach them, and some will then make a change and ficus on playing jazz. Etc. I never did scales, or learn piano (2 lessons as a young adult), and I don't have a strong left hand. It limits me, what I could play or compose in terms of piano parts. 



guitarman1960 said:


> Is expressing myself through classical or modern jazz a deeper or more meaningful form of expression than expressing myself through punk rock, electronic soundscapes, or even delta blues for example? No, of course not.



Ah well, of course if you heard this being said, your reaction is understandable. Personally, I haven't read anything to that effect in this thread. I have no doubt everyone would agree with you there. If you're expressing yourself in the context of creating your own music for your own project, that's one thing. But if you're hired to compose, you will probably have parameters and formats, genres that the employer will require of you. And that's a different context. No amount of amazingness will make that director happy if you can't follow the script and deliver.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Let me just catch up here for a moment:

Epic trailer music is a postmodernist art statement, yes?.. :D


----------



## creativeforge

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Let me just catch up here for a moment:
> Epic trailer music is a postmodernist art statement, yes?.. :D



Hmmm... I think he means the opposite, that living in a post-modernist era, we should move beyond it. Be post-modernists and play today's music or create new one, free from the other. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)


----------



## creativeforge




----------



## AlexandreSafi

*[guitarman1960]"However, when it comes to foolish and illogical beliefs, trying to maintain that studying craft and technique will create more meaningful and deeper art is right up there. You would think punk rock never happened.
Studying craft and technique will enable you to create music within a genre that requires that particular skill set, of course that is true. It does not make it deeper or more meaningful art than a genre which is based on expressing complex and passionate ideas more directly through less schooled and more visceral approaches."[guitarman1960]*

Absolutely agreed, "musical" craft alone is not the only requirement, but i just happen to believe that if you gave DAWs and Synths or even Guitars to musical humanists like Mozart, Bach or Ravel and let them, before they go public, observe this new world we live in for a while, and let them fail and practice and write and adapt in private, they would succeed and beat anyone in an instant gaining a universal approval in public, no matter what age or knowledge or genre the audience is into! Yes, i believe "Mass appreciation" still deeply matters... 
This, of course, is only a western opinionated theory of mine, but if it did happen, they would succeed again, not because of craft alone, but because they were "wise" enough in connecting: 
1)their empirical knowledge of the inherently emotional language that music is -&- 2)consciousness, or in other words a sense of universal values, that all of us eventually agree upon in the human experience, the *Transcendentalism* depth of the intent behind the work, acquired through subjective experience... and this combination is something that can only happen if you commit yourself to making "humanism" the only rational starting point from which the need to connect past-present-future derives, the need to transcend genres & cultures in the most sincere and demonstrable way, the need to win over the fear of not knowing good music from bad music, the need perhaps to move everyone, through an empirical unwordable but none-the-less expressible sense of truth. These resuscitated composers, or their "Second Coming" today (G.Rowland this one's for you!), would be a proof that their holistic maturity, passion, and love for humanity shows something intuitively & again transcendentally objective about language, intelligence, experience, emotions and our human nature...
As KenK brilliantly put it: "As long as you do all of this in silence, you'll be fine..." 
My opinion.
Best,
-A.s-


----------



## guitarman1960

creativeforge said:


> Ah well, of course if you heard this being said, your reaction is understandable. Personally, I haven't read anything to that effect in this thread. I have no doubt everyone would agree with you there.



Well, there are have been some extremely condescending posts by certain people claiming that it is so obvious that a Rembrandt is deeper and more meaningful than a Warhol, for example, that anyone who can't see that is an ignorant buffoon, or words to that effect.


----------



## guitarman1960

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Let me just catch up here for a moment:
> 
> Epic trailer music is a postmodernist art statement, yes?.. :D



Haha, nice one! 
If you were of a mind to, you could certainly say that some Epic Trailer music is (unintentionally) post modernist in so much as it takes ideas from classical music and EDM and Rock music and fuses them together for its own ends, and makes no distinction between elitist notions of 'high art' and 'low art'. I very much doubt that it is intentionally being post modernist though as a statement. LOL


----------



## muk

Guy Rowland said:


> When the bright-eyed film lover begins their film studies course, the first thing they learn is that they know nothing about film whatsoever. They have to learn how to READ a film, which opens up a whole new world of understanding. They learn about image systems, colour palettes, mise-en-scene and a thousand other techniques, all of which (at least in theory) have been lovingly crafted by the film-makers. Crafted it may have been, but nevertheless all this craft and sometimes deeper meaning is invisible to Joe Schmo watching in screen 10 at the local multiplex.
> 
> It's not perhaps entirely analogous to music appreciation, but there are similarities. As a scholar of film or of music, there are all kinds of richness that knowledge can unlock. And I've little doubt that just as Citizen Kane has more treasures to be unlocked than Entourage or San Andreas, different kinds of music contain greater depth to mine. And there's also little doubt that someone with some appreciation of film studies is likely to get more out of Citizen Kane than someone with a burger in one hand and Twitter in the other, with the TV on TCM in the corner drowning out the silence of their meaningless existence.



Completely agree with all of the above.



Guy Rowland said:


> What to me is a logical non sequitur however is the notion that one has to fully understand a film - or a piece of music - in order to appreciate it _in its most profound way._


Again, I agree.



Guy Rowland said:


> Many pages ago, I mentioned the Marriage of Figaro scene from Shawshank Redemption and posed the question - whose experience is more profound? The true lover of classical music who can understand all the technical musical brilliance that went into that composition, or the grunt prisoner in the movie who was transported by something they could never hope to understand in that way? I don't think anyone attempted to answer my question which is a shame, because I thought it was rather a good one.



Good question. I don't know, but I'd suspect neither experience is more profound. Both are profound. But this question is aimed solely at the emotional experience of music, which is but one component of it. Exchange the Mozart Canzonetta with a schmalzy kitsch ballade and the result would be different. The grunt prisoner might have the same experience or one very similar to the one with the Mozart Canzonetta. But a musically trained and studied prisoner may find it boring and sappy. Or take a piece of music that is not as openly beautiful as the Mozart duet. Take a Bach fugue from the Wohltemperiertes Klavier. Here the grunt prisoner might be bored, where a musicologist prisoner may very well have a very profound experience.


----------



## bbunker

I thought that the American political scene was polarized - apparently that's nothing compared to this debate. There seem to be two essential arguments - that "There exists something in 'great' music which transcends genre" and that "Context, situation, and sociocultural elements will determine the reception of any work of music." Both are clearly and intuitively true - one need only listen to a Symphony by Dittersdorf and then one of the last four of Mozart to have the difference between the great and the good thrust in one's lap. And, keeping to classical music for simplicity, that judging "Petroushka" by the same rubric as Dittersdorf is a fool's errand, and that there clearly do exist multiple aesthetics for musical works.

It strikes me that the big difference here is in the weight given to the importance of either side of the distribution equation; the job of determining quality is either put fully at the point of creation or reception in these two models. In the 'supply-side' system, then quality is determined by the amount 'invested' in the creation of the work, and there is absolutely no importance given to what happens after that initial creation. It's the kind of zeitgeist that has allowed monstrosities like the Darmstadt school to exist, where the actual sound of a composition doesn't matter - composers examined new works mostly through looking at the notes on the page and assessing the craft that composers used in serializing every element of music. With all due respect to fans of integral serialism - that kind of meta-aesthetic (where compositional skill, intent and craft replace ACTUAL aesthetics) was a failure.

On the other end of the chain, music is (except for integral serialists...grrrr...) a medium which is listened to, by individual listeners, in specific situations and contexts, with myriad aesthetic and genre preferences. Avoiding that fact clearly leads to serious issues, but what about when that becomes the sole factor determining the value of a work? Well, the tyranny of popular opinion is born, paired with the rule of utility. Popular opinion is valuable, but only trolls and cynics would suggest that the best record of any given year must be the one that sells the most copies. Usually listener response has to be made more specific to be a helpful metric, and that's where utility and use value usually makes an appearance.

In this mindset there are a number of uses for music - and pieces are judged by the success they have in performing those uses, by their usefulness, their utility for that specific role. There are a number of problems here. First of all, the specificity of these roles is arbitrary. Mozart Symphonies (in a 'normal' performance and performance space for those works) clearly have less "use value" at a Black Metal concert, but what role do we look at specifically? A statistical mean of all Black Metal concerts in the world? Then there's no importance given to regional differences, or taste changing over time. If we focused on, say, one concert in Trondheim on June 6, 2012, then we're still not accounting for individual taste, since each participant in the concert ritual will also have had unique and individual responses to everything performed. There's also the difficulty in pinning down usefulness - what is the normal performance for a Mozart Symphony, anyway? I would wager a guess that the vast majority of music isn't listened to in a Concert, Festival, Club or Bar anymore, and that recorded music is the way people listen to music. So, in truth, the vast majority of the performances (and, more importantly, the listening experiences) of Mozart Symphonies is as electroacoustic works (or at the very least, simulacra of imagined concert experiences) on personal listening devices. Even in Mozart's time, it's unlikely that most of the population would experience the works in the concert hall (or church or chamber, for that matter) but rather through the medium of the piano reduction, through potpourris, or other 2 or 4 hand piano transcriptions played in the home. Pointing at one specific context for musical reception is clearly reductionist, and it makes any discussion of context too fraught to pursue.

There's also the issue of the implied value system in gauging works by their utility. Clearly part of the job of a composer is to match their output with consumers who can 'use' their production, but no one ever began writing or listening to music because of the utility of it. No one began listening to music because they read an article about the health benefits of it, and began an acumen of three listenings per day. No composer read an article about the job prospects of composing and quit her advanced architectural degree for greener pastures. If the reason for some activity's existence contrasts markedly with a possible way of judging the success of that activity, then something has to give!

To sum up (TL, DR skip here: ) I already have to live in a world where Curtis and Eastman panel judges give more competition spots to Curtis and Eastman composer graduates (trusting, presumably, that they write with the requisite level of 'compositional integrity'), where some performers have been trained to look for 'rigour' and 'seriousness' when considering whether to play a work or not, where rock and blues players look at advanced performance degrees with more than a hint of suspicion, and where working with anyone is usually wrapped around how many 'units' have been moved in a previous project. This is my Weltschmerz to bear, but beating the fundamentalist drum on either end of the spectrum only contributes to it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I reject the idea that because they were not accessible to the masses, works like "Grupen" by Stockhausen, "Le Marteau Sans Maitre" by Boulez, "Circles" by Berio are "failures. They are amazing works of music That have already passed the test of time.


----------



## bbunker

Sorry, Jay - that's a straw-man argument. And a false dichotomy, for that matter. Nowhere did I suggest that something that isn't accessible to the masses is a failure. What I did suggest is that non-aural factors (like perceived rigorousness or 'academic quality') CAN NOT be the sole determining factor of the merit of a work. Also, you're listing works which had already abandoned the tenets of purist, "Schoenberg is Dead" integral serialism - there are a number of factors that aren't serialized in all of those works, so you're not even discussing works which I'm listing directly, but rather works which have reacted to the first wave of integral serialism by reducing controls on factors. Which, in a way proves my point. Do you hold "Structures 1A" in the same high esteem?

Also part of your straw-man is your language "accessible to the masses." I made one mention of weighing success by this metric, and it clearly was negative. If anything, I was suggesting that there are unique sociocultural situations, unique to every interaction between individuals and individual works at unique times. I deplore in my previous post the way that trying to look purely at sociocultural responses to works can only be done by arbitrarily setting up fixed metrics.

And it's a false dichotomy - the False dichotomy that I suggested in the bulk of my previous post between reception-less "quality of music" and creation-less "utility of music." Wouldn't you admit that all of the pieces you listed had their own reception, their own popularity, within the context of the Darmstadt audience? Weren't these pieces initially judged as successes or failures based on the aesthetic principles specific to the audience they were written for? I seriously doubt that anyone who wrote a piece of integral serialism would be taken seriously anywhere today, no matter the quality of the composition. And if Julia Wolfe teleported to 1951, she'd be laughed off the stage. So, no - there is no dualism between mass appeal and compositional rigor. Just a world of myriad aesthetic receptions, sociocultural constructs and near-infinite listener baggage that combines with various forms of compositional and artistic genius and not-so-genius.


----------



## bbunker

For the record, Gruppen is fantastic. Le Marteau is a wretched abomination. IMHO.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Wow that is a lot of verbiage 

My quarrel with you is over this specific paragraph: "It's the kind of zeitgeist that has allowed monstrosities like the Darmstadt school to exist, where the actual sound of a composition doesn't matter - composers examined new works mostly through looking at the notes on the page and assessing the craft that composers used in serializing every element of music. With all due respect to fans of integral serialism - that kind of meta-aesthetic (where compositional skill, intent and craft replace ACTUAL aesthetics) was a failure."

It is a total misrepresentation to say that the actual sound didn't matter to them. "In lectures such as "Music in Space" from 1958 he called for new kinds of concert halls to be built, "suited to the requirements of spatial music". His idea was a spherical space which is fitted all around with loudspeakers. In the middle of this spherical space a sound-permeable, transparent platform would be suspended for the listeners. They could hear music composed for such standardized spaces coming from above, from below and from all points of the compass."

Does that sound like someone who did not care what the compositions sounded like, only how they looked on a paper? And by what metric was it a failure? 

I studied with Avram David, a disciple of that school and he taught me the techniques of having the music look a certain way on the page but it was always with the goal of creating new sounds and if the end result didn't work, it didn't work.

And as I said, music historians have already decided that "Le Marteau" is a seminal and important work. But you are entitled not to like it.


----------



## bbunker

I see the confusion - I'm referring specifically to early 1950's Darmstadt - by 1958 integral serialism every composer that was in the 1951 "Structures" session had modified their integral serialism, and the processes they used. And Stockhausen - well, I'd suggest that he used serialism in all its forms as a vehicle, in the same way that he 'used' indeterminacy in later works (like the Klavierstücke). The point being that 1951 Darmstadt is the tipping point of Boulez's "Schoenberg is Dead" fixation on Webern and Messiaen's "Mode de Valeurs" where the aesthetic goes off the brink into absurdity. One need only look at Boulez's writings from 'Schoenberg is Dead' until about 1953 to see an aesthetic that cares only on how things work out on paper.

I do believe you've called "Le Marteau" a 'seminal' work. Which I agree it is. But it isn't 'good.' That, my friend, is truly the crux of this whole thing, isn't it?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

As someone who has heard both Stockhausen and Boulez speak in person, and actually talked to Boulez a bit one on one, that is an over-simplification of what they were after.

And that is the crux of things, whether history makes critical evaluations that are not only subjective but objective as well or not. 

Oh, God, I cannot believe I am getting sucked into this again. I AM [email protected]


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Le Marteau, along with the ending credits cue from Spongebob Squarepants, is one of the funniest pieces of music that I know. Every time I listen to one of those, they totally crack me up. Love that stuff!


----------



## mc_deli

LOL I guess this is bound to happen if you get paid by the post


----------



## guitarman1960

bbunker said:


> I thought that the American political scene was polarized - apparently that's nothing compared to this debate. There seem to be two essential arguments - that "There exists something in 'great' music which transcends genre" and that "Context, situation, and sociocultural elements will determine the reception of any work of music." Both are clearly and intuitively true - one need only listen to a Symphony by Dittersdorf and then one of the last four of Mozart to have the difference between the great and the good thrust in one's lap. And, keeping to classical music for simplicity, that judging "Petroushka" by the same rubric as Dittersdorf is a fool's errand, and that there clearly do exist multiple aesthetics for musical works.
> 
> It strikes me that the big difference here is in the weight given to the importance of either side of the distribution equation; the job of determining quality is either put fully at the point of creation or reception in these two models. In the 'supply-side' system, then quality is determined by the amount 'invested' in the creation of the work, and there is absolutely no importance given to what happens after that initial creation. It's the kind of zeitgeist that has allowed monstrosities like the Darmstadt school to exist, where the actual sound of a composition doesn't matter - composers examined new works mostly through looking at the notes on the page and assessing the craft that composers used in serializing every element of music. With all due respect to fans of integral serialism - that kind of meta-aesthetic (where compositional skill, intent and craft replace ACTUAL aesthetics) was a failure.
> 
> On the other end of the chain, music is (except for integral serialists...grrrr...) a medium which is listened to, by individual listeners, in specific situations and contexts, with myriad aesthetic and genre preferences. Avoiding that fact clearly leads to serious issues, but what about when that becomes the sole factor determining the value of a work? Well, the tyranny of popular opinion is born, paired with the rule of utility. Popular opinion is valuable, but only trolls and cynics would suggest that the best record of any given year must be the one that sells the most copies. Usually listener response has to be made more specific to be a helpful metric, and that's where utility and use value usually makes an appearance.
> 
> In this mindset there are a number of uses for music - and pieces are judged by the success they have in performing those uses, by their usefulness, their utility for that specific role. There are a number of problems here. First of all, the specificity of these roles is arbitrary. Mozart Symphonies (in a 'normal' performance and performance space for those works) clearly have less "use value" at a Black Metal concert, but what role do we look at specifically? A statistical mean of all Black Metal concerts in the world? Then there's no importance given to regional differences, or taste changing over time. If we focused on, say, one concert in Trondheim on June 6, 2012, then we're still not accounting for individual taste, since each participant in the concert ritual will also have had unique and individual responses to everything performed. There's also the difficulty in pinning down usefulness - what is the normal performance for a Mozart Symphony, anyway? I would wager a guess that the vast majority of music isn't listened to in a Concert, Festival, Club or Bar anymore, and that recorded music is the way people listen to music. So, in truth, the vast majority of the performances (and, more importantly, the listening experiences) of Mozart Symphonies is as electroacoustic works (or at the very least, simulacra of imagined concert experiences) on personal listening devices. Even in Mozart's time, it's unlikely that most of the population would experience the works in the concert hall (or church or chamber, for that matter) but rather through the medium of the piano reduction, through potpourris, or other 2 or 4 hand piano transcriptions played in the home. Pointing at one specific context for musical reception is clearly reductionist, and it makes any discussion of context too fraught to pursue.
> 
> There's also the issue of the implied value system in gauging works by their utility. Clearly part of the job of a composer is to match their output with consumers who can 'use' their production, but no one ever began writing or listening to music because of the utility of it. No one began listening to music because they read an article about the health benefits of it, and began an acumen of three listenings per day. No composer read an article about the job prospects of composing and quit her advanced architectural degree for greener pastures. If the reason for some activity's existence contrasts markedly with a possible way of judging the success of that activity, then something has to give!
> 
> To sum up (TL, DR skip here: ) I already have to live in a world where Curtis and Eastman panel judges give more competition spots to Curtis and Eastman composer graduates (trusting, presumably, that they write with the requisite level of 'compositional integrity'), where some performers have been trained to look for 'rigour' and 'seriousness' when considering whether to play a work or not, where rock and blues players look at advanced performance degrees with more than a hint of suspicion, and where working with anyone is usually wrapped around how many 'units' have been moved in a previous project. This is my Weltschmerz to bear, but beating the fundamentalist drum on either end of the spectrum only contributes to it.



Great post!
This discussion is getting interesting again.
The central argument is really about how works of 'Art' in the broadest sense can be judged to be good or bad, successful or otherwise, great or mediocre or even dire.
This is an amazingly complex issue which I don't think has ever been resolved by anyone, and in fact may not be possible to resolve at all.

I do think it's very true to say that you can't judge all music by the same metrics, we have had many examples on here of people trying to maintain that one thing is objectively more worthy than another when they are in fact just different.

All the commonly held criteria for judging Art as good or bad can very easily be picked apart and shown to be not good criteria at all. Popularity is obviously no criteria, and the judgement of Art Historians, Academics and Critics is certainly no measure either.

I think the case of so called modern 'Art Music' is much the same as modern visual arts. The main and sometimes only reason that modern 'art music' composers and modern visual artists such as Damien Hirst are taken seriously is that they belong to the right crowd of patrons, peers, academics and cognoscenti and are operating within the right network of people.
If a totally unknown composer with no connections produced some of the work that is considered 'art music' they wouldn't be given the time of day. It's just the same with the Modern Art scene. If an unknown with no connections took a pickled shark to the Tate Gallery they would get laughed out of town. Study at The Royal College of Art and network with the right people and the right art dealers and critics, and wow, your work sells for millions of dollars, and gets analysed by academics and critics as important work.
The whole history of art has operated on patronage of wealthy, powerful and connected people and their establishment academics and scholars pronouncing to the masses that such and such is 'great'. Scholars, critics, historians and academics prove what they set out to prove, in the same way as scientists do, often according to the agenda of their sponsors and backers.

The only criteria that kind of stands up is how well the artist achieves his aim with the work, and how well this resonates with its intended audience.

That audience doesn't have to be experts who have studied the particular genre either. Someone mentioned that 'knowledge is power', well yes it can be, but it can also get in the way of a purer response to the work.
I remember reading a very good interview with virtuoso guitarist Joe Satriani where he said he often wished that he didn't know as much about music and theory, and could just listen or play without all that knowledge getting in the way. He found it difficult to appreciate a guitar solo for what it was, because he would be thinking 'he is playing E mixolydian over that chord change which is why that works' to give a badly paraphrased example. So in some ways people who don't have that in depth musical knowledge get a purer listening experience.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Re the Shawshank problem...



muk said:


> Good question. I don't know, but I'd suspect neither experience is more profound. Both are profound. But this question is aimed solely at the emotional experience of music, which is but one component of it. Exchange the Mozart Canzonetta with a schmalzy kitsch ballade and the result would be different. The grunt prisoner might have the same experience or one very similar to the one with the Mozart Canzonetta. But a musically trained and studied prisoner may find it boring and sappy. Or take a piece of music that is not as openly beautiful as the Mozart duet. Take a Bach fugue from the Wohltemperiertes Klavier. Here the grunt prisoner might be bored, where a musicologist prisoner may very well have a very profound experience.



Well now... I don't think it's true that if you swapped Mozart for schmaltz you'd get the same reaction (or to be more truthful, the scene wouldn't have worked). My reading of the scene is that the prisoners recognised greatness, and its transcendence. If my interpretation is correct (should do that film studies course really), then this is a particularly miraculous thing - that there is a suggestion of a level of greatness which somehow transcends all that knowledge. Personally speaking, it's an idea I find rather compelling.

People often ask me if I spend all my time in the cinema listening to the music and / or the sound, and find it hard to concentrate on the film. What I invariably say is that I tend to notice these things if they're bad or wrong, or if the film itself is boring. Although there are exceptions where music calls attention to itself and it works, it's more common for me to notice the music and sound design less when they are very good, and part of a very good film all round. Because that is the magic of cinema, its ability to transport you away from the Butterkist and sticky floors and become completely immersed in the world, characters and story. For me, Shawshank itself was a perfect example actually. I couldn't even remember whether or not United 93 even had a score, yet when I heard it in isolation afterwards I realised how much outstanding work it had done while my conscious brain was ignoring it.

So it makes complete sense to me that music works in the same way. Now, I guess you might counter with "that's an emotional response", but I think that's too simplistic. One's whole self becomes engaged - not just emotion, but intellect too. I think we're touching on that elusive gift of genius, the apparent effortlessness that we hear in Williams at his best which is so widely appreciated.

I'm droning on, sorry...


----------



## Guy Rowland

(Oop, though droning on, I forgot to finish my argument - which is that when watching a great movie for the first time (or hearing great music) critical faculties and years of training all shut down and one gets swept away. Afterwards I then want to return to it and analyse the hell out of it usually. If it's really REALLY outstanding, it thwarts my attempts and I get swept up in it all over again. OK, droning mode off.)


----------



## eric aron

such epic thread.. I am coming late, but heartily thanks to mainly Piet, Jay, Mike Verta, to have brought your mature insights.. all is said already in your posts, so adding my own voice will be just a small underline and counterpoint to the huge data already brought.. and I dont have Piet’s level of eloquence, culture, english mastery

genius-talent are given, you are born or not with it. but talent dont dispensate from hard work. because it is basically given like an open window to inspiration, discriminatory hearing abilities, craft attainment facilities, and all this is fed by the deep feeling of serving the collectivity, not the ego

talent can be violent as lived psychologically and physiologically. it is not a fairy tale grace state filled forever with bliss. it can also be a destructive fight, because of the high voltages involved, and the antagonist interaction with a world that is mostly not filled with talent and awakening

some people answers here clearly underline their inexperience, light musical education, lack of discernment, thus their still remarquable ego level served epically through compensatory discharges

talent can only be recognized by talent if such kind of discussion is engaged, and level misbalance only leads to turn around

our so said now ‘civilization’ is not at all the good stallion of a sane judgement ability, nor the capacity of discernment between what is depth and what is not

most of the masses are asleep since long in a convenient cocoon filled with gadgets and instant-gratification emotional contents. most nowadays commercial movies are remarkably serving the purpose

all the spiritual values that could make us still noble and responsible for our common evolution are buried in profit to cheap Pavlovesque consumerism

in this context, critical thinking and common sense are mostly inexistant

in 100 years, Beethoven will be still played and revered. not Steve Jablonsky, or any EDM anthem

what makes the greatness of a civilization is immuable

this universe has also immuable laws. we are here on this planet only since a fraction of a second, and we did more damages to it, and by reflexion to us, than in the billions of years it existed before 

the most humanity deeds doesn’t show signs of maturity of any kind

the now music, and arts, reflects perfectly this state.. a big mess filled with cheap-easy-to-sell-short-life-items, issued from so said artists that have nearly no background

the only epic I see now is the epic mediocrity that surrounds in full 5.1 all the garbage we daily create, in the name of fallacy and illusion

apples and oranges, no. there is more

but this ‘more’ calls for a different mind, a freed one

turning around in the maze of illusions won’t bring higher perspectives

as for now, and in our western culture, classical said composers are still tenants of the musical excellence and inspiration level of any historical times we know. there are exceptions, but minor

we are now in a big laboratory, trying awkwardly to reassemble blocks that have lost their meaning by being so much quartered, and this since world war 1-2 period

you want even more epic? wait 10-15 years, you will be the direct witness of the most ever realtime movie featuring our epic madness until its self destruction

transcendance is elsewhere


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Gah, I restisted all this time. But now, I feel it's justified:


----------



## guitarman1960

eric aron said:


> such epic thread.. I am coming late, but heartily thanks to mainly Piet, Jay, Mike Verta, to have brought your mature insights.. all is said already in your posts, so adding my own voice will be just a small underline and counterpoint to the huge data already brought.. and I dont have Piet’s level of eloquence, culture, english mastery
> 
> genius-talent are given, you are born or not with it. but talent dont dispensate from hard work. because it is basically given like an open window to inspiration, discriminatory hearing abilities, craft attainment facilities, and all this is fed by the deep feeling of serving the collectivity, not the ego
> 
> talent can be violent as lived psychologically and physiologically. it is not a fairy tale grace state filled forever with bliss. it can also be a destructive fight, because of the high voltages involved, and the antagonist interaction with a world that is mostly not filled with talent and awakening
> 
> some people answers here clearly underline their inexperience, light musical education, lack of discernment, thus their still remarquable ego level served epically through compensatory discharges
> 
> talent can only be recognized by talent if such kind of discussion is engaged, and level misbalance only leads to turn around
> 
> our so said now ‘civilization’ is not at all the good stallion of a sane judgement ability, nor the capacity of discernment between what is depth and what is not
> 
> most of the masses are asleep since long in a convenient cocoon filled with gadgets and instant-gratification emotional contents. most nowadays commercial movies are remarkably serving the purpose
> 
> all the spiritual values that could make us still noble and responsible for our common evolution are buried in profit to cheap Pavlovesque consumerism
> 
> in this context, critical thinking and common sense are mostly inexistant
> 
> in 100 years, Beethoven will be still played and revered. not Steve Jablonsky, or any EDM anthem
> 
> what makes the greatness of a civilization is immuable
> 
> this universe has also immuable laws. we are here on this planet only since a fraction of a second, and we did more damages to it, and by reflexion to us, than in the billions of years it existed before
> 
> the most humanity deeds doesn’t show signs of maturity of any kind
> 
> the now music, and arts, reflects perfectly this state.. a big mess filled with cheap-easy-to-sell-short-life-items, issued from so said artists that have nearly no background
> 
> the only epic I see now is the epic mediocrity that surrounds in full 5.1 all the garbage we daily create, in the name of fallacy and illusion
> 
> apples and oranges, no. there is more
> 
> but this ‘more’ calls for a different mind, a freed one
> 
> turning around in the maze of illusions won’t bring higher perspectives
> 
> as for now, and in our western culture, classical said composers are still tenants of the musical excellence and inspiration level of any historical times we know. there are exceptions, but minor
> 
> we are now in a big laboratory, trying awkwardly to reassemble blocks that have lost their meaning by being so much quartered, and this since world war 1-2 period
> 
> you want even more epic? wait 10-15 years, you will be the direct witness of the most ever realtime movie featuring our epic madness until its self destruction
> 
> transcendance is elsewhere


Hi Eric, 
I'm on completely the other side of the debate to Piet and Jay, but that was a great post! I agree with 95 percent of what you are saying. 
Your preferance for classical composers is great, and is your choice and your opinion. But I am still not buying the idea that the classical genre is in any way superior to other genres. There are geniuses in all genres. Please explain to me how a classical music genius is superior to a rock music genius for example? If you can I will be mightily impressed because no one has come close to explaining this belief.
Enjoyed your contribution though, and am interested in what you have to say.
Dave


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

By that logic, the more positions from the Kama Sutra I know and am able to perform, the better lover I am to my wife than you are to yours.


----------



## dsmo

I for one look forward to the passing of this now quite boring style. It has its place in films (most of which are on the level of a nine-year-old these days) . I can't watch TV anymore without being bombarded with all that silly wordless choir and big-ass drum stuff, accompanying just about everything, including commercials. Watch a wildebeest get eaten (again) by a lion, to Carmina Burana? Can't deal with it anymore. And the Universe shows, I can't watch them either, as much for the constant blinding white light as the overdone music. Give our poor senses a break!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> By that logic, the more positions from the Kama Sutra I know and am able to perform, the better lover I am to my wife than you are to yours.



Oh boy, does it take all my self-discipline not to make some salacious responses to this


----------



## guitarman1960

EastWest Lurker said:


> Oh boy, does it take all my self-discipline not to make some salacious responses to this


Go for it Jay, you dont usually hold back!


----------



## Living Fossil

KevSharpMinor said:


> For his time, he was a piano and violin virtuoso.



Just for the record: Beethoven was *no* violin virtuoso.
In his younger years he played Viola in the court orchestra of Bonn.
He was a famous pianist though.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

EastWest Lurker said:


> Oh boy, does it take all my self-discipline not to make some salacious responses to this



Have at it, it's not as if this thread had any standards ...


----------



## guitarman1960

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Have at it, it's not as if this thread had any standards ...


Standards are all relative, of course! :D


----------



## SymphonicSamples

guitarman1960 said:


> Please explain to me how a classical music genius is superior to a rock music genius for example?


Hey guitarman , this indeed is an epic thread . Just as a framework for reference .. For argument sake we pick Beethoven as an example of a genius from Classical music , could you give an example of a genius from Rock music whom you feel would be an equal to Beethoven as a reference . Obviously there is no right or wrong answer just your opinion/belief as a musician ..


----------



## Guy Rowland

mdiemer said:


> I for one look forward to the passing of this now quite boring style. It has its place in films (most of which are on the level of a nine-year-old these days) . I can't watch TV anymore without being bombarded with all that silly wordless choir and big-ass drum stuff, accompanying just about everything, including commercials. Watch a wildebeest get eaten (again) by a lion, to Carmina Burana? Can't deal with it anymore. And the Universe shows, I can't watch them either, as much for the constant blinding white light as the overdone music. Give our poor senses a break!



I mean, that's it really. There's been some really interesting debate in this thread amid all the tiresome stuff, but this actually is the most relevant thing with Epic.

We've just finished a 6 part series here in the UK called Humans, a remake of a Scandanavian drama called Real Humans. It's sort of a parallel universe where everything is identical to ours, except we have androids that look authentically human and are commonplace as household devices. Although the acting was variable and some of the scriptwriting that terrible UK-soap-ish thing, it has some interesting ideas. Anyway, I mention it because I really liked the music. It was often rather retro, almost 70s synths, giving the whole thing another odd layer (2015 world with 2115 androids and a 1975 tone to it all). But the most impressive thing is how restrained it was, in the main. The post I quoted so describes where we are with music today, it was lovely to watch a chase scene without thundering taikos, arps and beatz. It gave it real atmosphere and almost made up for some of the script.

I don't hate epic, I just have grown to detest its ubiquity turning everything into the same bland and boring mush. And so if the next trend is "less is more", then hoo-bloody-ray for that.


----------



## mwarsell

Beethoven and Eddie Van Halen? Lol.

What about Domenico Scarlatti and Freddie Mercury?


----------



## guitarman1960

SymphonicSamples said:


> Hey guitarman , this indeed is an epic thread . Just as a framework for reference .. For argument sake we pick Beethoven as an example of a genius from Classical music , could you give an example of a genius from Rock music whom you feel would be an equal to Beethoven as a reference . Obviously there is no right or wrong answer just your opinion/belief as a musician ..


I can give an example of someone in Rock Music who within the framework of Rock is considered a genius, e.g. Jimi Hendrix. That does not mean you can compare him with Beethoven, or Beethoven with Tangerine Dream.
The whole point I have been making is that a 'universal greatness', or 'pinnacle of excellence', or however you choose to word it, simply does not exist.
One persons 'transcendent pinnacle of excellence' is another persons 'boring meh'
Something can only be a pinnacle of excellence within the framework of metrics you are using to judge it. There simply is not one set of metrics that apply universally to all works of art. There is no 'high art' or 'low art'.
I would wager that most of the 'high art' believers on here are those who have invested years of time and study into traditional classical orchestral music. Academic study and knowledge is great, but can also lead to subjective opinion being confused with fact. The amount of peers, scholars, academics and critics who agree that a work of art is great, does not make it 'universally great', merely great within that framework of judgement.
Many acclaimed guitarists, rock critics and rock music fans would probably agree that Hendrix Machine Gun from Band of Gypsies is at the pinnacle of excellence in electric guitar music. Many other people would probably not stand to listen to it. That does not make the knowledgeable guitarists and critics right and those who haven't studied it wrong. I personally like Stravinsky, but I know quite a few classically trained professional musicians who cannot stand Stravinsky. You may appreciate something without liking it of course, that's true, but appreciation of the craft and skill does not make it 'universally great' either.


----------



## SymphonicSamples

Indeed . Given music is so broad and encompass so many styles it's becomes difficult . I guess it would be like taking two Olympic Athletes from say Track and Field , and saying because athlete A - who is the fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world is a greater athlete than athlete B: the High jump champion of the World . It really comes down to the belief sytem that we build throughout our lives relative to each individual .


----------



## Guy Rowland

guitarman1960 said:


> There is no 'high art' or 'low art'.


----------



## SymphonicSamples

mwarsell said:


> Beethoven and Eddie Van Halen? Lol.
> 
> What about Domenico Scarlatti and Freddie Mercury?



Just for the record Miika , I'd choose Beethoven's composing mind , Freddie Mercury's Voice and EVH's guitar skills , I'd be pretty happy with that I must say


----------



## guitarman1960

Guy Rowland said:


>



Haha, that's great!


----------



## AlexandreSafi

guitarman1960 said:


> Standards are all relative, of course! :D


Kind of ironic that the last post you made off the "epic thread" was this: _(On once upon a time: "One of the greatest films of all time, in every possible way. The music, the cinematography, the direction, the dialogue, everything!"_

Search your feelings! I know, or I'm completely wrong, some part of you doesn't "really" 100% believe what you have "intellectually" stood by in this very thread! You know it to be true, or I'm just sayin'...
-A.s-


----------



## guitarman1960

AlexandreSafi said:


> Kind of ironic that the last post you made off the "epic thread" was this: _(On once upon a time: "One of the greatest films of all time, in every possible way. The music, the cinematography, the direction, the dialogue, everything!"_
> 
> Search your feelings! I know, or I'm completely wrong, some part of you doesn't "really" 100% believe what you have "intellectually" stood by in this very thread! You know it to be true, or I'm just sayin'...
> -A.s-



As I have said many times, I'm not saying there is not great music, great art, or great films. The thread you quoted me from was people posting their opinions. In my opinion Once Upon a Time in the West, is one of the greatest films of all time by the metrics I am using to judge it. Others may not rate Spaghetti Westerns to be remotely as deep or worthy as some obscure European Art House movie. They are looking at it in a totally different way. Neither is right or wrong.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

guitarman1960 said:


> As I have said many times, I'm not saying there is not great music, great art, or great films.


Good! Anyways, all my best to you Guitarman1960!
-A.s-


----------



## Jaap

KevSharpMinor said:


> You gotta be fair - it takes more knowledge to write a symphony (without a DAW) than a rock tune. Even if that symphony stinks. 30 minutes of music for 20+ instruments vs. 5 minutes for 3 instruments.



I have read the thread with great interest and maybe I get to the topic in a bit as well, but just saw this statement and to be honest I disagree. I am a huge fan of Beethoven (and I studied classical composition, can sight read, have absolute pitch etc etc brag brag ). I have written during my study years and the years I worked as modern composer 4 symphonies and 1 opera, but I rather write a symphony then a rock song to be honest. 
It might require a different skill set and you can compare it maybe to writing (epic) trailer music where also everything has to be done in a few minutes. I find it more easy to take my time and work out ideas and harmonies in a symphony, but for the me true challenge is to actually write something that catches straight away, work with a limited form and time frame. If you are able to do that and even create your own signature sound, then you are a really good composer.
The problem with rock/pop music compared to classical music about enduring through time is that classical music can also be reproduced live hundreds of years later, while nobody can reproduce the Beatles without the Beatles. Of course we have all kinds of stuff like lp's cd's, mp3's etc to make it last, but it can never be reproduced live again without them.

Regarding the whole elitism here. I love epic music. I love Stockhausen (had a few masterclasses with him). Music is music and to be able to build music you should understand the craft, but also the passion. You can't compose great music without knowing a certain set of skills nor can you compose without a certain amount of passion and musical feeling inside you.
When I was teaching I always compared it with architecture. Can you build and design a house without knowing it's structure and how to make it last for many decades? No of course not. If I would design a house without knowledge it might look nice, but it's internal structure will fail and not last. Same goes to music in my opinion whether it's about Epic, Jazz or Avantgarde.


----------



## mc_deli

I am going to retune to the OP: Why do they want to be epic?

Because "they" watch Junkie XL layer 97 surdos, "they" spank the limiter, and it is addictive. "They" feel that every track they make has to build and build and end in a bigger bang. It is like mastering engineers and the loudness war, guitarists and speed, mixers and autotune, mixers and drum replacement... these things have very little to do with music, and I think very little to do with the audience and their demands (though that is how they are justified by the "artist"). I think they have more to do with the innate urge to compete and the adrenalin rush of bigger, faster, louder. I think their pursuit is ultimately pointless and a distraction from the actual art but sadly I am often addicted and guilty on all counts.


----------



## Jaap

I fully agree that it requires a different skill set. No doubt about that and it's "easier" for a starter to start with writing a pop/rock song then a symphony. However, and that's my personal opinion, to make a really outstanding song it takes a good skill set as well and years of experience. It is however I think apples and oranges and with a different goal in mind.

When I work on a symphony I write for the music and art it self and I have no other goal in mind then let the music speak for itself. When I work on a trailer composition I have to keep attention to the clients needs, the public, the cinematic background etc etc and I work with a different skill set, but I am still the same composer


----------



## Jaap

KevSharpMinor said:


> I would say the problem with comparing the two is people don't pick similar works form the genre to compare. "Classical music" has become sarcastic short hand for pretentious long pieces. Comparing a symphony to Van Halen's "Beautiful Girls" is as invalid a comparison as Bach's Prelude in C-major (from Well Tempered Clavier) to Phantom of the Opera or some epic Dream Theater song.
> 
> Schindler's List was the worst comedy of all time. Just my opinion.



Fully agree here. You just can't compare the two. Heck, it's already hard to compare certain classical music. In my opinion Beethoven and Stockhausen are two different beasts. Same goes for the Beatles and Taylor Swift etc etc.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Jaap said:


> ...but for the me true challenge is to actually write something that catches straight away, work with a limited form and time frame. If you are able to do that and even create your own signature sound, then you are a really good composer.


And that's where i come down to myself: memorable idea = good (plus where you take that idea), and there is absolutely nothing inherently subjective about a great memorable idea, no matter what your taste or standard of craft is, and THAT's what i want us artists to fight for, to realize that, with enough life & musical experience, good vs. bad music in its most irreducible form DOES exist...

The truth is, the reason we really get tired of anything right now is, because there aren't that many people striving to live and breathe on good ideas, or any, in their writing...
And it's not talent, it's pure ambition and generosity, fire & water...
Good post Jaap!
-A.s.-


----------



## KEnK

AlexandreSafi said:


> The truth is, the reason we really get tired of anything right now is, because there aren't that many people striving to live and breathe on good ideas, or any, in their writing...


Yes-entire genres seem based on exactly that-
but because "someone" may like it, according to the absurd nihilist egalitarian logic being promulgated here, 
we mustn't think any less of a turd than we would a diamond.
A ridiculous argument that goes nowhere.

k


----------



## EastWest Lurker

RE: genius vs talent:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/17/are-writers-born-or-made-jack-kerouac/


----------



## eric aron

guitarman1960 said:


> Hi Eric,
> I'm on completely the other side of the debate to Piet and Jay, but that was a great post! I agree with 95 percent of what you are saying.
> Your preferance for classical composers is great, and is your choice and your opinion. But I am still not buying the idea that the classical genre is in any way superior to other genres. There are geniuses in all genres. Please explain to me how a classical music genius is superior to a rock music genius for example? If you can I will be mightily impressed because no one has come close to explaining this belief.
> Enjoyed your contribution though, and am interested in what you have to say.
> Dave



Dave,
in spite of that I am passionate and invested in many musical genres that could be considered as antagonists (last album was electro trance with didgeridoo, next work will be a new piano concerto, and symphony), until now and in spite of all these multiple more-than-interests, my preference for classical composers comes again by cycles. why? because I was first classically trained? was gifted enough from birth? I am not sure. I was also early called by many different musics, and went to explore, learn, and write in different musical tribes, from classical to jazz to songs to world to electro.. 

Music Is, whatever genre. Music don’t need classifications, it floats above all derisory human labels. 

Geniuses can be found in many genres. My masters were Keith Jarrett, Oscar Peterson, Vangelis, Isao Tomita, Genesis, Friedrich Gulda, as well as all major ‘classic’ or ‘contemporary’ composers until nowadays.. and also middle east music, and far eastern like classical Chinese. I cannot be the one erecting walls between labels.

Meanwhile, Beethoven (or any of his peers), has reached a level that is still revered, and played, after some centuries. Beethoven is not a trend. Beethoven is not a filling soundscape, nor a mood. There are reasons after this. His music is touching whats is called the Universal, the Timeless, the Sacred, Life as a summary. Its not only the skills. He was touched by Grace. No square reasoning can explain it. No one can fake Beethoven. 

Whatever you think, whatever I think, it won’t change anything. Transcendance has the closest intersection with music. Through Music we can, as musicians, touch Heavens and bring on earth some seeds from these Grace states.

Find where is that Grace, in any matter, art, and you will receive the answers your are searching for


----------



## guitarman1960

KEnK said:


> Yes-entire genres seem based on exactly that-
> but because "someone" may like it, according to the absurd nihilist egalitarian logic being promulgated here,
> we mustn't think any less of a turd than we would a diamond.
> A ridiculous argument that goes nowhere.
> 
> k


With all respect, you know full well that no-one is saying any such thing. If you truly cannot understand that you can't judge completely different types of work by one set of criteria, then that's a pretty poor attempt at a debate.
You cannot judge the artistic merit of Anarchy In The UK using the same criteria as you would judge Beethovens 5th, and you cannot judge a Rembrandt portrait using the same criteria as you would use to judge a Warhol, a Rothko or a Jack Kirby comic book.
Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? It's just common sense.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

EastWest Lurker said:


> RE: genius vs talent:
> http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/17/are-writers-born-or-made-jack-kerouac/


What a great website, and thank you very much for sharing this article Jay! Yes, those elusive terms are indeed important to grasp, I'll be the 1st one to admit i was never sure of an appropriate definition of talent... 
One universal thing's for sure: "if you want to see the bigger picture, earn it..."
-A.s.-


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 said:


> If you truly cannot understand that you can't judge completely different types of work by one set of criteria, then that's a pretty poor attempt at a debate.


Yes- There are different criteria by which different Art Forms may be assessed.
But that does not make them in any way "equal" in quality or value.

As to a "poor attempt at a debate",
you have continuously called anyone who doesn't share your view "elitist", rendering the rest of what you say moot- 
and this to quite a few people here.
Your aim is not to discuss, but to argue and catcall.
Or is that also somehow "subjective"?

k


----------



## guitarman1960

KEnK said:


> Yes- There are different criteria by which different Art Forms may be assessed.
> But that does not make them in any way "equal" in quality or value.



Ok, so now we are getting somewhere. I have been trying to get someone who believes that some Art Forms are superior to others to actually spell out how this can be the case, other than that it is their personal preference, or the belief of Art Historians, Academics and Critics who judge value and artistic worthiness using a set of metrics that suits their purpose and is not globally applicable to the Art Forms they deem as inferior.

You cannot judge a traditional realistic portrait such as a Rembrandt by one set of criteria that explains his mastery of that form, and then say a Warhol or a Roy Lichtenstein is inferior because it doesn't contain the same qualities and technical skill or convey the same emotions etc etc, for the simple fact that a Warhol work is nothing to do with traditional painterly skills of representational realism, but operates on a completely different level, and is making a statement so far removed from traditional painting that the two are just not comparable. There are just as many things in the Warhol work that are missing in the Rembrandt as there are the other way round. You or I may prefer one or the other, the one may be more popular than the other, one may have had more words written about it than the other, but none of this makes one of more 'value' or 'quality' than the other.
In my view, they are both great, influential and important works of art, for completely different reasons, and in completely different ways. This does not mean that any old garbage is a great, influential, and important work of art, and you know full well that is not what I am saying.
There is no other word to describe some peoples perverse desire to claim one form of art superior to others than 'elitist', and it's not as an insult, but because that is exactly what it is. As I have previously stated, Art Forms, or Genres, call them what you will do not exist in a hierarchy with traditional old masters sitting at the top, either in music or painting or any form of art.
It is certainly not nihilist to see that Rembrandt and Warhol are both great in different ways, or that Stravinsky and Tangerine Dream are both great in different ways.
Again, this does not mean that all art produced by everyone from geniuses to kindergarten kids is of equal value, its just convenient for you to misunderstand the argument as that in order to try and undermine it when you know you can't back up your own elitist views with any rational statements.


----------



## KEnK

Soul and Depth~
Qualities of Great Art your vapid pseudo intellectual perspective cannot describe,
or even admit to.

And once again you resort to your sophomoric name calling,
as you have nothing to offer to this so-called debate.
And in fact it is your argument that is gradually collapsing,
as you currently disavow your previous statements.


----------



## guitarman1960

KEnK said:


> Soul and Depth~
> Qualities of Great Art your vapid pseudo intellectual perspective cannot describe,
> or even admit to.
> 
> And once again you resort to your sophomoric name calling,
> as you have nothing to offer to this so-called debate.
> And in fact it is your argument that is gradually collapsing,
> as you currently disavow your previous statements.


Soul and depth are certainly qualities that can be present in great art. I dont think soul and depth are exclusive to classical music or tradtional painting, unless you are looking at the art world in a very very strange way.


----------



## Jaap

Mmm Guitarman. I think you are seeing things wrong


guitarman1960 said:


> With all respect, you know full well that no-one is saying any such thing. If you truly cannot understand that you can't judge completely different types of work by one set of criteria, then that's a pretty poor attempt at a debate.
> You cannot judge the artistic merit of Anarchy In The UK using the same criteria as you would judge Beethovens 5th, and you cannot judge a Rembrandt portrait using the same criteria as you would use to judge a Warhol, a Rothko or a Jack Kirby comic book.
> Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? It's just common sense.



Of course you can judge them by one a sort of general set of criteria. In the end it's music and though different genres you still can set an overall value to them.
Compare it with cars for example. A Ferrari is superior in design, quality then lets say for example a Peugeot 307 (just to name a generic car for the masses). Of course the Peugeot is a great car and within the range of cars that is accessible for the big mass you can make judgments of it's own and you can say the Peugeot is one of the top notch cars, but when you take a broader perspective the Ferrari will win.
Same goes with Stravinsky and Tangerine Dream (don't know it, but you named it or lets say Pearl Jam or something). In their genre they are good and very well crafted, but if you take it into a wider perspective they will never beat Stravinsky. And you say you can't apply a set of criteria to them, well you can to be honest. Construction of melody, harmony, form can be applied to all music and while Pearl Jam (just using an example of a band I love) is very good, when you compare those parameters to let's say the Rite of Spring, it will be be by far inferior to any song or album they made and you can judge that with an objective mind.
For example. I hate Bach. I don't like listening to him. It gets on my nerves and I just don't like it. As said before, I love Pearl Jam. I can go nuts on them and it gives me a great feeling. But Bach still is one of the best composers there has ever been. I truly admire his skills and still every day I learn so much from analyzing his works. I can listen to it without my personal feelings and judge the music on it's purest form.
Is that elitist? No, that is just a smart way of dealing with your craftsmanship.

What you describe is a matter of taste and that is a whole different subject. Taste is hard to define and not easily to judge nor should it be.

What we should not confuse is the need of music in all genres. We live in a world with almost 7 billion people, with 7 billion different tastes. God knows how many productions are made in a day and for every one of them we are needed. There should never be one superior kind of music. We need all kinds of music for all kinds of needs and we should value them and work in where we feel comfortable. Whether it's epic music, advantgarde classical or neo-gothic punk rock or whatever 
We always should aim for delivering the best we can in my opinion and learn from our incredible rich history.


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 said:


> I dont think soul and depth are exclusive to classical music or tradtional painting, unless you are looking at the art world in a very very strange way.


You have listened to very little of what has been said here by many-
I have personally mentioned Flamenco, Indian, Jazz, Chinese Music, and Gamelan
as examples of Great Art w/ Depth and profound expressions of Intangible Soul.
It is you parroting your own noise that makes it seem that anyone but you
is saying, "It's Western Classical Music vs. The World".

I am an ex- punk rocker.
And while I was playing in loud sweaty clubs I was also listening to Coltrane, Ellington and Miles.
I was also reading along w/ symphonic scores- Bartok, Debussy, Copland, Shostakovitch, and yes Beethoven.
I later studied composition, electronic music and jazz so I could expand my personal horizons,
so my personal expression would not be limited to illiteracy.
While doing that I listened to as much World Music as I could find.
I learned erhu, Middle-Eastern, African and Indian percussion.
I'm going to buy an oud soon

This is so I would have the tools to accurately convey authenticity and meaning
in multiple and new contexts.
So you calling me an "elitist" is merely an expression of your own short sighted assumptions.

Your narrative is reminiscent of the very loops done to death in so-called Epic music,
that repeat endlessly, saying nothing very loudly.

There is nothing to gain from continuing this "discussion" w/ you.


----------



## muk

guitarman, how do you define art if not by a set of qualities any work has to show to fall in this category? If you say that a Rembrandt is art, and a warhol is art, they both have to share certain qualities that make them both art, no? What I was trying to say is that I believe that there are such qualities that define art. I also said that they are not inherent to genre, style, not even the art form.
I could be wrong but I think nobody here was portraying any artform superior to another. I guess the major point was just that there are certain qualities that define works of art, and that distinguish them from works that don't share these qualities. I would argue that 'Once upon a time in the West' is a work of art, while 'Sharknado' isn't. I'm not even saying 'Once upon a time in the West' is better, I'm just saying that it features certain qualities that make it art, and 'Sharknado' doesn't. Once it is established that a certain work does indeed feature these qualities - ie that it is art - ranking it against other works of art is indeed a completely subjective task.

ps: could you please try and be a little less condescending? Phrases like 'some peoples perverse desire to claim one form of art superior to others' are unnecessary. In fact I find it a bit odd how you repeat that you are misunderstood on purpose, while yourself repeatedly misrepresenting the opposites arguments despite several attempts at pointing out the misunderstanding.


----------



## mwarsell

To KevSharpMinor: I hold Beethoven in very high regard (albeit Bach in much higher still) but don't consider EVH at all a genius (sorry folks who admire him) , so that's why I thought that the comparison was a bit unfair: this is already comparing apples and oranges, I don't want to compare golden apples and rotten oranges.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Bit off-topic, but it's been bugging me slightly throughout the thread...

KenK. Do you use a typewriter to post on here? I can never quite understand why your posts have so many 'hard returns' in the middle of sentences?!


----------



## KEnK

TheUnfinished said:


> Bit off-topic, but it's been bugging me slightly throughout the thread...
> 
> KenK. Do you use a typewriter to post on here? I can never quite understand why your posts have so many 'hard returns' in the middle of sentences?!


Hah! :D
Poetic license.
I write emails that way too.
It gives 
more power 
to each phrase.

Maybe like a Zen Koan or something 

k


----------



## mc_deli

Have you heard Macklemore's "10,000 hours" song or read the lyrics?

"See, I observed Escher
I love Basquiat
I watched Keith Haring
You see I study art
The greats weren't great because at birth they could paint
The greats were great cause they paint a lot"

...This song really messes with my head because it is just awful by the numbers r&b with possibly the worst lyrics I have come across since Renee and Renato. Mack needs to catch himself on. As do many others.

It is epicly epic and salient though.

(Stravinsky vs Nas would be a fairer fight than Luda)


----------



## mwarsell

Hey Kev, no hard feelings  in the end, these comparisons are quite fruitless, they all have their merits. I'm sorry about my blunt previous post. I was probably in a bad mood.


----------



## guitarman1960

Hey guys, just want to offer a bit of a general apology for being rather cranky and repeating the same arguments etc. Ive probably misunderstood where some people are coming from in this thread, so havent meant to offend people.
To get a bit back on topic, I'm not championing the Epic genre by any means, but I think you have to keep in mind that most Epic music in the form we are mostly concerned with here, is created as Production Music, usually for trailers of some kind, which is a very different animal from creating music for its own sake for people to enjoy listening to at home or in a concert hall. The constraints of the medium do dictate the structure to some extent. In trailer music you do not have the big canvas to explore and develop that you get in a full movie soundtrack, yet alone the total freedom you get when creating something that exists as personal expression for its own sake. Epic music fits the trailer brief extremely well, has to live along side ridiculously bombastic voice overs and eardrum shattering sound fx, and generate as much fake excitement in as short a time as possible. It is actually quite remarkable just how good some of the best trailer tracks are within all these constraints. Of course anything potentially lucrative spawns legions of imitators and hopeless wannabes, and there's lots of that floating around for sure. Dont dismiss the fact though that if you are working in, or have an ambition to work in the trailer music game that is far from an easy brief.
I do think a very interesting question is 'Where next, after Epic? ' probably worth its own thread! Dave


----------



## KEnK

guitarman1960 said:


> Hey guys, just want to offer a bit of a general apology...


Dave-

I'm impressed. :D
You get a gold star for that.

k


----------



## sleepy hollow

Here's a pony with epic hair for everyone to enjoy. Now write some music!


----------



## Dean

Thats hot!


----------



## SymphonicSamples

Indeed .. The Ponies mane is so God Dame Impressive , it deserves some Epic music written for it . I feel Epic music written in a Wagnerian style and I shall call it .. Ride of the Ponies


----------



## Dean

sleepy hollow said:


> Here's a pony with epic hair for everyone to enjoy. Now write some music!



Did anyone say 'EPIC SEXY DANCING IRISH PONY!!!'...YOUR WELCOME BY THE WAY!


----------



## toomanynotes

im a bit late to all this, due to awful re-registering for vi control..

I always thought 'Epic' as a quick fix, akin to hiding behind a metal distortion guitar pedal playing any ole waffle. After 40secs you're rumbled and it all sounds s***.

Hi Christof!
you've helped me out a few times in some musical forums..Notion or garritan?


----------



## Priscilla Hernandez

Christof said:


> I don't get it.
> Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
> Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.
> 
> But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
> Copy&paste from start to end.
> I don't dare to talk about melodies and themes.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but I get asked too often to listen to this stuff and give my feedback.
> 
> I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
> Maybe 16 bars?




It is somehow sad as fantasy is my favourite genre, still I am not sure if fantasy translates specifically into epic sound always. I love scores and its "epic moments". I am inclined to soundtracks that have epic/fantasy to them, maybe because it's been always closer to the type of music I create (I was not even aware it was in fashion, I thought that other than pop-rock, the appeal of these genres and even movie scores in general has always been for minorities) and It was very recent that I stumble upon this collections of epic music composers in youtube, it was quite random, at the first spins, some were very talented and tight sounding and I'd even say "mainstream" oriented, but I agree that it can become like listening to Enya albums non-stop, a bit formulaic. This happens in almost every genre. I would say that one they cut by a pattern that is aimed to please "masses" it becomes formulaic, as it happens to a "hit pop tune". Some of the tracks are genuinely heartfelt, and others done after the appeal or success of others. Still I'd love to think that would not create prejudice against the genre, as there will be plenty of talented composers, and even newcomers not aware of these trends, trying to do their thing, simply because they love fantasy, and fairies, and battles, and rpg, and DRAGONS


----------



## Dean

toomanynotes said:


> im a bit late to all this, due to awful re-registering for vi control..
> I always thought 'Epic' as a quick fix, akin to hiding behind a metal distortion guitar pedal playing any ole waffle. After 40secs you're rumbled and it all sounds s***.



Well if the music thing does'nt pan out you could become a troll? :smiley:


----------



## toomanynotes

Dean said:


> Well if the music thing does'nt pan out you could become a troll? :smiley:


my.......valentine.... sharks definitely dont sleep i guess?
I like Thin Lizzie's Epic songwriting. Best thing to come out of Ireland. Here's to drinking to something new!


----------



## Dean

toomanynotes said:


> my.......valentine.... sharks definitely dont sleep i guess?
> I like Thin Lizzie's Epic songwriting. Best thing to come out of Ireland. Here's to drinking to something new!



touche.:smile:


----------



## toomanynotes

Dean said:


> touche.:smile:


----------



## Dean

toomanynotes said:


>



Oops,typo!..I meant to say 'touchy'. D


----------



## TheRoot

Hi Christof, Oliver from Scorecast here.
Couldn't agree with you more. Especially on the last part, regarding the piano.

I think that much of these possibilites are used in such an extent, that it is often masking the poornes of the musical idea. "If you play an ostinato loud enough, it immediatley increases it's meaning".

But nonetheless it think this is an unavoidable side-effect of the ease-of-use of these tools. 




Christof said:


> But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
> Copy&paste from start to end.
> 
> I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
> Maybe 16 bars?


----------



## Desire Inspires

TGV said:


> Because it sells.


----------



## gsilbers

I have a feeling this might be the start of a new genre where poeple will grow their own style eventually. IT was the same with almost every style of music. there was a huge amount of similar reason+rebirth cds out there in 1998 with all sounding a like. And then a ton of different genres of tehcno came out. mainly because the technology was there. 
now that sampling libraries are affordable and good and daws have tons of features and youtube videos about everything, kids will start to experiment with genre bending styles. I think one of deadmau5 guys does electornic based epic music. mixes dubstep and orchestral stuff. very cool. hopefully vocals, or more "song styles" will get made. similar to how trailer music does the "trailerizing" of famous songs but with original songs. and then.. maybe.. people will go to those concerts that will have laptop performance+chamber + other instruments. 
And yes, it will be completly different to classical styles or film scoring styles but in a way hopefully there will be a resurgeance of classical music and musicians who have taken a hit with all this sampling days.


----------



## Jdiggity1

It's what Rock n Roll was for guitars


----------



## Alex Fraser

How weird of this to crop up, as I was just thinking about this while cleaning the kitchen. (Rock n Roll)

Seems that trailer/epic music is still popular judging by the new compositions on here and the continued new libraries that go boom swoosh. 

How many end users actually require this sort of music? Is it a genre unto itself now? I would've thought the only folks who need trailer epic stuff would be big studios and productions with serious $$ that can create the sort of imagery that matches such epicness. 

So is there a mismatch between the amount of composers producing this style and the need for it? Am I missing something? Genuine question, not a moan.


----------



## Kubler

Alex Fraser said:


> How many end users actually require this sort of music? Is it a genre unto itself now?.



Trailer music.

I'm almost certain that the "epic music" as we call it was spread and popularized by Audiomachine & Co. All those music companies produce it continuously and studios just have to pick their choice.


----------



## mac

Desire Inspires said:


>



I wonder what you were searching for to dig this up after 2 years


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Many of you younger folks grew up playing video games that feature epic music, and you grew up on LOTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter, all featuring epic music. It's no wonder, really, that Epic is popular here. The music I grew hearing on tv (60s) had jazzy-tones and a chamber sound - any surprise I prefer smaller, swinging ensembles than full virtual orchestra for my soundtrack work?


----------



## Piano Pete

Coming from the concert side of things, I tend to separate orchestral and epic music pretty definitively-- not to say that any other form of music cannot have "epic moments," so personally, I would not necessarily throw Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter into that rink. To me, the "Epic Genre" is just rock with orchestral instruments and a ton of percussion ensembles. That aside, this part of your post made me chuckle a bit-- in a good way.


Christof said:


> I don't get it.
> Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
> Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.


Oddly enough, this conjures more images in my mind of the old 70-80s high-fantasy films than the type of movie being produced today. Synth rifts and sequences flood the cranium .


----------



## lastmessiah

Agree with OP completely, which is why my favorite current composers are guys like Clouser, Reznor & Ross, etc. If I had all these expensive multisampled orchestral libraries the last thing I'd want to do is try to emulate some ho-hum stock trailer music.


----------



## Kyle Preston

@Desire Inspires, why do you keep resurrecting these old threads?


----------



## Desire Inspires

Kyle Preston said:


> @Desire Inspires, why do you keep resurrecting these old threads?



To add on to the discussion that is already started. I don't see the point in starting a new thread on a subject if one is already going.


----------



## Mike Fox

Desire Inspires said:


> To add on to the discussion that is already started. I don't see the point in starting a new thread on a subject if one is already going.


I could never understand why people complain about resurrected threads. Like it's taboo or something? Btw,I'm actually glad you did. This thread is quite interesting.


----------



## Puzzlefactory

Christof said:


> I don't get it.
> Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
> Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.
> 
> But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
> Copy&paste from start to end.
> I don't dare to talk about melodies and themes.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but I get asked too often to listen to this stuff and give my feedback.
> 
> I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
> Maybe 16 bars?



It's fun. It gets the adrenaline pumping. When I'm writing it it gets people moving my fists and jumping out of my chair when the track climaxes. 

It's also the easiest out of the different cinematic styles so is the first step for beginners and those (like me) migrating from other areas of music production.


----------



## Mike Fox

Christof said:


> I don't get it.
> Many pieces shared here or elsewhere are "EPIC".
> Including great fantasy cover art with half nude ladies holding a sword in their hand,behind them some planets, paint brushed, incredible tags like #cinematic #epic #trailer and so on.
> 
> But there is almost nothing behind the music, mostly bad mixed tracks that contain loops, patterns from phrase libraries and no musical structure at all.
> Copy&paste from start to end.
> I don't dare to talk about melodies and themes.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but I get asked too often to listen to this stuff and give my feedback.
> 
> I want to encourage everyone who thinks he is a great composer because he has all these epic sounds at his fingertips to load a simple piano patch and write 8 bars of "meaningful" music.
> Maybe 16 bars?


Are you really complaining about half nude ladies holding swords?


----------



## dannymc

mikefox789 said:


> Are you really complaining about half nude ladies holding swords?



ha ha very good


----------



## Thomas Kallweit

First: Sorry for necroying this topic.
This was one which caught my attention a time ago _(and I think it's still an actual paradigma / composer role model here and everywhere else)_

I'm still confused / irritated thinking of the importance the Epic thing has become.
Seems this is the actual modern entry for all (wannabe?) composers nowadays to get into the game of getting paid (?).
And please don't get me wrong: I don't disrespect any of those! It's hard work to keep things going for customers. Was always no easy way. Just wondering...

Eg. as an example: I have watched many movies (and still do), lots of the actual action stuff has music like this as backing. This doesn't make them better at all. Be it Marvel-Movies, Lord of the Rings or others - I get often a generic taste. Why all this triolic repetetive stuff?

My point: This has so little dynamics ( aka Loudness wars for music in general since compression became a must - and yes - there are some, but in a certain velocity range only), and a generic flavour. Functional music. And functional Movies. Music has worked like this of course for a longer time (eg. MUZAK, Background music for several occasions), but I understand the original question though.

I still don't get why this style gets so much attention. But: This is also a modern cultural thing so it seems. AI forms. Thank god Blockbusters are not all movies we have.

 btw. Right now I'm trying to build an Epic Rhythm Section (just to get some practise) with the adding of some synchronized strings - but I hope to get an idea over it to destroy/change the result/ - don't know how this will workout...
Seems to be working well with all the synchronized stuff and key-switches


----------



## Kubler

@Thomas Kallweit

My best guess is that this has much to do with the democratization of means of digital music production combined with better and better VST libraries. It's easier and cheaper than ever to produce orchestral and choral music of reasonable audio quality, leading to more and more people taking a shot a it, leading to a wide spreading of the genre. As for "why the EPIIIC rather than some quiet sonata or gleeful strings quintet", I think that an amateur or learning composer attempting to set off 60-players sections, a huge choir and 56742 dB of synth percs is the musical equivalent of an amateur drawer discovering the magic of graphic tablets. Like, the more you can theorically do with what you have, the more you will actually try to do in one piece as if it's a warranty of badassery and technical mastery.

As you said, no disrespect meant. I did that too and I see the sheer fun that it can procure (professional markets overlap is yet another debate.) But I totally get your feeling about the generic and functionnal stuff.

Personally (and even if I'm not into the "epic business") I prefer to look at it as an artistic challenge for me as a composer. How do I achieve viable competition against the mainstream catalog while maintaining musical creativity and specificity ?

One who does this astoundingly well is Thomas Bergersen. How this guy managed to set the standards of the "high-tier" epic music back in 2006 and is still the most unique and versatile dude in the business 12 years later has earned him my respect and admiration a long time ago.


----------



## Thomas Kallweit

Yes, you are supposedly right concerning your analogy. And I would like to have a good grafic tablet 
Interestingly - for me - it seems the VST revolution came first (when 32 Bit was enough and no SSDs / cheap huge external hard disks were around), took smaller footprints and was really revolutionary. That was the point when I dived into that. Nowadays not so many new inventions seem to pop up, in other words this world is possibly more saturated. But this enabled the EDM section to grow of course.

And as in the VSTi Sector isn't so much happening any more on the other hand the Kontakt-world has more widely opened - when I see how many libraries come up nowadays by lots of companies. And so there seem to be lots of tempting very good libraries with excellent scripting inside.
The thing is, I see "Epic" in analogy to "EDM" - high energy with (over)focus on certain details. The analogy may not fit perfectly of course (EDM evoked lots of sub-genres, not sure/ aware enough concerning Epic). So maybe Epic is just the modern "classic-pop".

What makes me puzzled is, that there are so many nuances blended out this way. Seems eg. that lots of electronic music producers don't give anything on musical history, which happend before all these DubStep /Breakstep / StepStep minimally subdivides subgenres ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres ), but the history before is long and rich. And so it appears possibly for some jumping on the epic-train.

But ok. And yes, it's probably a good bet simply to jump in the game - as you said - taking it as an artistic challenge.
Will do so.

Thanks for the hint on Thomas Bergersen. Will check his music out.


----------



## JohnG

Thomas, while I think you make some valid points, I'm tempted to argue that, in a couple of posts at least, you have over-generalised about this style of writing. Taken to an extreme, I guess one could dismiss any musical approach, whether classical or romantic or guitar-based bands as "all the same" or "lacking nuance."

Unless I read you wrong, it seems you're focused largely on movie music. Movie music, especially for blockbusters, is composed "by committee" to some extent -- or at least it's very closely governed by the producers' and studio guys' ideas of what the audiences are expecting. Composers on these gigs do the best they can, usually in a blinding hurry. Even then, someone in authority may direct a music editor to shred and in effect rewrite some of the music so that what we hear (if we _can_ hear past the explosions) is not at all what the composer intended.

Possibly that's one reason that those who can do it well are lionized as much as they are? It's basically an impossible gig but some guys do it really well.

But forget movies for a minute. Not everyone knows that there's a stunningly large audience for epic music that has nothing to do with movies or Marvel or any of that. Some of it sounds like that stuff, but it is written as a series of tracks for a release, not a movie. People buy these albums because it does something for them. Maybe they have tired of the guitar-based form? Maybe they wish they could buy "modern" orchestral music that had melodies and rhythms they enjoyed?

Fans of this style seem to be looking for an emotional experience -- something that feels bold, or heroic, or tragic on a grand scale, or aspirational. I don't really know; I don't write albums like this but I have friends who do.

Maybe their fans, in another era, might have bought symphonies or tone poems, or even piano concertos? Certainly we can all think of composers like Respighi or Liszt or R. Strauss, certainly Berlioz, who sought to inspire programmatic feelings in their audiences. And that's leaving aside a lot of opera composers who without a doubt did the same.

Unquestionably, some of the epic style today is connecting with an audience -- they sell truckloads of albums. Well, digital downloads I suppose, but you get what I mean. Judging by the startling level of sales, people are connecting with it.

Moreover, it's not cynical hackwork, at least not everyone. The people I know who are good at it are sincere in their writing and their aspirations.


----------



## Desire Inspires

guitarman1960 said:


> Well, there are have been some extremely condescending posts by certain people claiming that it is so obvious that a Rembrandt is deeper and more meaningful than a Warhol, for example, that anyone who can't see that is an ignorant buffoon, or words to that effect.



So?

Be an ignorant buffoon and be proud of it. I know that I am!

Everyone can’t be some stuffy fuddy-duddy intellectual.


----------



## Kubler

JohnG said:


> Thomas, while I think you make some valid points, I'm tempted to argue that, in a couple of posts at least, you have over-generalised about this style of writing. Taken to an extreme, I guess one could dismiss any musical approach, whether classical or romantic or guitar-based bands as "all the same" or "lacking nuance."
> 
> Unless I read you wrong, it seems you're focused largely on movie music. Movie music, especially for blockbusters, is composed "by committee" to some extent -- or at least it's very closely governed by the producers' and studio guys' ideas of what the audiences are expecting. Composers on these gigs do the best they can, usually in a blinding hurry. Even then, someone in authority may direct a music editor to shred and in effect rewrite some of the music so that what we hear (if we _can_ hear past the explosions) is not at all what the composer intended.
> 
> Possibly that's one reason that those who can do it well are lionized as much as they are? It's basically an impossible gig but some guys do it really well.
> 
> But forget movies for a minute. Not everyone knows that there's a stunningly large audience for epic music that has nothing to do with movies or Marvel or any of that. Some of it sounds like that stuff, but it is written as a series of tracks for a release, not a movie. People buy these albums because it does something for them. Maybe they have tired of the guitar-based form? Maybe they wish they could buy "modern" orchestral music that had melodies and rhythms they enjoyed?
> 
> Fans of this style seem to be looking for an emotional experience -- something that feels bold, or heroic, or tragic on a grand scale, or aspirational. I don't really know; I don't write albums like this but I have friends who do.
> 
> Maybe their fans might have, in another era, bought symphonies or tone poems, or even piano concertos? Certainly we can all think of composers like Respighi or Liszt or R. Strauss, certainly Berlioz, who sought to inspire programmatic feelings in their audiences. And that's leaving aside a lot of opera composers who without a doubt did the same.
> 
> Unquestionably, some of the epic style today is connecting with an audience -- they sell truckloads of albums. Well, digital downloads I suppose, but you get what I mean. Judging by the startling level of sales, people are connecting with it.
> 
> Moreover, it's not cynical hackwork, at least not everyone. The people I know who are good at it are sincere in their writing and their aspirations.



@JohnG

I think you partially read me wrong here : I'm not talking about the professional music industry at the Hollywood level, I'm talking about the "epic music world" that flourishes on all-access plateforms like YouTube & others – although now that I read again the message I answered to, I think I might have misread it as well so that's why it gets confusing, lol.

I am aware of all the "obey and rush" kind of problems that entangle parts of big studio's movie music, but I wasn't refering to this as much as to the spheres of composers on the Internet, often amateurs, who seem to take advantage of the apparently established popularity of the very vaguely called "epic music" genre to make their mark into orchestral composition, with softwares and sound libraries that didn't stop improving and democratizing since the first synthetizer's strings pad.

You're absolutely right to say that I made a (deliberate) over-generalization though  I meant to give personal feelings and assumptions based on my own and somewhat restricted experience with this genre, mainly as a listener (99% of my work is done on motion pictures and I rarely write standalone pieces.) I would feel really pedantic trying to enforce my luminous analyze on the topic and dropping value judgements while not even being completely out of the "amateur" category yet ^^


----------



## erica-grace

Thomas Kallweit said:


> Seems this is the actual modern entry for all (wannabe?) composers nowadays to get into the game of getting paid (?).


 
Sure, composers want to get paid. And what's wrong with that? Beethoven got paid. Bach got paid. Mozart didn't work for free. I mean, c'mon.


----------



## cmillar

JohnG said:


> ....But forget movies for a minute. Not everyone knows that there's a stunningly large audience for epic music that has nothing to do with movies or Marvel or any of that. Some of it sounds like that stuff, but it is written as a series of tracks for a release, not a movie. People buy these albums because it does something for them. Maybe they have tired of the guitar-based form? Maybe they wish they could buy "modern" orchestral music that had melodies and rhythms they enjoyed?
> 
> Fans of this style seem to be looking for an emotional experience -- something that feels bold, or heroic, or tragic on a grand scale, or aspirational. I don't really know; I don't write albums like this but I have friends who do.
> 
> Maybe their fans might have, in another era, bought symphonies or tone poems, or even piano concertos? Certainly we can all think of composers like Respighi or Liszt or R. Strauss, certainly Berlioz, who sought to inspire programmatic feelings in their audiences. And that's leaving aside a lot of opera composers who without a doubt did the same.
> 
> Unquestionably, some of the epic style today is connecting with an audience -- they sell truckloads of albums. Well, digital downloads I suppose, but you get what I mean. Judging by the startling level of sales, people are connecting with it.
> 
> Moreover, it's not cynical hackwork, at least not everyone. The people I know who are good at it are sincere in their writing and their aspirations.



Excellent thoughts and post!

Speaking for myself, listening seriously to film scores back in the '80's made me want to expand my musical horizons as a young musician (I was in my 20's then). 

I knew of older musicians, professors, teachers, and other composers who 'poo-pooed' film music as being somehow inferior to music.

But, I read an interview where James Horner was really disgusted with the attitudes of orchestras to even wanting to rehearse his new music, and then would of course give a pretty poor concert performance.

This affected him so much that he turned his focus towards film, which we can all be extremely grateful for. (....he was one of the all-time greats, without argument.)

....But.....

Horner had some great influences back then. John Williams was in the limelight, Jerry Goldsmith was still alive and composing, Elmer Bernstein, Ennio Morricone had just done 'The Mission', etc. etc....

And all of today's well known big-time film composers grew up listening to all that great music.

My point being....I'm a little worried if today's young composers all think that music created by 'cut-and-pasting' together pre-composed orchestral sampled library music makes them "composers".

Sure, 'epic music' is sometimes fantastic.

But, there's a lot of crap out there that all sounds the same...because it all comes from the same 'pre-composed' sources.

My urging to 'wanna-be' epic music composers: please expand your musical horizons, and be sure you listen to Mahler, Prokofieff, Thomas Bergmann, Zimmer, Horner, Goldsmith, Williams, Bernstein, Conti, Don Davis (!!!), and many other original thinking composers who have come before you.

Then, you'll make more of mark on the musical world through your balance of informed creativity and sparks of originality.

Just my two cents, from a middle-aged guy who really digs epic music and everything else.


----------



## LamaRose

Methinks the old "envy" is in play:


----------



## dgburns

Oh bloody hell! Raise your hand all yooze guys guilty of overthinkng this (said with hand raised high)

Sometimes it’s @#$&ing just plain fun making alot of noise. YOLO

Epic is just one of those things where us little elves get to make some noize and trample all over the CGI. LOL

And even better in glorious surround.


----------



## JohnG

good one @dgburns 

I loved playing in Very Loud Bands when in school, and after for a while. Sometimes when I've written trailer music, I just go to that "blast" mentality and it's good fun. And sometimes people clearly like it.


----------



## cmillar

I ra


dgburns said:


> Oh bloody hell! Raise your hand all yooze guys guilty of overthinkng this (said with hand raised high)
> 
> Sometimes it’s @#$&ing just plain fun making alot of noise.



For sure!

My plea to everyone....if you/we want to be 'rebellious', then let us not continue buying all the 'pre-composed' paste-together/loopy libraries that are continually foisted upon us...and sold as 'Be an Epic Composer!!....Buy this and call it you own!!"

We're just making those people richer at the expense of creating some original noise of our own.


----------



## Kyle Preston

I shouldn’t jump in on this but I can’t help myself.

One of the annoyances of ivory tower classical snobbery is that the ‘take it or leave it’ attitude bends toward one outcome: *people leave it*. Insulting musicians (or their work) makes them defensive and more likely to listen to those who don’t insult them.

And sure, prophet-driven opportunist musicians exist. But equating them with one genre (trailer/epic music) when they’re literally _everywhere_ not only insults the thoughtful composers within that genre, but it rewards assholes in other genres with a prestige they don't deserve!

Despite this, I'm sure we’ll continue seeing this attitude throughout the forum (probably forever):

_“I write CLASSICAL music [not very well] but it’s better than [well-made] trailer music)”_. 

But what they’re really saying is: _“Real composers are the ones I learned about during that one decade I never grew out of.”_


----------



## Parsifal666

Kyle Preston said:


> But what they’re really saying is: _“Real composers are the ones I learned about during that one decade I never grew out of.”_



I remember being absolutely nuts over classic metal; Page, Iommi, Blackmore, super old Scorpions (with Uli Roth), etc. Guitar and metal were just my reason to be for about two decades. The day I put all that away is the day I really started learning the most about music composition, orchestration, arranging, production.

This is not to devalue the years I loved classic Metal, but Kyle's comment has insight. People whom stay on the same page all the time can sometimes end up profoundly myopic. Reaching past the comfort zone, trying on different skins...I see those as good things.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Actually, I find that rather a lot of 'Epic' music isn't really that epic, it's just loud. Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

I just think that Epic-ness (is that a word ?) is found in the contrast between the softer and louder passages in the music - and for me I find that most music that I consider to be 'epic' builds - and the ratcheting up of the musical intensity makes it all the more satisfying.

I find that music that starts full on, has often nowhere to go from there, and after a while it becomes fatiguing.


----------



## Greg

Yes listen to Thomas Bergersen. You will realize why people love epic music very quickly 

And don't assume new composers want to write that way just for money or because it's easy. Many of us are extremely inspired by the composers that do it so well like Hans and Thomas. And by the way, it only SOUNDS easy. It's actually extremely difficult to find such poignant minimalist ideas and to get the production and mixing to the right level. You will realize that as soon as you try writing it, I guarantee it.


----------



## Parsifal666

To me epic is Wagner's Ring Des Nibelungen, Tolkien's Ring thing, Faulkner's Yippeechidaqqua County saga (I can never remember how to spell the name of that made up county, amazing books though), Beethoven's 9th (countless other pieces), Don Giovanni, Pet Sounds, Rainbow Rising, Ben Hur (both movie and music), Mahler's 9th. But my definition might be quite different from some.


----------



## cmillar

Kyle Preston said:


> But what they’re really saying is: _“Real composers are the ones I learned about during that one decade I never grew out of.”_



No...real composers of any decade create real music that they've made themselves, and thank god there are REAL composers alive in every decade.

The reason this is important is because there are always (and always have been!) greedy people that want to make money off of the hard work of others.

Back in the day, Mozart and those before him had to rely on the court or church to give them paying gigs. 

Even then, it was a 'cut throat' business being a composer...with others wanting to take credit for what someone else created in many cases.

But today, what's worse is that there are 'composers' who just buy pre-composed music, cut and paste it together, and then call it a 'creation' of their own. In a lot of cases they haven't even tried to change anything at all from the original sample track they bought.

(Note: there have been some so-called composers get in huge financial trouble for having done this over the last 20 years especially. There are some several shady music library operators who make a great living off of the backs and hard work of others who actual created the music....they've tried to claim that they composed all the music themselves in order to get rich off the royalties)

So, all I'm pointing out is this:

Let's not get all enamoured and star-struck about the latest music track (epic or anything else) that was put together by someone with a few bucks and a computer that just happened to purchase some pre-made loops or used some pre-composed music that they managed to organize into a track of some kind.

We're all here to move things forward....not go back in time or get stuck in some kind of rut that the corporations would gladly see us all flaying about in while we continue to fork all our money over to them.

Let's make our own noise, be creative, and then we can deserve to call ourselves 'composers'.


----------



## Thomas Kallweit

erica-grace said:


> Sure, composers want to get paid. And what's wrong with that? Beethoven got paid. Bach got paid. Mozart didn't work for free. I mean, c'mon.



I did write more. That was not against getting paid for the work. Just a question about the epic phenomenon and why this attracts so many people trying to get paid for this style. So about the "fashion".

Glad about lots of good answers here which helped some enlightening - will try to get my attitude more clear soon - though I think it wasn't that cryptic. Thanks @JohnG and all!


----------

