# There is all of us.........& there is JOHN WILLIAMS...



## AlexandreSafi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbEOEHTp6m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ucfz61TDmM

This GOD of a composer conducting his players, showing how it's done!
After listening to it like 500x times, I still have no words for this, this is just ridiculous!!!

Alexandre


----------



## handz

Great stuff of course, definitely deserves listening in better quality


----------



## Vlzmusic

“You shall not make for yourself an idol” is most appropriate here, in my humble opinion.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Vlzmusic @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> “You shall not make for yourself an idol” is most appropriate here, in my humble opinion.



I agree, but i call it "pay credit where credit is due"...


----------



## Rob

Also " you shall not include others in your feeling of being inferior to someone " :D


----------



## EastWest Lurker

If there is anyone here who does NOT feel inferior to JW, they are delusional.


----------



## Rob

EastWest Lurker @ 23rd April 2014 said:


> If there is anyone here who does NOT feel inferior to JW, they are delusional.



Once again, this should remain your own personal feeling...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ 23rd April 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is anyone here who does NOT feel inferior to JW, they are delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, this should remain your own personal feeling...
Click to expand...


Of course, it is my personal feeling as it cannot be empirically proven, but I stand by it. In every field of endeavor there are always a fair number of terrific practitioners but only a handful that are truly a cut above.

i have listened to at least some of the music of pretty much everyone here who has posted and I stand by my statement.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Why So Seriousss?!... *8**}*


----------



## Rob

It just sounds ill-mannered to me... if you want to be the humble guy speak for yourself, don't include others. Exactly because this kind of judgement is subjective one should avoid doing that. I'm replying to Jay...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> It just sounds ill-mannered to me... if you want to be the humble guy speak for yourself, don't include others. Exactly because this kind of judgement is subjective one should avoid doing that.



Sorry I do not adhere to the idea that one may not speak what one believes to be an obvious truth because it might offend _someone's_ sensibilities. My guess is that the number of people here who would even entertain the idea that they are in JW's league is pretty small.


----------



## Rob

obvious truth? Ok I'll end it here, I think I've made my thoughts clear enough...


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just sounds ill-mannered to me... if you want to be the humble guy speak for yourself, don't include others. Exactly because this kind of judgement is subjective one should avoid doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I do not adhere to the idea that one may not speak what one believes to be an obvious truth because it might offend _someone's_ sensibilities. My guess is that the number of people here who would even entertain the idea that they are in JW's league is pretty small.
Click to expand...

I guess that it would depend on what aspect of JW's work one is talking about. If it is composing to picture, you have a point. If you are talking about writing concert music, you have less of a point. If you are talking about conducting (as the OP did bring it up) you are on slightly more shaky ground.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daryl @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just sounds ill-mannered to me... if you want to be the humble guy speak for yourself, don't include others. Exactly because this kind of judgement is subjective one should avoid doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I do not adhere to the idea that one may not speak what one believes to be an obvious truth because it might offend _someone's_ sensibilities. My guess is that the number of people here who would even entertain the idea that they are in JW's league is pretty small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that it would depend on what aspect of JW's work one is talking about. If it is composing to picture, you have a point. If you are talking about writing concert music, you have less of a point. If you are talking about conducting (as the OP did bring it up) you are on slightly more shaky ground.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


I never compare composing film music to concert music. They are 2 different gigs.

As a conductor, would I hire him to be the principal conductor for the Boston Symphony? No Did he do a fine job as conductor of the Boston Pops. Yes. Is he as good or better conductor than 95% of those who conduct motion pictures? Yes.


----------



## madbulk

Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> obvious truth? Ok I'll end it here, I think I've made my thoughts clear enough...



You idealist youngsters slay me. End it where you want but you've not made your thoughts clear to me at all.
An "eye of the beholder" stance? A "nobody is better than anybody else" stance?

This is a composers forum. In that context, I'm trying to imagine on what planet someone here is not inferior to that guy. I'm not at all sure every living being isn't inferior to that guy.


----------



## madbulk

Daryl @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> I guess that it would depend on what aspect of JW's work one is talking about. If it is composing to picture, you have a point. If you are talking about writing concert music, you have less of a point. If you are talking about conducting (as the OP did bring it up) you are on slightly more shaky ground.
> D



Again, picky. Less of a point? Fine. Yes. But "us" "here?" "HIM?"... c'mon!


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> I never compare composing film music to concert music. They are 2 different gigs.
> 
> As a conductor, would I hire him to be the principal conductor for the Boston Symphony? No Did he do a fine job as conductor of the Boston Pops. Yes. Is he as good or better conductor than 95% of those who conduct motion pictures? Yes.


Which sort of makes my point for me...

D


----------



## Daryl

madbulk @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that it would depend on what aspect of JW's work one is talking about. If it is composing to picture, you have a point. If you are talking about writing concert music, you have less of a point. If you are talking about conducting (as the OP did bring it up) you are on slightly more shaky ground.
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, picky. Less of a point? Fine. Yes. But "us" "here?" "HIM?"... c'mon!
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand.

D


----------



## Rob

madbulk @ 23rd April 2014 said:


> Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obvious truth? Ok I'll end it here, I think I've made my thoughts clear enough...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idealist youngsters slay me
Click to expand...


:D thank you, but I'm 57...



madbulk @ 23rd April 2014 said:


> [
> 
> I'm not at all sure every living being isn't inferior to that guy.



Wow


----------



## madbulk

Daryl @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that it would depend on what aspect of JW's work one is talking about. If it is composing to picture, you have a point. If you are talking about writing concert music, you have less of a point. If you are talking about conducting (as the OP did bring it up) you are on slightly more shaky ground.
> D
> 
> 
> 
> Again, picky. Less of a point? Fine. Yes. But "us" "here?" "HIM?"... c'mon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you trying to say? I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand.
> D
Click to expand...

I'm saying in this context, "less of a point" is inconsequential and "shaky ground" likely not shaking. Yeah, he's only the greatest of all time at that one thing, not as known for the next, and Pops at the third. Great. OP is still right. He's still John Williams and we're not. It was fine when that was what the thread was about. Didn't need fixing.


----------



## madbulk

Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> madbulk @ 23rd April 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obvious truth? Ok I'll end it here, I think I've made my thoughts clear enough...
> 
> 
> 
> You idealist youngsters slay me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :D thank you, but I'm 57...
> 
> 
> madbulk @ 23rd April 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I'm not at all sure every living being isn't inferior to that guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow
Click to expand...

I guess that was a hint at door number two?
And yes, 57, sorry 56, is in your status. Jay's older than I as well. Pithy of me.


----------



## Cygnus64

Daryl @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> I guess that it would depend on what aspect of JW's work one is talking about. If it is composing to picture, you have a point. If you are talking about writing concert music, you have less of a point. If you are talking about conducting (as the OP did bring it up) you are on slightly more shaky ground.
> 
> D



It's the sum of all that, and more. He's also a very skilled pianist and one heck of a businessman.

As far as "Concert Music" goes, I'd say he's amazing at it... as long as the definition of "Concert Music" isn't so narrow that it only includes the Concertos that he has been writing. There are pieces like "The Cowboys" Overture that are concert material, even though some of it was used in film. It's both. The various fanfares et al are concert music too. Even the suites from the movies stand on their own, I play them all the time. In my book, that's "Concert Music" too, and I'm glad that some symphonies are seeing it that way.

Like Paul McCartney and Richard Rodgers, Williams has a list of accomplishments that transcend music: one could hate his stuff yet should really respect what he has done. Genres are meaningless to him, he's a musical chameleon. He's had success in TV, film, musicals (wrote the film score to Fiddler on the Roof), he's the most frequently performed living composer for orchestra, did lots of session work on piano (including Mancini's famous Peter Gunn riff), has led most of the world's leading orchestras, had his Pops gig, and he would need a warehouse to store all the awards. 

One more lil piece of trivia: I play a ton of concerts and I rarely practice the music (Hey, I'm 50 and know all the songs by now)  One that I look at, and everybody looks at, is Harry Potter. The one in 3/8 with the celeste solo has some of the nastiest violin licks I've ever come across. Fun to play, but man is it hard. The same thing with the Olympic Overture, even though the string licks are buried by the brass. The cat knows what he's doing. It's all very playable, it lays well on the instrument. The number of current composers that can write like that, I can count on one hand. o/~


----------



## givemenoughrope

Is JW as revered in the rest of the world as he is in the US? It seems like Morricone and Barry and their influence are more lasting in the UK/EU. Just curious. Is there some reason why Goldsmith isn't as popular? I find his scores to be more interesting and aggressive. Maybe that's why...?

Can anyone recommend some of JW's concert music? thanks.


----------



## Vlzmusic

Wow, what a topic. Actually I was far from even considering any particular "us" being involved. My initial reaction was dealing with the posted videos versus other composers I admire (And I do like JW`s music).


----------



## David Story

JW has more Bafta nominations than Laurence Olivier. JW was awarded the Olympic Order. He's the 3rd most performed composer in the international concert world, after Mozart and Beethoven.

It's silly to say who's the best artist, but people do it all the time. The superlative evidence for John Williams is overwhelming.

And yet, if you want EDM, then you'll listen to someone who does that.

Best Williams Concerto: Escapades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zp_42KQ6KQ
(Not yet recorded by Williams, but Branford Marsalis has a good version)


----------



## midi_controller

Vlzmusic @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> “You shall not make for yourself an idol” is most appropriate here, in my humble opinion.



That is ridiculous. We all need people to look up to, those who we can aspire to be more like. John Williams himself most likely had his list of role models who he tried to model himself after, people who inspired him, and in doing so shaped not only his music, but the man himself no doubt. Even now, you can hear the composers who inspire him in his work. 

@Rob: I think you are misinterpreting the intention of the thread. It's not so much a feeling of being inferior when I listen to John Williams, because I don't write in the same kind of style and don't intend to. But Williams does what he does supremely well, no one can argue that. I wouldn't be surprised if at one point or another he has inspired all of us, and in turn has influenced our music to some degree. Before Jay came in, I'm pretty sure this was just Alexandre wanting to share his excitement about this video, and his appreciation for Williams. We can all relate to that. :D


----------



## AC986

[quote="madbulk @ Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:28 pm"
And yes, 57, sorry 56, is in your status. Jay's older than I as well. Pithy of me.[/quote]

And I'm older than Jay!!!!

So just watch out!!!!

OMG! What am I saying.


----------



## AC986

David Story @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> JW has more Bafta nominations than Laurence Olivier.



Tue, but Larry was a much better actor than JW. And apparently dentist too. Just ask Dustin Hoffman if you don't believe me. JW was crap at dentistry and took up music instead, whereas LO was an awful dentist and got into acting. Bet you didn't know that. Its funny how things can work out.


----------



## AC986

midi_controller @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> That is ridiculous. We all need people to look up to



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2k1iRD2f-c


----------



## Rob

midi_controller @ 24th April 2014 said:


> Vlzmusic @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> “You shall not make for yourself an idol” is most appropriate here, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous. We all need people to look up to, those who we can aspire to be more like. John Williams himself most likely had his list of role models who he tried to model himself after, people who inspired him, and in doing so shaped not only his music, but the man himself no doubt. Even now, you can hear the composers who inspire him in his work.
> 
> @Rob: I think you are misinterpreting the intention of the thread. It's not so much a feeling of being inferior when I listen to John Williams, because I don't write in the same kind of style and don't intend to. But Williams does what he does supremely well, no one can argue that. I wouldn't be surprised if at one point or another he has inspired all of us, and in turn has influenced our music to some degree. Before Jay came in, I'm pretty sure this was just Alexandre wanting to share his excitement about this video, and his appreciation for Williams. We can all relate to that. :D
Click to expand...



I'm sorry for having gone off topic, and I understand the good intentions of the op, he just wants to share his enthusiasm for JW. It's not about JW or Morricone or Goldsmith, I admire them all. But if you and me were sitting at a concert of a great pianist and I turn and say to you "he's a different league than the two of us" wouldn't you feel slightly peeved? You'd probably think "speak for yourself"... and this is true no matter who is the person we're listening to


----------



## Stiltzkin

Rob @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> midi_controller @ 24th April 2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vlzmusic @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> “You shall not make for yourself an idol” is most appropriate here, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous. We all need people to look up to, those who we can aspire to be more like. John Williams himself most likely had his list of role models who he tried to model himself after, people who inspired him, and in doing so shaped not only his music, but the man himself no doubt. Even now, you can hear the composers who inspire him in his work.
> 
> @Rob: I think you are misinterpreting the intention of the thread. It's not so much a feeling of being inferior when I listen to John Williams, because I don't write in the same kind of style and don't intend to. But Williams does what he does supremely well, no one can argue that. I wouldn't be surprised if at one point or another he has inspired all of us, and in turn has influenced our music to some degree. Before Jay came in, I'm pretty sure this was just Alexandre wanting to share his excitement about this video, and his appreciation for Williams. We can all relate to that. :D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for having gone off topic, and I understand the good intentions of the op, he just wants to share his enthusiasm for JW. It's not about JW or Morricone or Goldsmith, I admire them all. But if you and me were sitting at a concert of a great pianist and I turn and say to you "he's a different league than the two of us" wouldn't you feel slightly peeved? You'd probably think "speak for yourself"... and this is true no matter who is the person we're listening to
Click to expand...


Not really, if im in the audience I'm there to admire someone. Even if I were a concert pianist myself, it would be incredibly big headed to think you are in the same league...

Maybe it's just that people are different, but I think that people should strive to be better always. I don't think anyone gets tired of being appreciated, but in the same boat, if you had nothing to improve for, no reason to get better ie no competition, then you're shooting yourself in the foot :/


----------



## Rob

Jesus, is there someone out there who understands what I'm saying?


----------



## Stephen Rees

Of course we can all be in the same league as JW. All you have to do is make the league big enough to accommodate us all, and then accept that JW has more points than the rest of us put together. Call it the 'All Composer Inclusive League' maybe?

Perhaps some of the difficulty regarding this thread comes from the description of JW as a 'God'. I don't know the man or his religious beliefs, but he comes across as very humble, and I suspect even he would feel uncomfortable with that description.


----------



## AC986

Rob @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Jesus, is there someone out there who understands what I'm saying?



Its very unlikely in my experience. But hang in there. This is Alexandre all over. I knew this would happen the second I read his OP. :lol:


----------



## re-peat

givemenoughrope @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Is JW as revered in the rest of the world as he is in the US?(...) Just curious. Is there some reason why Goldsmith isn't as popular? (...)


I have a humble suggestion for an answer to those questions, but it would require me to write yet another of my long-winded, plodding and “Lord loves a duck, you won’t catch me reading that!”-type of dissertations — “Or treatises?” —, or treatises, yes, and I can’t be bothered doing that right now. 

Anyway, it boils down to _mythology_ and _iconography_. See? And music as well, of course.

_


----------



## Vlzmusic

Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> ...
> 
> Perhaps some of the difficulty regarding this thread comes from the description of JW as a 'God'. I don't know the man or his religious beliefs, but he comes across as very humble, and I suspect even he would feel uncomfortable with that description.



Nail on the head, Stephen. In my view none of the mentioned awards or even dozens of credits guarantee someones superiority. Again, I like JW, and most of his music, but eventually there are others, less known, naturally, who have better writings. That`s life. You know what they teach those coloratura sopranos from day one? "Remember there always will be someone who does it better than you."


----------



## Hannes_F

imo it is good to have examples as long as they are examples and inspire us. But not if they make us paralyzed in the sense of 'there is no way to ever get there anyways' which can happen easily in music and especially while being young. In that case I would regard idolization even as a problem. Been there, stopped it.

That being said from my point of view everybody is sort of a God ... well in an utterly utterly embryonic phase though


----------



## AndreP

givemenoughrope @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> Just curious. Is there some reason why Goldsmith isn't as popular? I find his scores to be more interesting and aggressive.



I've wondered the same thing. I have a decent sized Goldsmith collection and daily try to study and apply ideas from his works. Also, his concert pieces have a Roger Sessions type of writing to them that I love (as my Roger Sessions collection is just as large.)


----------



## Rob

Hannes_F @ 24th April 2014 said:


> That being said from my point of view everybody is sort of a God ... well in an utterly utterly embryonic phase though



Nice...


----------



## Cygnus64

Rob @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> But if you and me were sitting at a concert of a great pianist and I turn and say to you "he's a different league than the two of us" wouldn't you feel slightly peeved? You'd probably think "speak for yourself"... and this is true no matter who is the person we're listening to



I think of it this way: Whenever there is a "Live Aid" sort of rock benefit where all the legendary bands play a show to raise money for something, McCartney always plays last. Elton, The Stones, a Pink Floyd Reunion, even young idiots like Kanye  , Paul is the King. It's not a musical affirmation or any sort of "he's better", it's because he is the most successful songwriter in history. 

The same goes for Williams. One doesn't have to think he is "The best" or even like his stuff, he's John Williams. Resume-wise, nobody is even close. For us baby-boomers, he literally wrote the soundtrack to our lives: The Gilligan music, Lost in Space, Close Encounters, Star Wars, Indy, Home Alone, Superman, Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter. 

Nobody could be "peeved" with a resume like that. Again, it's not an affirmation of "best composer", it's an affirmation of "most successful" and "most celebrated". And he deserves it.


----------



## Stephen Rees

re-peat @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> givemenoughrope @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is JW as revered in the rest of the world as he is in the US?(...) Just curious. Is there some reason why Goldsmith isn't as popular? (...)
> 
> 
> 
> I have a humble suggestion for an answer to those questions, but it would require me to write yet another of my long-winded, plodding and “Lord loves a duck, you won’t catch me reading that!”-type of dissertations — “Or treatises?” —, or treatises, yes, and I can’t be bothered doing that right now.
> 
> Anyway, it boils down to _mythology_ and _iconography_. See? And music as well, of course.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith were the two composers I grew up with as favourites. They both tug at my affections and I probably have an equally large collection of each of their soundtracks. Both of them are equally responsible for me wanting to write music myself.

Cygnus64 comment about 'writing the soundtracks of our lives' certainly strikes a chord with me. I feel that about JW and JG equally. I remember the shock I felt when JG sadly passed away and I realised with great sadness that there would never be a new JG score to get to know.

Anyway, although I can't really articulate a comparison between the two, if you feel the desire to write a 'treatise' or 'dissertation' on the subject re-peat I would certainly read it with great interest.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Rob @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> But if you and me were sitting at a concert of a great pianist and I turn and say to you "he's a different league than the two of us" wouldn't you feel slightly peeved? You'd probably think "speak for yourself"... and this is true no matter who is the person we're listening to



Not if the pianist was Vladimir Horowitz or Art Tatum


----------



## Cygnus64

Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Anyway, although I can't really articulate a comparison between the two,



There's no need for one IMO, both were ridiculously talented and successful. Being a Star Trek fan, Goldsmith gets an extra gold star for that. 8) "The Omen" is also one that stands out, especially with how many times it's been ripped off. 

One of the more interesting is the soundtrack to "Runaway", his first foray into an electronic score. At the time, there was nothing quite like it. It may sound dated now, but I remember watching it way back in the 80s and thinking "Are we in the future?" It really sounded hi-tech at the time.

One thing about Williams: The Star Wars music changed things in the concert hall. It's not that orchestras didn't play movie music before then, there were plenty of Pops shows with Moon River etc. When Star Wars came out (I was 13), it was this strange hybrid of film score and legit "classical presentation". Part of that was due to how difficult the parts are, it feels like one is playing "classical" music. A lot of symphonies jumped on that bandwagon. Today, it's fairly common to hear Goldsmith, Morricone etc at a Symphony show, but Star Wars really paved the way to bring that music to a live show.


----------



## David Story

The OP, Piet and Jay, get music as art. This is an engineering forum that sometimes discusses music. Even if it's just OMG, that is inspiring art (in contrast to exciting tech).

The funny thing is the ego that it takes to say there is God in everyone, yet deny those who have developed that divine spark. It's an active presence. But not so much in those whose ego is bigger than their connection with the divine. (Yes, I know a mean spirited person could use that quote to attempt a put down)

Piet, do you mean the mythology of music itself? If I understand, we agree John Williams is a legend that has reached mythic proportions. That is a healthy part of life, to have heroes, stories to live by. 

Not false gods.

Now some people will argue that no one is better, just different; that JW isn't as cool as..., or we don't need to have role models. Silly. There are even people here who stoop to ridicule to defend their views. Immature. Not evil, just not my kind of talk.

You can be better than your previous self.

The list of accomplishments prove John is superior in tangible ways. And the intangibles inspire new generations. He has heroes, from the concert world, and everyone needs them to grow. You don't need to put down what you don't understand. Or fear. In fact, the healthy attitude is to respect and learn from those who have gone before. 

If you believe music is art, you study John Williams. That doesn't stop you from also studying Will.i.am. In fact, looking at the notation tells you volumes about how those styles work, and what's important to the artist.

Jerry Goldsmith has been mentioned. He's out of style, which is part of the creative cycle. He'll come back. When JH, JNH, or BM go away, will they come back? That to me is an open question. But I like them.

All of this has been said above, just my way of saying it. I joined the conversation because it looked like no one had mentioned all the international awards John had won, or his sax concerto. If you're playing the contest game, you may want to score points accurately


----------



## EastWest Lurker

David, you don't understand: in THIS forum professional accomplishment, awards, longevity, none of it matters. According to many, perhaps most, here, there are no objective standards, only subjective opinions and all subjective opinions are equal.

Get with the program


----------



## Hannes_F

@ David Story
Good comment imo.


----------



## Ozymandias

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> David, you don't understand: in THIS forum professional accomplishment, awards, longevity, none of it matters.



I for one love the way JW won that award that time.  

As for his longevity, let's just say that so-called "composers" like Schubert and Chopin could've learned a thing or two there. (No offense to their fans.)


----------



## AC986

Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> let's just say that so-called "composers" like Schubert and Chopin could've learned a thing or two there.



How?


----------



## Guy Rowland

Not the OP's fault, but VI Control is turning into self-parody....


----------



## Ozymandias

adriancook @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's just say that so-called "composers" like Schubert and Chopin could've learned a thing or two there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
Click to expand...


It was a joke. :wink:


----------



## madbulk

David Story @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Now some people will argue that no one is better, just different; that JW isn't as cool as..., or we don't need to have role models. Silly.



Just cut right to this, and get out.
You're working too hard, Man.


----------



## vinny

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla


----------



## madbulk

Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> adriancook @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's just say that so-called "composers" like Schubert and Chopin could've learned a thing or two there.
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a joke. :wink:
Click to expand...

I suspect Ozy means that since JW outlived and won more awards than Fred and Franz, but isn't necessarily therefore superior to them, then Jay's point is entirely worthless.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

madbulk @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adriancook @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's just say that so-called "composers" like Schubert and Chopin could've learned a thing or two there.
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a joke. :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect Ozy means that since JW outlived and won more awards than Fred and Franz, but isn't necessarily therefore superior to them, then Jay's point is entirely worthless.
Click to expand...


Which has a couple of _little_ problems:

1. There were no awards like Oscars, box office receipts, etc to measure, when they wrote, only how often the composer got hired.

2. Concert hall composing and film composing are TWO DIFFERENT JOBS! Why is that so hard for some to grasp?


----------



## David Story

madbulk @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> David Story @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now some people will argue that no one is better, just different; that JW isn't as cool as..., or we don't need to have role models. Silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just cut right to this, and get out.
> You're working too hard, Man.
Click to expand...


Yep, i works hard cuz ize carez.






I even hire musicians in San Francisco, That's how crazy i iz.


----------



## steb74

....


----------



## AC986

madbulk @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adriancook @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozymandias @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's just say that so-called "composers" like Schubert and Chopin could've learned a thing or two there.
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a joke. :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect Ozy means that since JW outlived and won more awards than Fred and Franz, but isn't necessarily therefore superior to them, then Jay's point is entirely worthless.
Click to expand...


Ive never found any of Jay's or anyone else's points to be _entirely_ worthless.

Yes that was a a hellavu joke right there. Once you told me it was a joke I fell over.

One thing that always gets me is awards. Does anyone really think that music awards really mean anything? They may mean something to the guy that gets it and his immediate family and friends, so that's not a bad thing, but apart from that……You tell me.

How many music Oscars/Baftas has Thomas Newman won? And how many should he have won? How many Oscars/Baftas did Bernard Herrmann win and how many should he have won?

And Michael Small and the list goes on.


----------



## AR

Who is John Williams? Isn't he the guitarist or the saxophonist or the famous author?


----------



## Cygnus64

adriancook @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> One thing that always gets me is awards. Does anyone really think that music awards really mean anything?



Depends on the award, and how they are decided. An Avery Fisher Prize or a Pulitzer probably mean quite a bit: Hanson, Schuman, Copland etc won Pulitzers. A Young Concert Artist award will boost a career, so will a Levintritt. 

As far as something like the Grammys, their voting process (among other things) has cheapened the award. It's not only blatant politics and name recognition, the actual process is laughable. To join the Academy (I was a member), one needs six recording credits and 100 bucks, that's it. The most infamous example was the Atlanta Symphony Chorus- they figured this out and half the chorus joined, and voted for themselves. :lol:


----------



## AC986

Cygnus64 @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that always gets me is awards. Does anyone really think that music awards really mean anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the award, and how they are decided. An Avery Fisher Prize or a Pulitzer probably mean quite a bit: Hanson, Schuman, Copland etc won Pulitzers. A Young Concert Artist award will boost a career, so will a Levintritt.
> 
> As far as something like the Grammys, their voting process (among other things) has cheapened the award. It's not only blatant politics and name recognition, the actual process is laughable. To join the Academy (I was a member), one needs six recording credits and 100 bucks, that's it. The most infamous example was the Atlanta Symphony Chorus- they figured this out and half the chorus joined, and voted for themselves. :lol:
Click to expand...


yes very true. And also people like Newman and Herrmann don't crawl up the backsides of Academy members either, which is probably detrimental to picking up a gold statue and having to stand there holding it like a spare prick at a party for half an hour.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Cygnus64 @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> The most infamous example was the Atlanta Symphony Chorus- they figured this out and half the chorus joined, and voted for themselves. :lol:



LOL, is that really how they got their Grammy? They are so proud of it here...


----------



## Cygnus64

marclawsonmusic @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Cygnus64 @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most infamous example was the Atlanta Symphony Chorus- they figured this out and half the chorus joined, and voted for themselves. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, is that really how they got their Grammy? They are so proud of it here...
Click to expand...


Have a read: http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-05/entertainment/ca-55_1_atlanta-symphony


----------



## JohnG

when I listen to JW, especially when I look through one of his scores, I feel as Macbeth is said to do:

"Now does he feel his title / Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe / Upon a dwarfish thief"


----------



## madbulk

JohnG @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> when I listen to JW, especially when I look through one of his scores, I feel as Macbeth is said to do:
> "Now does he feel his title / Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe / Upon a dwarfish thief"


The bar has been set higher still, for working too hard.
Here's to us dwarfish thieves, especially those at peace with their inferiority. And long live VI despite. o-[][]-o


----------



## rayinstirling

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> 2. Concert hall composing and film composing are TWO DIFFERENT JOBS! Why is that so hard for some to grasp?



Ha!
The last concert I attended was at the Royal Albert Hall in London featuring....................................the music for film of John Williams


----------



## EastWest Lurker

rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Concert hall composing and film composing are TWO DIFFERENT JOBS! Why is that so hard for some to grasp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!
> The last concert I attended was at the Royal Albert Hall in London featuring....................................the music for film of John Williams
Click to expand...


Yes, but that is because it puts fannies in seats, not because it is designed to be concert hall music when he wrote it.


----------



## rayinstirling

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Concert hall composing and film composing are TWO DIFFERENT JOBS! Why is that so hard for some to grasp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!
> The last concert I attended was at the Royal Albert Hall in London featuring....................................the music for film of John Williams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but that is because it puts fannies in seats, not because it is designed to be concert hall music when he wrote it.
Click to expand...


There you go! I learn something new everyday. 'never too old


----------



## Daryl

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Yes, but that is because it puts fannies in seats, not because it is designed to be concert hall music when he wrote it.


Using the American English definition of "fannies" I hope. :shock: 

D


----------



## Ron Snijders

EastWest Lurker @ Thu 24 Apr said:


> David, you don't understand: in THIS forum professional accomplishment, awards, longevity, none of it matters. According to many, perhaps most, here, there are no objective standards, only subjective opinions and all subjective opinions are equal.
> 
> Get with the program


Meh, I'm pretty divided on that one. Any great artist is only great BECAUSE of those opinions. If JW wrote exactly the same music, but no one liked it, he wouldn't be considered great. The same goes for any painter, writer, actor, whatever. Their greatness exists solely by virtue of opinion.
That doesn't mean that someone like JW isn't great. It's just that he's great by the standards that were defined by those masses whose opinions you don't seem to care about.


----------



## re-peat

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Meh, I'm pretty divided on that one. (...)


You certainly sound like it, Ron. More than divided, I would say.

Your argument doesn’t hold water, you know that, don’t you? If no one liked it, that would mean there would be no tradition or precedent for that type of music either, which means a composer like Williams simply wouldn’t exist. Especially Williams, since he certainly didn’t come out of the blue, musically/stylistically speaking, echoing, as he does, almost the entire history of well-established orchestral western music in his own.
Or, turn that around: the fact that he exist, and does what he does, is evidence of the fact that many, many people like it. So, what you are supposing is quite impossible.

Anyway, if you really believe that ‘greatness’ is attributed from the outside, rather than a gift to the outside, I fear we’re either in for a very long discussion or, perhaps wiser, don’t start one at all.

_


----------



## Ron Snijders

re-peat @ Fri 25 Apr said:


> Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I'm pretty divided on that one. (...)
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly sound like it, Ron. More than divided, I would say.
> 
> Your argument doesn’t hold water, you know that, don’t you? If no one liked it, that would mean there would be no tradition or precedent for that type of music either, which means a composer like Williams simply wouldn’t exist. Especially Williams, since he certainly didn’t come out of the blue, musically/stylistically speaking, echoing, as he does, almost the entire history of well-established orchestral western music in his own.
> Or, turn that around: the fact that he exist, and does what he does, is evidence of the fact that many, many people like it. So, what you are saying is quite impossible.
> 
> Anyway, if you really think that ‘greatness’ is attributed from the outside, rather than a gift to the outside, I fear we’re either in for a long discussion or, perhaps wiser, don’t start one at all.
> 
> _
Click to expand...

Your argument is actually one I was expecting. I actually considered going into it in my previous post, but decided not to.
All the musical history that someone like JW works with only exists by virtue of opinion as well. The entire evolution of art is nothing more than people creating works that other people like. If noone liked it, we never hear of it again. If many people like it, it becomes part of musical history. Not that different from biological evolution, actually.
Now the ability to consistently create works that are considered great is a rare gift, so my argument is in no way derogaroty towards any artist considered great. It's just that all those 'uneducated' opinions are what actually defines 'great'.

P.S. Please don't go into that patronizing 'you know that, don't you'-style. All you're doing is making it harder for me to respond to what you're saying instead of its form.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Daryl @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that is because it puts fannies in seats, not because it is designed to be concert hall music when he wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> Using the American English definition of "fannies" I hope. :shock:
> 
> D
Click to expand...


Oh, do you Brits have a different one?


----------



## Stiltzkin

World English Dictionary
fanny (ˈfænɪ) 

— n , pl -nies
1.	taboo ( Brit ) the female genitals
2.	chiefly ( US ), ( Canadian ) the buttocks

usage Despite the theory that this word derives from the name `Fanny', its use in British English is still considered taboo by many people, and is likely to cause offence. In the US the word refers to the buttocks. Serious misunderstanding may therefore arise when what people in Britain know as a `bumbag' is referred to in the US as a `fanny pack'


----------



## madbulk

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> re-peat @ Fri 25 Apr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I'm pretty divided on that one. (...)
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly sound like it, Ron. More than divided, I would say.
> 
> Your argument doesn’t hold water, you know that, don’t you? If no one liked it, that would mean there would be no tradition or precedent for that type of music either, which means a composer like Williams simply wouldn’t exist. Especially Williams, since he certainly didn’t come out of the blue, musically/stylistically speaking, echoing, as he does, almost the entire history of well-established orchestral western music in his own.
> Or, turn that around: the fact that he exist, and does what he does, is evidence of the fact that many, many people like it. So, what you are saying is quite impossible.
> 
> Anyway, if you really think that ‘greatness’ is attributed from the outside, rather than a gift to the outside, I fear we’re either in for a long discussion or, perhaps wiser, don’t start one at all.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is actually one I was expecting. I actually considered going into it in my previous post, but decided not to.
> All the musical history that someone like JW works with only exists by virtue of opinion as well. The entire evolution of art is nothing more than people creating works that other people like. If noone liked it, we never hear of it again. If many people like it, it becomes part of musical history. Not that different from biological evolution, actually.
> Now the ability to consistently create works that are considered great is a rare gift, so my argument is in no way derogaroty towards any artist considered great. It's just that all those 'uneducated' opinions are what actually defines 'great'.
> 
> P.S. Please don't go into that patronizing 'you know that, don't you'-style. All you're doing is making it harder for me to respond to what you're saying instead of its form.
Click to expand...


Whatever. You can chicken and egg all you want. Can't wiggle out of it. He's still making better omelettes than you or anybody else here. If your sitting on THAT fence, you're choosing silly.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> The entire evolution of art is nothing more than people creating works that other people like. If noone liked it, we never hear of it again. If many people like it, it becomes part of musical history. Not that different from biological evolution, actually.
> Now the ability to consistently create works that are considered great is a rare gift, so my argument is in no way derogaroty towards any artist considered great. It's just that all those 'uneducated' opinions are what actually defines 'great'.
> 
> P.S. Please don't go into that patronizing 'you know that, don't you'-style. All you're doing is making it harder for me to respond to what you're saying instead of its form.



Aaaaaarghhh... I loathe myself for contributing.

But absolutely yes to your post, Ron.

Funnily enough, the discussion of what art is - and who is The Greatest - seems to have caused more wars at VI-C than anything else. And - imo anyway - it's so dumb.

The idea that one can objectively measure art is futile (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI - you are of course allowed to hate that movie, it helps make its point). One can appeal to other opinion, one can appeal to any number of aspects of art (how original / complex etc - but not "inspired", that's not quantifiable) or one can appeal to popularity. All these may or may not be part of the picture. But objectivity? Don't be silly.

Unless we all agree that Adrian Cook really is the ultimate arbiter of all art and when he decrees something is crap then it really is absolutely definitively crap and no other voices can or should be heard, then there's nowhere else to go with it really. Again, imo. (to whom can I appeal?)

Of course, some like to build straw men and therefore say that if we accept that all artistic appreciation is subjective, then we say all is equal which is nonsense too - appealing to a mass of other opinion, popularity and specific yardsticks are perfectly fine things to do, and often a whole lotta fun. Doesn't everyone here love a piece of music or a movie or a book that most people hate? Doesn't everyone here hate a piece of music or a movie or a book that most people love? And for good reasons?

Art is great. Science is great. Getting them confused usually isn't.

PS - John Williams is da bomb.


----------



## Ron Snijders

madbulk @ Fri 25 Apr said:


> Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat @ Fri 25 Apr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I'm pretty divided on that one. (...)
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly sound like it, Ron. More than divided, I would say.
> 
> Your argument doesn’t hold water, you know that, don’t you? If no one liked it, that would mean there would be no tradition or precedent for that type of music either, which means a composer like Williams simply wouldn’t exist. Especially Williams, since he certainly didn’t come out of the blue, musically/stylistically speaking, echoing, as he does, almost the entire history of well-established orchestral western music in his own.
> Or, turn that around: the fact that he exist, and does what he does, is evidence of the fact that many, many people like it. So, what you are saying is quite impossible.
> 
> Anyway, if you really think that ‘greatness’ is attributed from the outside, rather than a gift to the outside, I fear we’re either in for a long discussion or, perhaps wiser, don’t start one at all.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is actually one I was expecting. I actually considered going into it in my previous post, but decided not to.
> All the musical history that someone like JW works with only exists by virtue of opinion as well. The entire evolution of art is nothing more than people creating works that other people like. If noone liked it, we never hear of it again. If many people like it, it becomes part of musical history. Not that different from biological evolution, actually.
> Now the ability to consistently create works that are considered great is a rare gift, so my argument is in no way derogaroty towards any artist considered great. It's just that all those 'uneducated' opinions are what actually defines 'great'.
> 
> P.S. Please don't go into that patronizing 'you know that, don't you'-style. All you're doing is making it harder for me to respond to what you're saying instead of its form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. You can chicken and egg all you want. Can't wiggle out of it. He's still making better omelettes than you or anybody else here. If your sitting on THAT fence, you're choosing silly.
Click to expand...

The mistake you and Piet are both making is thinking that somehow I'm saying that JW isn't a great composer. He is, and perhaps better than most.

The reason I replied is that there was some cynicism about opinions and them being equal or not, while without all those 'uneducated' opinions there would be no greatness.

No need to 'wiggle out of it', you're fighting a point I didn't even make!

Edit: Guy slipped in between. Thanks for clarifying, maybe I'm using the wrong words to get the point across


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal.

And arguably most uneducated opinions only coalesce over time because the uneducated read the educated ones and come to accept them as their own.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Ah, this forum can be so charming. Sometimes I think it needs a solid injection of oestrogen.

I never quite understand the apparent premise that a discussion about music somehow needs to be won. That when arguing with someone you disagree with, pointing out why you disagree with them is secondary to telling them they are wrong.

There's seems to be a complete lack of interest in learning something from a discussion sometimes. The idea that because you disagree with someone that you have to throw out their entire argument and not try to understand where they're coming from or work on the common ground you have.

This appraoch of "Here's my opinion, I'll just leave it here... or possibly repeat it over and over again if anyone disagrees with it" like a stone tablet from the mountain, lacks an intelelctual curiosity I just can't get my head round. 

How often is the riposte "You are wrong and here is why" rather than "Here's what I think"?

Not being interested why someone disagrees with you, seems short-sighted and dull to me.

We have all these people on here, from different cultures/backgrounds, working in different mediums, different ages, different influences (both musical and otherwise) and the breadth and depth of their experiences and passions always seems to get boiled down to a tedious "do they agree with me or not?".

Vive la difference!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I always enjoy the exchange of conflicting ideas when done in a mutually respectful way. And sometimes when I think it over, I do arrive at a different conclusion.


----------



## Guy Rowland

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal.
> 
> And arguably most uneducated opinions only coalesce over time because the uneducated read the educated ones and come to accept them as their own.



Does that mean the ciritical consensus is always right? Is Citizen Kane definitively the best film ever made? That's what the AFI says. Rotten Tomatoes critics meta analysis disagrees and says its Wizard Of Oz. In either case does that make any individual critic who has a different no1 wrong? Can we only accept that 100% critical ratings are actually good films, cos if there's any critical doubt its likely to be suspect?

If we're asking the public, they think its The Shawshank Redemption, at least IMDB says so. Or if its money that counts, its gotta be Avatar. Adjusted for inflation, it's Gone With The Wind. Maybe in another 50 years you'll be right and all these different views will coalesce and we'll all come to agree the exact same things about all art.

But I do hope not. And I severely doubt it.

Gravity (here he goes again) was reviled by many here in VI-C Towers as dumb, but there it is - 12th best critically reviewed movie OF ALL TIME according to Rotten Tomatoes. So there will be plenty of forum members here who don't buy the whole critical consensus thing. Well, unless it suits them.

And what goes for one art form - movies - sure has hell goes for music. I think some people desperately cling on to this notion of needing an artistic consensus or objective yardstick cos they hate relativism so much. In our field, I get that people genuinely find it offensive that Trent Reznor won an Oscar, so they want to run as far away from that as possible and invent STANDARDS, invent that yardstick by which all must be judged.

I do suspect the truth of it all is nuanced. Yes critics largely are well qualified to talk about their subject, but it doesn't disqualify them from talking out of their ass sometimes. The ordinary public can sense and embrace greatness, but it doesn't stop them mindlessly turning up to see part 20 of a boring franchise cos it was marketed to death, and some of them even LIKING it. And there are artistic gems out there lost to both, most sadly.

But you gotta laugh. Here we all are, everyone (I think) agreeing that this here John Williams really is jolly good at this whole film scoring lark and probably, ya know, one of the absolute best if not ya know the actual best. And yet we're ripping each other to shreds over it. Well....

o[])

PS - Matt Bowdler is also Da Bomb. A different Bomb, I hasten to add.


----------



## re-peat

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> (...) The mistake you and Piet are both making is thinking that somehow I'm saying that JW isn't a great composer. (...) You're fighting a point I didn't even make! (...)


You are attributing a mistake to me I didn’t even make. I never implied you doubted Williams greatness, I merely said your argumentation, which says that he is only great because enough people have expressed liking him, is — and forgive me for saying so — nonsense. Devoid of any musical intelligence whatsoever.

Tell me, please, when *you* say: “He is great, better than most”, on what is that based? On your personal appreciation of his music — in which case you contradict your own argument — or because enough people before you have said he is great? In which case I do feel sorry for you.

And those other composers, who you declare "not as great", is that based on a personal evaluation of their work, or do you follow some anonymous consensus in the matter here too?

And talking about “enough people”: according to you it takes a certain amount of people to declare an artist “great”, yes? How many is that? From which number of votes onwards, can “greatness” be considered a given? A thousand? Seven million? Three billion? Twenty? And are there degrees of greatness, from “mild greatness” to “supreme greatness”, depending on the number of people who approve of what an artist is doing?

Sorry for all these stupid questions, but that’s the sort of level your type of argumentation brings this discussion down to.

_


----------



## passenger57

Wonderfully inspiring, thanks so much for sharing. I had the honor of meeting JW a couple times. 




AlexandreSafi @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbEOEHTp6m8
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ucfz61TDmM
> 
> This GOD of a composer conducting his players, showing how it's done!
> After listening to it like 500x times, I still have no words for this, this is just ridiculous!!!
> 
> Alexandre


----------



## madbulk

TheUnfinished @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> ...always seems to get boiled down to a tedious "do they agree with me or not?".


Yeah well, that's the internet business.

To wit, Guy, consider that the straw man you took issue with was in answer to the first one, the one that hi-jacked the thread -- the one that came in and said, "Don't be so presumptuous and closed as to insist that john williams is any better than the rest of us. Why who's to say?"

Irony being, of course, the strongest force in the universe.

THIS! THIS I say, is the great waste of energy here. And it got my goat I admit.


----------



## madbulk

passenger57 @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Wonderfully inspiring, thanks so much for sharing. I had the honor of meeting JW a couple times.
> 
> 
> 
> AlexandreSafi @ Wed Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbEOEHTp6m8
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ucfz61TDmM
> This GOD of a composer conducting his players, showing how it's done!
> After listening to it like 500x times, I still have no words for this, this is just ridiculous!!!
> Alexandre
Click to expand...


Bravo.


----------



## re-peat

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> It's just that all those 'uneducated' opinions are what actually defines 'great'.


Have to take issue with that as well, I'm afraid. The uneducated define what's popular, the educated perceive (note: I'm not using the verb "define" here) what is great. That's my view anyway.

A little while ago, in some other thread, I wrote this on the subject:

Taste can be 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 personal preferences, and the faculty to recognize it when it does, has nothing subjective about it. (...)

The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that. And that makes the whole thing immediately very elitist, I know. But I won’t apologize for it, as I’m of the opinion that great talent and art, on the one hand, and democratic egalitarian sentiments, on the other, have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Great art is created by a fortunate few for a fortunate few, for those who understand that there is nothing subjective about it.
The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. (...)

People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation. That’s what it is.

Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel is great art, as is Beethoven’s, Picasso’s or Shakespeare’s body of work. There’s nothing subjective about saying that. Maybe my neighbour, or even my entire street, doesn’t see or hear it, but that’s their shortcoming.
Art shouldn’t be evaluated and/or discussed on a level where *everybody* has something to say about it, the level where petty subjectivities indeed may result in entertaining, passionate or tiresome conflict, no, art — great art — deserves to be discussed on a level where objective understanding, honesty, informed insight, open-mindedness and keen intelligence steer the communication. But those, I'm afraid, are not qualities that everybody is born with.

I am sorry, but that’s how it is. Objectively speaking. 

_


----------



## DocMidi657

This whole thread made me think of the SNL "More Cowbell Skit" 

"I'm just like you, I put my pants on one leg at a time, the difference is when I put on my pants I make GOLD RECORDS!"


----------



## rayinstirling

David Story @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Best Williams Concerto: Escapades
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zp_42KQ6KQ
> (Not yet recorded by Williams, but Branford Marsalis has a good version)




Best? I don't know but.
Very entertaining. Thanks for mentioning it here.


----------



## madbulk

rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> David Story @ Thu Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best Williams Concerto: Escapades
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zp_42KQ6KQ
> (Not yet recorded by Williams, but Branford Marsalis has a good version)
> 
> 
> 
> Best? I don't know but.
> Very entertaining. Thanks for mentioning it here.
Click to expand...

I'm going to start awarding points.

I can award points, can't I, Frederick?


----------



## AC986

re-peat @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. (...)
> 
> People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation.
> 
> _



Yes that's a very erudite way of putting it. I have tried over the years to get this very point across. What people get mixed up in their heads with, is all about what they like. People think that because they like it, it must be great.

I gave up with that and trying to explain the difference years ago. Patience runs out as you get older. To me today, this type of individual is nothing more than a fucking peasant.


----------



## rayinstirling

I'm glad I'm not a musicologist.

It's great being able to enjoy music without the burden of knowing why.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Rowland @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal.
> 
> And arguably most uneducated opinions only coalesce over time because the uneducated read the educated ones and come to accept them as their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean the ciritical consensus is always right? Is Citizen Kane definitively the best film ever made? That's what the AFI says. Rotten Tomatoes critics meta analysis disagrees and says its Wizard Of Oz. In either case does that make any individual critic who has a different no1 wrong? Can we only accept that 100% critical ratings are actually good films, cos if there's any critical doubt its likely to be suspect?
> 
> If we're asking the public, they think its The Shawshank Redemption, at least IMDB says so. Or if its money that counts, its gotta be Avatar. Adjusted for inflation, it's Gone With The Wind. Maybe in another 50 years you'll be right and all these different views will coalesce and we'll all come to agree the exact same things about all art.
> 
> But I do hope not. And I severely doubt it.
> 
> Gravity (here he goes again) was reviled by many here in VI-C Towers as dumb, but there it is - 12th best critically reviewed movie OF ALL TIME according to Rotten Tomatoes. So there will be plenty of forum members here who don't buy the whole critical consensus thing. Well, unless it suits them.
> 
> And what goes for one art form - movies - sure has hell goes for music. I think some people desperately cling on to this notion of needing an artistic consensus or objective yardstick cos they hate relativism so much. In our field, I get that people genuinely find it offensive that Trent Reznor won an Oscar, so they want to run as far away from that as possible and invent STANDARDS, invent that yardstick by which all must be judged.
> 
> I do suspect the truth of it all is nuanced. Yes critics largely are well qualified to talk about their subject, but it doesn't disqualify them from talking out of their ass sometimes. The ordinary public can sense and embrace greatness, but it doesn't stop them mindlessly turning up to see part 20 of a boring franchise cos it was marketed to death, and some of them even LIKING it. And there are artistic gems out there lost to both, most sadly.
> 
> But you gotta laugh. Here we all are, everyone (I think) agreeing that this here John Williams really is jolly good at this whole film scoring lark and probably, ya know, one of the absolute best if not ya know the actual best. And yet we're ripping each other to shreds over it. Well....
> 
> o[])
> 
> PS - Matt Bowdler is also Da Bomb. A different Bomb, I hasten to add.
Click to expand...


History decides, Guy, and rightly or wrongly, history is written by the winners largely. It has already decided that composers like A, Newman, Korngold, Herrmann, Goldsmith , and Williams are truly great, while other successful film composers who were their contemporaries were only good, fair, or poor.

Its true of concert hall music as well. I love to listen to Poulenc and Satie but few educated composers would declare them or the other members of Le Six equal or better than Debussy or Ravel. And the "uneducated probably don't know who they were 

So history decided and Debussy and Ravel are written of as giants while the others talented but relatively mere mortals.


----------



## Ron Snijders

adriancook @ Fri 25 Apr said:


> re-peat @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. (...)
> 
> People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that's a very erudite way of putting it. I have tried over the years to get this very point across. What people get mixed up in their heads with, is all about what they like. People think that because they like it, it must be great.
> 
> I gave up with that and trying to explain the difference years ago. Patience runs out as you get older. To me today, this type of individual is nothing more than a fucking peasant.
Click to expand...

The problem with this elitist view is that the people spewing it seem to be rather preoccupied with elevating themselves above the 'fucking peasants' (is that a Lennon quote or just an insult?). It's nothing more than accepting the opinion of a different group, really. Those of whom you have accepted that they 'understand greatness' or 'have the feelers to get it'. Probably quite an effective way of 'discussing' usually, because of the inherent challenge to people by implicating that they simply don't 'have what it takes' to understand why you're right.

But you know what. I'll simply accept that our world views differ too much to come to an agreement. You, or Piet, or 'madbulk' can help yourselves to the last word if you want to. We don't have to agree.


----------



## rayinstirling

Name me a great who hasn't written a great tune or at least a memorable phrase?

That's what it all boils down to.

Yes, peasant or pleb, that's me


----------



## EastWest Lurker

rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Name me a great who hasn't written a great tune or at least a memorable phrase?
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.



Varese or Schoenberg


----------



## rayinstirling

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name me a great who hasn't written a great tune or at least a memorable phrase?
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varese or Schoenberg
Click to expand...


Don't know them


----------



## AC986

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> adriancook @ Fri 25 Apr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


_The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. (...)_

Ron, I'm not asking you to agree or disagree. Forget all of that.

I'm asking you to _accept_ the above statement. You don't have to agree with it. You just have to accept it. You're talking about opinions. This isn't about opinions. I have ludicrous opinions about lots of things. This is beyond opinion. 

I knew the minute Alexandre posted this, it would spell trouble. :lol: :twisted:


----------



## EastWest Lurker

rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name me a great who hasn't written a great tune or at least a memorable phrase?
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varese or Schoenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know them
Click to expand...


LEAVE THE FORUM IMMEDIATELY AND DON'T COME BACK UNTIL YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR MUSICAL EDUCATION! :twisted: :D


----------



## madbulk

Ron Snijders @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> adriancook @ Fri 25 Apr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. (...)
> 
> People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that's a very erudite way of putting it. I have tried over the years to get this very point across. What people get mixed up in their heads with, is all about what they like. People think that because they like it, it must be great.
> 
> I gave up with that and trying to explain the difference years ago. Patience runs out as you get older. To me today, this type of individual is nothing more than a [email protected]#king peasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this elitist view is that the people spewing it seem to be rather preoccupied with elevating themselves above the '[email protected]#king peasants' (is that a Lennon quote or just an insult?). It's nothing more than accepting the opinion of a different group, really. Those of whom you have accepted that they 'understand greatness' or 'have the feelers to get it'. Probably quite an effective way of 'discussing' usually, because of the inherent challenge to people by implicating that they simply don't 'have what it takes' to understand why you're right.
> 
> But you know what. I'll simply accept that our world views differ too much to come to an agreement. You, or Piet, or 'madbulk' can help yourselves to the last word if you want to. We don't have to agree.
Click to expand...


ED, whattaya call it when someone does that thing where they use a pejorative term like "elitist" and then go on to talk about the intent and sub desires of the elitist person with whom they're arguing in order to make the elitists view less appealing?


----------



## dcoscina

Straw man argument sort of.

_This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue._




> People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation. That’s what it is.



Totally agree with Piet's sentiments on this. 

It does get tiresome to try to explain how one can be objective if they possess the ability to step away from the emotional content.

I enjoy martial arts movies but aside from perhaps, Hero or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, they are largely not the greatest cinematic achievements. Now something like Kurosawa's Seven Samurai which some might confuse with the forementioned genre, IS the highest expression of cinematic brilliance by its narrative arc and film technique.

One should be able to step away from what simply delights them and assess things on a more analytic level. This doesn't devalue the visceral aspect of the impact of art- in fact, to me, it strengthens it because there exists a contrast between what is good and what is great. There is things we enjoy and things that have absolute merit by way of their execution and adherence to technique. 

I for one believe more technique can often equal a greater level of artistic expression. But I've been labelled an elitist before and I'm actually fine with that. 

Some people might not like Williams' music but dismissing him altogether is akin to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. Doesn't change the fact that there is a measurable quality in his music.


----------



## madbulk

Or David.


----------



## Markus S

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> rayinstirling @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name me a great who hasn't written a great tune or at least a memorable phrase?
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varese or Schoenberg
Click to expand...


Well that first phrase from "Verklärte Nacht" is pretty memorable, not to mention that typical Varese car honk.


----------



## Guy Rowland

dcoscina @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Some people might not like Williams' music but dismissing him altogether is akin to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. Doesn't change the fact that there is a measurable quality in his music.



And there's where the elitist argument fails (well, one of the places). Essentially its to reduce things to "genius" / "non genius", and the way you can tell is... well, you possibly can't, it depends if you have the right receptors. It appears to be a bit like having faith - only some have eyes to see - or indeed, ears to hear.

So in the quoted example we have the presented view of the talking Ostrich who says "Williams is no different to anyone else", an opinion I don't think I've read here from anyone (the strongest I believe was someone who was unwilling to ascribe Godly status, which doesn't seem quite the same thing to me). Having built that straw man, it is refuted by saying that there is a measurable quality to his music.

And yes, there are measurable qualities, none of which arrive you at the de facto definition of genius, but many of which do arrive the virtual unanimity of the composers here to declare Williams a Great, at least. But that's different to the way Piet seems to tell us (yes, tell us) that there is an intelligenisa, a Magesterium, ond only they who can ascribe the notion of genius to certain people, a bit like a less formal Nobel committee or something. Their qualification to become a member is to have the right receptors - I guess there's no such thing as half a receptor or three quarters of one - you either have this musical genius detector or you don't, it seems.

The argument falls down when you move away from the extremes, when you discuss the Salieris rather than Mozarts. On that... did the movie Amadeus unfairly malign Salieri? Well yes, but he still wasn't on a par was he? Possibly not but... wait, my goodness, might the Musical Magesterium start to argue among themselves? If 100% agree that Mozart was a genius, what to do if only 75% consider Salieri one? And remember - it's not a matter of opinion, Opinion Is Wrong. So does the Magesterium function as an elitist democracy perhaps? In which case, by my invented figures, Salieri is posthumously in luck.

There's this evil spectre of the Zero Shades of Grey, this rather bizarre line of reason that says "why, if it's just opinion, you're saying everyone is the same as everyone else". It's a fundamental unwillingness to accept that there are shades of grey, there is nuance, there is fallibility, there is cultural and temporal influence.

And the notion that emotion doesn't enter into artistic appreciation? Particularly bizarre.


----------



## madbulk

Guy Rowland @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> There's this evil spectre of the Zero Shades of Grey, this rather bizarre line of reason that says "why, if it's just opinion, you're saying everyone is the same as everyone else". It's a fundamental unwillingness to accept that there are shades of grey, there is nuance, there is fallibility, there is cultural and temporal influence.


Guy, it's not necessary to further describe why and how elitism fails. (edit: perhaps it is, but I'm still annoyed at the insistence that that's what's driving this. If it were, you'd indeed have a point. But I think it's poor form to lead with it. I don't know that it's a strawman though, David.)
It was in my opinion put forth "everyone is the same as everyone else." Or at least that one shouldn't publicly state that everyone is not the same as everyone else. I don't think it was a bizarre inference on my elitist part. But I'll consider the possibility.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Rowland @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> (...) Piet seems to tell us (yes, tell us) that there is an intelligenisa, a Magesterium, ond only they who can ascribe the notion of genius to certain people (...)


Making a silly vaudeville of this discussion is the last thing I expected from you, Guy. 

I’m not talking about there being some “Blessed Few” who decide for everybody else what constitutes great music, I’m simply saying that, in order to truly appreciate a composer, you have to have a measure of his talent: a measure — which I called “antennae” — great enough to go passively where a composer goes creatively. That’s all.

I have to have talent to allow me to hear the same talent in somebody else. And the greater my talent, the better I will be able to hear great talent, and the greater the range of talent that I will be able to distinguish between. 
Maybe this will help: I have to have intelligence to allow me to appreciate the intelligence in somebody else. Yes? And the greater my intelligence, the greater the intelligence I can appreciate. And the better I will be able to differentiate between degrees of intelligence. (Yours disappoints me a little bit at the moment, I must say.)

Or: I have to be lustful myself to allow me to enjoy the lust bestowed upon me by somebody else.

Same thing with music: I have to have a little of Beethoven in me, to be truly able to appreciate the greatness of his music. And the more of Beethoven I have in me, the more I will be able to appreciate him. And if there is absolutely nothing of Beethoven in me, if I am without even the smallest hint of his talent, his music will forever remain a closed book to me. From which follows: only a Beethoven himself can fully gauge the complete *musical* genius of Beethoven. (And I stressed the word 'musical' because I *am* talking about the abstract musical quality itself and not about the emotional response to it, which is a different discussion altogether.)

Sure, that's elitist. As elitist as it gets. But I happen to not give a flying toss. Bad luck for those with tiny antennae. Or ...

... Well, it's not even bad luck, is it, cause with tiny antennae, they'll never know what they can't pick up on anyway. So, in a way, this isn't elitism at all, because elitism assumes deprivation — those who "don't belong" are deprived from the blessings which come to those that do belong — but that is not what I am talking about here, because those blessings would be absolute meaningless and value-less anyway to those that lack the sensibilties to appreciate them.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Well, I am not sure there is such a term as "elitarian".

But I must agree that while people like to throw "elitist" as a pejorative at others, as the Gershwins said, "It Ain't Necessarily So."

In some cases, it is a badge of honor.


----------



## re-peat

You're right, "elitarian" doesn't seem to exist in English. That's my Dutch/Flemish peeping through, I guess. We say "elitair" and "egalitair", which made me assume that English would also have the word "elitarian". But it doesn't.
(I've corrected my previous post. Hate to see such mistakes stand.)

Thanks , Jay.

_


----------



## midi_controller

> The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that. And that makes the whole thing immediately very elitarian, I know.





> Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal.
> 
> And arguably most uneducated opinions only coalesce over time because the uneducated read the educated ones and come to accept them as their own.





> I gave up with that and trying to explain the difference years ago. Patience runs out as you get older. To me today, this type of individual is nothing more than a fucking peasant.



Wow. This is getting outright disgusting.

So tell all of us, how does one come to the conclusion that a piece of art is objectively great? This should be a rather simple task considering that there doesn't seem to be any leeway. Strange, because as I've said before, even professional critics can't seem to agree on whether something is great or not. 

What is the best piece of music ever written? The best film? The best painting, novel, or poem? If you judge by objective standards, these answers should be simple. And will your answers not only be unanimous amongst your so called educated peers, but will those works even have an impact on the average person, or does everyone else not matter?

Speaking of educated peers, who gets to say when one has sufficient education that their voice may be heard? Does one need to be a composer to be able to discuss music? Or perhaps they need a Doctorate? Perhaps they need experience, and only those who have worked as a professional composer above a certain pay grade may be heard. Maybe they must be over a certain age as well? Maybe only all of these things combined would be enough to be in that elite group whose voice counts to some people, and tell me, do you fit these specifications, and if not, should I dismiss your input on music entirely because of it?

What is the purpose of art? To be perfectly constructed? To be looked at and admired? Or is it to ignite our imaginations, move us emotionally, or even change the way we look at the world? Which would the artist himself or herself rather hear? That a work was perfect, or that it changed someone's life?

Why did you get into music in the first place? What sparked that interest in you when you were young and amongst the uneducated peasants? Or were you born with the innate ability to sense great art right from the womb?

@re-peat: Seriously, do you have to try and personally attack everyone you have a discussion with? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are stupid or inferior to you.


----------



## passenger57

This whole thread cracks me up  Don't waste your life tilting at windmills

Remember good ol' Willy Shakespeare

"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V).

Write a great song, cue, symphony, tell your significant other you love them, spend time with your kids.. life is short


----------



## David Story

> ...it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach.



"Smart dudes look like crazy dudes to dumb dudes." 

Bach could have dumbed down his work, but I'm glad he didn't. He still gets plenty of performances, more now than ever before. And he gets placed in blockbuster movies, with a bit of editing. Shakespeare is another artist that maintained a standard well beyond what many people could understand, yet did well enough in his life, and left a legacy that makes the world a better place.

There are intangibles that are vital and can't be measured. The soul of the creator. But you can learn from their technique and structure. That's what the greats do, learn from other greats. And other practitioners too.

BTW, elitarian is a word in english, just uncommon.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

David Story @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> BTW, elitarian is a word in english, just uncommon.



Not listed in Webster's Dictionary.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

midi_controller @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that. And that makes the whole thing immediately very elitarian, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal.
> 
> And arguably most uneducated opinions only coalesce over time because the uneducated read the educated ones and come to accept them as their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave up with that and trying to explain the difference years ago. Patience runs out as you get older. To me today, this type of individual is nothing more than a fucking peasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. This is getting outright disgusting.
> 
> So tell all of us, how does one come to the conclusion that a piece of art is objectively great? This should be a rather simple task considering that there doesn't seem to be any leeway. Strange, because as I've said before, even professional critics can't seem to agree on whether something is great or not.
> 
> What is the best piece of music ever written? The best film? The best painting, novel, or poem? If you judge by objective standards, these answers should be simple. And will your answers not only be unanimous amongst your so called educated peers, but will those works even have an impact on the average person, or does everyone else not matter?
> 
> Speaking of educated peers, who gets to say when one has sufficient education that their voice may be heard? Does one need to be a composer to be able to discuss music? Or perhaps they need a Doctorate? Perhaps they need experience, and only those who have worked as a professional composer above a certain pay grade may be heard. Maybe they must be over a certain age as well? Maybe only all of these things combined would be enough to be in that elite group whose voice counts to some people, and tell me, do you fit these specifications, and if not, should I dismiss your input on music entirely because of it?
> 
> What is the purpose of art? To be perfectly constructed? To be looked at and admired? Or is it to ignite our imaginations, move us emotionally, or even change the way we look at the world? Which would the artist himself or herself rather hear? That a work was perfect, or that it changed someone's life?
> 
> Why did you get into music in the first place? What sparked that interest in you when you were young and amongst the uneducated peasants? Or were you born with the innate ability to sense great art right from the womb?
> 
> @re-peat: Seriously, do you have to try and personally attack everyone you have a discussion with? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are stupid or inferior to you.
Click to expand...


First of all, I am not angry, upset or annoyed with anyone, just expressing my view that intrinsically educated opinions are worth more than non-educated opinions. If you disagree, fine, everyone gets to believe what they belief and state it. The fact that i argue with it does not mean that I do not think people have the right to it. It's a discussion and that is what we are doing, discussing.

I have had a passion for music since I was 5 and over the years as I learned more and more, expanded my musical horizons became more experienced, etc. ,I think my opinions became more valuable. Certainly others have solicited them more.

I can passionately enjoy certain music while being able to step outside my liking it to acknowledge its lack of greatness. Conversely, I can not enjoy certain music while being able to step outside my not liking it to acknowledge its greatness. I see no contradiction.

But if that is not the way YOU look at music, art, etc. I am fine with it.

As for re-peat, well, that is what he does, isn't it? And many of you have stated many times you are OK with it, so that is what you are going to continue to get from him.


----------



## midi_controller

That is fine Jay, and I respect your opinion, but with lines like "Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal." it seems that you don't always feel the same about the opinions of others. All I'm asking is where do you draw the line? 

I agree that an educated position holds more weight, although my stance is that anyone can study a subject and become educated about it. I get the feeling that some in this thread feel that only a select few can ever reach the status to be able to truly understand something, which, to me, is a very strange position to hold.

I assume that most people who post here have some form of musical education, whether it be self-taught, real-world experience, or university. As such, I don't understand why, at least on this board, anyone's voice is worth less than the next.

My questions still stand though, as I strongly believe that if anyone wants to say that a work of art is objectively greater than others, that person should easily be able to give us the measurement by which that assessment was made, and have his peers agree that using such measurements are correct and accurate across the board. The idea that someone is born with the right "antennae" as re-peat puts it, sounds ridiculous to me.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

midi_controller @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> That is fine Jay, and I respect your opinion, but with lines like "Yep, i am definitely cynical about all opinions being equal." it seems that you don't always feel the same about the opinions of others. All I'm asking is where do you draw the line?
> 
> I agree that an educated position holds more weight, although my stance is that anyone can study a subject and become educated about it. I get the feeling that some in this thread feel that only a select few can ever reach the status to be able to truly understand something, which, to me, is a very strange position to hold.
> 
> I assume that most people who post here have some form of musical education, whether it be self-taught, real-world experience, or university. As such, I don't understand why, at least on this board, anyone's voice is worth less than the next.
> 
> My questions still stand though, as I strongly believe that if anyone wants to say that a work of art is objectively greater than others, that person should easily be able to give us the measurement by which that assessment was made, and have his peers agree that using such measurements are correct and accurate across the board. The idea that someone is born with the right "antennae" as re-peat puts it, sounds ridiculous to me.



It is true that I absolutely don't equally respect all opinions. I assume you don't actually want me to name those those opinions I do and those I do not, correct? But I do respect anyone's right to disagree with my feeling that way. And of course, education is not god given and even talent can be acquired (though genius cannot.) But Piet is far from a genius s far as I can tell and I certainly am not one either.

And once again, the answer to your basic question is that history decides what is great. And I submit that it has already decided that about JW.


----------



## dgburns

David Story @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> "Smart dudes look like crazy dudes to dumb dudes."
Click to expand...


I'm sure we've all heard the saying "good composers borrow,great composer's steal",
well,i'm jumping up my game cause i gotta steal this line!


----------



## midi_controller

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> And once again, the answer to your basic question is that history decides what is great. And I submit that it has already decided that about JW.



By that measure, nursery rhymes, simple little melodies, and folk songs are far greater than anything that Bach wrote. What history remembers is also a popularity contest, judged by the masses, for what artist has survived the test of history without being made well known around their own time? This also goes contrary to the opinion that art can be measured objectively, since what is remembered historically is not constant, but changes over time, and can often be inaccurate. Will John Williams be remembered in 200 years? Perhaps. What about 500? Maybe not. How long does someone's work need to be remembered for it to be considered great?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

midi_controller @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, the answer to your basic question is that history decides what is great. And I submit that it has already decided that about JW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that measure, nursery rhymes, simple little melodies, and folk songs are far greater than anything that Bach wrote. What history remembers is also a popularity contest, judged by the masses, for what artist has survived the test of history without being made well known around their own time? This also goes contrary to the opinion that art can be measured objectively, since what is remembered historically is not constant, but changes over time, and can often be inaccurate. Will John Williams be remembered in 200 years? Perhaps. What about 500? Maybe not. How long does someone's work need to be remembered for it to be considered great?
Click to expand...


History mostly gets it right: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and on and on, have not been forgotten and how many people can name who wrote the melody to London Bridge Is Falling Down compared to who wrote Fur Elise or the Moonlight Sonata?

Film music is less meant to last for centuries than concert hall music because it is more concerned with serving a film than remaining timeless, so the shelf life is shorter but I am confident that as long as the conversation remains about "greatest film composers from 1900-2050, JW's name will be in that discussion, featured prominently, and I don't think you will find too many professional film composers who would disagree with that.

And yes, their opinions matter more


----------



## madbulk

Ed, or David, What's that thing... where you say "Hey wait, Piet says you have to be blessedly born with the special receptor that enables you to perceive what's good and what's not," even though Piet said nothing of the sort, and then posit that therefore the rest of what Piet says must be untrue?

Gotta be a name for that.


----------



## midi_controller

madbulk @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Ed, or David, What's that thing... where you say "Hey wait, Piet says you have to be blessedly born with the special receptor that enables you to perceive what's good and what's not," even though Piet said nothing of the sort...



Um...



re-peat said:


> Taste can be 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 personal preferences, and the faculty to recognize it when it does, has nothing subjective about it. (...)
> 
> The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that.



Anyway, back to Jay: Who dictates what history remembers though? 

I think you missed part of my point. The argument is about whether or not art can be objectively ruled as great, and history is just not and never will be objective. It remembers what people want to remember. We remember Beethoven because even now, hundreds of years after his death, his music can still resonate with people.

How can we tell what art is objectively superior when we still don't fully understand why we enjoy it in the first place? By what standards do we measure it? 

If there is no objective standard by which to measure whether a work of art is great, one that is consistent, then you would have to admit that it is possible that it could be the collected, subjective enjoyment of a work that allows an artist to withstand the test of time. If you have a better theory, I'm open to it, but so far no we have yet to be given the method of objectively qualifying a piece of art, one that would be, as in science, reproducible and consistent.


----------



## David Story

midi_controller @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, the answer to your basic question is that history decides what is great. And I submit that it has already decided that about JW.
> 
> 
> 
> How long does someone's work need to be remembered for it to be considered great?
Click to expand...


+1 Jay

How long? Great question. Depends. It took the world 10 years to recognize Einstein as a great scientist. It took 100 years to recognize JS Bach as a great artist. 1 day to see Neil Armstrong was a great astronaut.

Then there are people who had no recognition to speak of during life, who are discovered posthumously. Eg, posthumous fame of Sylvia Plath and Vincent van Gogh. (I just found this artist, Vivian Maier. http://www.vivianmaier.com/
She could well be a great photographer. The world is just becoming aware of her contribution.)

They are considered great by the longevity and influence of the work. First noticed by a few experts or fans. Then word spreads. How quickly depends on a lot of factors.

JW works in mass media, so word spreads fast. That works both ways, you can outlive fame. Eg Bernard Herrmann. Given time good artists and good work comes back, and is memorialized by fans and by historians. 

My rough estimate is 75 years. If someone is remembered and studied around the world that long, they are probably great.


----------



## JohnG

Does anyone actually believe that nursery rhymes are equal to Bach? Such a position takes the idea of "art standing the test of time" to an absurd extreme.

It is goofy to say that "everyone's opinion is equally valid." It isn't. All art is not equally worthy, either. 

I give a good deal of weight to what James Newton Howard, for example, has to say about film music because I think he's rather good at it, has scored many films, and done so under great time pressure and with other irksome constraints. I would give less weight to someone who's not scored many films, and less still to a non-musician.

The current vogue for casting anyone educated as snobbish, "elitist" (since when was being in the elite bad?), misappropriates a notion of democracy or egalitarianism, extrapolating from "in the eyes of the law / god, all are equal" to "everyone is the same," which is obviously inaccurate. Some people are kinder, some cleverer, some run faster, some are taller or have blue eyes; some people are patient, some decisive.

Some people are better at sports, public speaking, telling jokes, chatting up girls, or playing guitar. 

And some people are better at art.

I prefer to listen first, though not exclusively, to those people. They generally have put in more time, given more thought, and tested more ideas and techniques than others. Often they are familiar with a wider range of expression in their mediums than other people. As a result, their ideas take more information into account, more experience, and more nuance.

So I think their opinions do have more validity.


----------



## midi_controller

JohnG @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Does anyone actually believe that nursery rhymes are equal to Bach? Such a position takes the idea of "art standing the test of time" to an absurd extreme.



No one said that, I was making a point that if we say that the music that has withstood the test of time longest would be considered the greatest, Bach would come nowhere close to other songs that have been around much, much longer and are far more ubiquitous. As such, it is not history that can dictate what great art is.



> It is goofy to say that "everyone's opinion is equally valid." It isn't. All art is not equally worthy, either.



No one said that either. I said that I give equal weight to everyone who posts here, since I would imagine most here are educated in music. However, since I consider art to be subjective, to me, opinions on whether or not a piece of art is good or not _are_ all equal. Just because one personally likes something more doesn't make it better. Just because one has more education or experience than others doesn't mean that they can tell people what they should or shouldn't like, or that they are somehow stupid or inferior because of their tastes in art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



> I give a good deal of weight to what James Newton Howard, for example, has to say about film music because I think he's rather good at it, has scored many films, and done so under great time pressure and with other irksome constraints. I would give less weight to someone who's not scored many films, and less still to a non-musician.



James Newton Howard isn't here, so we cannot get his input. Besides, we aren't talking about film music, we are considering whether or not art can be objectively valued. Something that, if true, would be just as convincing if proved by a homeless man as it would be by John Williams himself.



> The current vogue for casting anyone educated as snobbish, "elitist" (since when was being in the elite bad?), misappropriates a notion of democracy or egalitarianism, extrapolating from "in the eyes of the law / god, all are equal" to "everyone is the same," which is obviously inaccurate. Some people are kinder, some cleverer, some run faster, some are taller or have blue eyes; some people are patient, some decisive.



No one said this either. I'm sensing a pattern here. The elitism is coming from those in this thread who believe that only a select few can even know whether or not art is great.

John, I think you have completely and totally misunderstood the discussion.


----------



## re-peat

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> (...) The elitism is coming from those in this thread who believe that only a select few can even know whether or not art is great.(...)


It’s only a select few that are born with a remarkable amount of musical talent, MidiController. Surely, you must agree with that? And since I believe that it requires a remarkable amount of talent to fully understand music that was created with a remarkable amount of talent, I say and I will keep saying that, yes, recognizing/appreciating great musical quality is the exclusive province of those blessed with a great musical talent and knowledge. 

But again (because I think this is where part of the confusion arises): I *am* talking about recognizing/appreciating musical quality, and not about emotionally responding to music, which, obviously, most people are able to. And please, also note that in no way am I looking down on that emotionally responding to music. (It is however a far less purely musical experience.)

I really am surpised that you would find any of this ‘disgusting’, as if I had postulated some fascist doctrine about the Uber-race of Art Connaisseurs or something. Because that is not what I have been saying at all. I’m simply saying: it requires talent to savour talent. Honestly, I am not a little bit perplexed that, here among musicians no less, that idea should come as some sort of shock.

When my sister — I’ve talked about her at some length on a previous occasion when we discussed the exact same things as we’re doing now - see below — listens to "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", she does so very intuitively: she likes the tune and she likes the light-hearted, sunny atmosphere of the piece. And that’s it. Perfectly OK with me. 
What she never listens for however, are things like structure, arrangement, development, harmony, modulation, shaping of melodies, … She doesn’t even know these things exist, she hasn’t the foggiest how a piece of music is constructed, she never wonders about why she likes music, she can’t tell whether a piece is good or bad (she can only say whether she likes it or not), all she is interested in is the agreeable sensation of hearing that music. 
And again, nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that my sister’s opinion on Mozart will never venture beyond the rather superficial “It’s nice music, isn’t it?”

So yes, I very much believe not all opinions are equal. I need to get to know a person a little first before deciding how much weight his or her opinion will have for me. Unless the opinion itself already reveals so much of a person’s insight or lack thereof, that I immediately know its value.


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


Like I said, much of what I’ve written here is a revisitation of ideas we’ve discussed before. As I don’t feel like typing it all out again, here are a few (I believe relevant) paragraphs of that earlier material:

Sure, there is a certain, unavoidable degree of subjective appreciation in all of this. That is in fact part of art’s wondrous and often unanalyzeable appeal. My most-treasured masterpieces aren’t necessarily Rob’s or Guy’s and, vice versa, I don’t rate Gershwin quite as highly as Guy seems to do. But that’s not the point. The point is that musical activity can reach a level where we all three will agree, with complete conviction, that we’re in the presence of ‘great music’. We may not agree on, say, Gilbert O’Sullivan, but we surely will agree on Ravel. So, personal favourites and preferences aside, good music does have that intrinsic quality that is quickly recognized by anyone who’s able to recognize it. 
And that right there, that is the core problem, isn’t it? The ability to recognize it. Not everyone has it. Me, I don’t recognize a great football playerina, not even if I slept with one. Can’t tell a dilligent amateur from a truly gifted phenomenon. Many people do, but I lack the affinity and love for the sport and the knowlegde about what makes a great player, so I haven’t got a clue. I do recognize a great composer though. But … not everybody does.

What I’m trying to say is: Shakespeare shouldn’t be discussed by those who fall asleep while watching his plays. He can only be discussed sensibly by those who have the required affinity, passion, commitment and intelligence to savour the bard in a way he hoped (and deserves) to be savoured. Same with Beethoven: if Manilow is your musical nec-plus-ultra, you are ill-equipped to measure/value/discuss the greatness of Beethoven. Beethoven simply happens on a totally different musical level than Manilow does and if, for whatever reason, you can’t make it onto that level, fine, no quarrel, but then leave Beethoven alone and certainly don’t try to squeeze him into the same narrow frame of observation with which you measure Manilow. The musical frame which encompasses Manilow quite comfortably, is far, far, far too small for the giant proportions of a Beethoven. 
Put differently: a brain that hears all there is to hear in Manilow but falters beyond that point, doesn’t suffice to hear all there is to hear in Beethoven. A window that looks out on no more than an alley, doesn’t give you a view of the entire city. In order to view something as expansive as an entire city, you’re required to climb several levels up. Same thing with music. 

But telling all this to people often meets with irritation, accusations of elitism and ivory-tower snobbery. I don’t mind. I quite agree in fact. I even believe that this is how it is supposed to be. Art isn’t always a democratic divertissement. Some of it is and very successfully so, sure, but it shouldn’t be a prerequisite. Not all art is for everyone. Not even everything in a single piece of art is for everyone: some people like the tunes in Beethoven’s 6th but loose the will to live when they have to sit through the entire thing, while others derive immense pleasure from witnessing the overal structure of the symphony slowly unfold. 

Savouring art in a way its creator hoped it would be savoured, is not always obvious. My sister, for example, doesn’t like ‘serious, difficult music’. She likes simple songs, things that require no effort, jolly tunes she can sing. Zephyrs from Melodyland. But luckily, Wise Woman that she is, she doesn’t suffer from the arrogant delusion that all music can be done full justice by looking at it through the small ‘sing along’ window which she happens to prefer. She’s fully aware that there’s plenty of music which will never fit in her window. 
(By the way, and totally unrelated, there are two things you need to know about the Wise Woman.) 

Appreciating art (in an honest, dedicated and respectful way) requires insight, affinity, a certain capability or understanding, talent, engagement and empathy, … in short: a collection of qualifications and considerations that allow you find your way on the map that the composer has laid out for you. In order to fully grasp the magnitude of music’s many intrinsic qualities, you have to have the DNA of these qualities stirring inside you. Is what I believe.

The animal known as 'human' is an extremely varied species, ranging from utter imbeciles to specimen of amazing ability. You can't expect that all human self-expression has to appeal to all human beings in similar measure before it is worthy of our consideration, respect and admiration. If you apply that parameter, you'll be left with frightfully little to begin with, and whatever measly crumbs you're left with, will be, without exception, of the most mediocre and compromised quality. 

Nobody of sane mind writes to please all of the people all of the time. Some have foolishly tried, they all failed. Even God. 

Beethoven didn't write for my sister. Well, maybe he hoped he did, but my sister just isn't interested. Nor equipped to hear what Beethoven has to say. Her musical window is too small to begin with, and not turned in Beethoven's direction anyway. Not Beethoven's fault, is it? See, if Beethoven were writing for my sister and get her attention, he wouldn't have been Beethoven. He'd have been an entirely different composer. He would have had to turn out short, simple tuneful ditties that don't require any effort whatsoever to digest. He'd have to have been _Ludwig And His Tijuana Brass_. And we wouldn't have had the fabulous, mind-blowingly beautiful body of musical work we now have. 

And it's the same with all art: 'Guernica' isn't for everybody. Nor is 'Ulysses'. And it's not Picasso's or Joyce's fault that large parts of the world's population go through life without ever giving one second of serious attention these artists' work. It's nobody's fault in fact. That's just how it is. Humans' varied nature. If Picasso and Joyce had to appeal to the "stupid, shallow and unintelligent' segment of the world's population --- and this segment *does* very much exist, I'd even venture to say that the majority belongs to it ---, we would never have heard about them. They wouldn't be remembered and treasured as the unique and important artists who have made our world a slightly better and more agreeable place to live in. Not for everybody maybe, but for a significant some.

All men are not equal. If you address one group, you inevitably loose the interest and attention of others. What appeals to one group, falls on deaf ears with another. Unfair? I don't think so. Besides, the shallow have their own pipers, masters, heroes and favorites. 

People who excel at something, automatically distance themselves from the crowd (whether they like it or not). That is, in fact, what 'excellent' means: out-standing, as in "standing out from the crowd". And excellent musicians, those of unusual talent who commit themselves seriously and passionately to their art, with every creative fibre they have in their body and all the energy they can muster, deserve nothing less than equally serious and passionate attention. And serious and passionate attention requires (or at least assumes) intelligence, dedication, education and affinity. Unfortunately, intelligence and affinity are not distributed equally among all men, and as for dedication and education, that is up to each individual to decide for him/herself (assuming the option is there, of course). 

There is nothing unfair about any of this, it seems to me (except for the option-to-educate-oneself not always being available in every part of the world, which is deplorable).

_


----------



## Guy Rowland

re-peat @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> I have to have talent to allow me to hear the same talent in somebody else. And the greater my talent, the better I will be able to hear great talent, and the greater the range of talent that I will be able to distinguish between.



Good lord. This is advancing the elitist argument to something that I think nobody here as yet argued, that in order for you to appreciate art you also have to be a practitioner in that art. And I so I reluctantly have to turn on the vaudeville act again, because at a stroke you have brushed aside the validity of most art criticism. The film reviewer whose opinion I value most is Mark Kermode, who cheerfully acknowledges that he could never make a film himself, and there he is with the majority in his community. But your argument is that you have to have that same talent in order to appreciate it. So in our field only another composer can truly appreciate a great composer.

This notion actually fills me with genuine sadness. I get that you want to treat the emotional reaction to something as something else, but I don't think its possible to compartmentalise, and it misses one of the most pivotal notions to which it is possible to ascribe greatness. One of the most common criticisms of some kinds of art is to use a musical metaphor - "notes, but no music". This touches both on the idea that you can study all you like but if you don't have something more intangible it fails to engage, but also that great art IS able to be appreciated by the masses, that it itself transcends knowledge. Consider the slack jaws of the faces of those who visit the Sistine chapel who would be unable paint a convincing stick man, or the illiterate prisoners in the World's Favourite Movie The Shawshank Redemption who all stop to listen to the Aria that Dufresne plays through the prison PA.

Actually you'd find no quarrel with me or I suspect many here with many of your arguments - of course if you are well versed in a particular area then you are far more qualified in being able to deconstruct something. But to take it to the absurd (to me) length that ONLY great painters can truly appreciate the Mona Lisa or great composers can ONLY truly appreciate Beethoven seems logically indefensible.

[Having just read Piet's latest]

Piet, I presume you would say that the Sistine Chapel or Beethoven's wide appreciation is the simplistic emotional understanding, and have no relation to deeper, more meaningful appreciation. Beethoven didn't write for your sister. Your view of art is reductionist, that only by appreciating all the subtleties and skill in something can you therefore ascribe greatness. I want to turn that around - the truly great are capable of distilling all of that knowledge into something that requires none of that knowledge to appreciate. Being able to deconstruct something is very different to being able to appreciate it. Great art - I argue - transcends.

If you wish to indulge us Vaudevillians further Peit, my challenge to you is to address some of what appear to some of us here to be the logical inconsistencies in your argument. Re-read your quote at the top and re-imagine it as discussing film. Is a film critic worthless if he cannot actually make a film? Why can everyone who has a musical receptor agree on Ravel but not on Salieri?


----------



## midi_controller

re-peat @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> It’s only a select few that are born with a remarkable amount of musical talent, MidiController. Surely, you must agree with that?



Actually, no, I don't. I _believe_, and stress that point as this is still a subject for much study, that artistic talent is not genetic, but is developed. It is within the realm of plausibility that given the right circumstances, anyone can develop their artistic talent, to a degree considered to be great (by subjective opinion, of course  ). I'll admit that I'm one of those deterministic kinds of people, and not everyone subscribes to the idea.

But the idea that we can all agree on being in the presence of musical greatness...well, I'm afraid Saint-Saëns would disagree with you on Ravel, as he reportedly said "If he'd been making shell cases during the war it would have been better for music."

For that matter, there are many accounts of great composers not only disliking other great composer's music, but venomously insulting their works. So who shall we believe? Who is right?

You have still yet to provide anything that gives credence to the idea that music can be objectively judged. The idea that your "talent" gives you the ability to sense greatness, I'm sorry to say, is more likely you mistaking your subjective opinion for an objective one. As I've asked before, how do you measure the worth of a melody in a scientific way, or that of harmony, or rhythm, orchestration, performance, or anything else that makes music what it is? Without a standard, music cannot be judged objectively. 

Is it possible that, for example, Beethoven's music isn't intrinsically great, but that enough people have found it enjoyable for it to be considered so? If so, would that automatically negate his contribution to music, or how influential that contribution has been?

"But what of the craft?" You might ask. Even here, there are no standards. For years people would refrain from using certain harmonies because they thought they sounded awful, and yet years later they became fairly common. Our ideas of what constitutes good orchestration shifts and adapts to the times and the styles that are popular. It's because the perception of what sounds good to us is constantly changing and evolving as time goes on. 

What would Bach or Mozart think of the massive works of Wagner, or the dark dissonance of Penderecki? I wonder. Would they sense greatness, or be more akin to our parents complaining about our horrible rock music that is too loud for their tastes? 

We also must consider that we are only talking about western music here, and not everyone would agree that western music is the absolute height of musical achievement, or that it even sounds good. Depending on where you are from, or what cultural background you have, your idea of what constitutes good music might be radically different from mine.

Again, I will say that if you want to say that music can be judged objectively, then you _must_ present your standard by which to measure it. One that is verifiable, reproducible, and consistent. Without that, you have only your subjective opinion, call it what you will.


----------



## rayinstirling

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> For that matter, there are many accounts of great composers not only disliking other great composer's music, but venomously insulting their works. So who shall we believe? Who is right?



Take out the word great and here we all are.
What a stupid thread this is, offering absolutely nothing to music or musicians.

We're all right and we're all wrong, we are all individuals and there will never be union.

as the great Scottish philosopher, Rab C. Nesbitt would say.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

As far as I am concerned...well of course there is John Williams and there is the rest of us. And that holds true for many, many great composers for me personally. 

I think we all forget a little bit of magic in music. I usually let it flow (doesnt mean I dont bang my head on walls when I am not able to figure it out).

But, even if he was gifted by birth it will not mean that I will give up on music. 

Everybody has their own journey, that much is clear. 

But if I can write even a tiny speck of the kind of music JW or other great composers I admire do then it will make me very happy only to get miserable again while doing the next thing. That is how it is, I suppose.

Here is an article from the BBC where it says that Artists 'have structurally different brains'

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271

Interesting read.


Tanuj.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Perfectly expressed, Midi.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Rowland @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> Perfectly expressed, Midi.


A perfectly expressed viewpoint with which I don't agree at all, I agree, yes. (The fact that someone really believes _that talent can be developed_, partly explains why this discussion is what it is. I enjoy it though.)

Anyway.

Guy,
MidiController,

All those words of mine, and still being misunderstood. Frustrating. I must be doing something wrong. I never suggested that only highly gifted painters can enjoy the Sistine Chapel. 
As fas ar I’m concerned, everybody experiences that encounter (looking at the fresco) in the way he or she is capable of experiencing it. And one way isn’t necessarily better than another. But ... I do consider some encounters to be _more complete_ than others. Very much so.
Anyone unable, for example, to recognize the artistry (in all its finely drawn and brushed detail), or unable to understand the technical challenges that this type of work presented the artist with, or unable to summon up some idea of what it must have been to conceive and carry out such a painting, or unable to understand the implications of the historical and religious context, misses something, I firmly believe.
If you look at that work and all you can say is “My God, that is beautiful, that is impressive, that touches me deeply” without having the faintest idea as to which elements could have caused such a reaction and why, you are not seeing everything there is to see in the work. The experience may be very profound and shattering and all that, and possibly some people don’t need to see more than what they see, but … they're certainly not seeing everything there is to see. Simple as that.

Someone with a measure of Michelangelo’s talent on the other hand, and who knows about things like drawing the human body from every possible angle (and how immensely difficult that is), someone who knows about applying colour to suggest depth and dimension, who knows about the history of pictorial perspective, who knows about the difficulties of structuring an image of that size, and someone who knows about the semantic, allegorical, historical and religious aspects of 16th century painting, will be able to immerse him/herself much deeper into the work. And formulate a more complete and valid opinion on it.

And the same applies to music. I maintain that, listening to “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik”, I receive more of what Mozart sent out than my sister receives. A lot more. Even though her experience may be just as deep, valid and valuable and authentic as mine. The scope is just different, that’s all. And if someone in our neighborhood, should ever inquire about that serenade, I would strongly suggest he or she consults me rather than my sister, if the consultation is hoped to go beyond a mere “Oh, that is lovely music, that is.” anyway.

Again, is all of this so far-fetched?

By the way, M. Kermode, that’s the guy who considers “Inception” a hugely important and intelligent film, isn’t it? Well, I am truly sorry, but that’s the type of opinion that immediately tells me that M. Kermode is an entirely negligible voice in any discussion on film and certainly on intelligence.

But, Guy, you’re absolutely right, I mean, I do agree completely: great art transcends. Of course it does. Great art transcends craft, it transcends context and time, it even transcends talent. Art speaks to us on many different levels and the extent to which it transcends is much, much more than the sum of all those levels.
Music, in _the completeness of its wonder_ (which includes, though is not defined by, that transcending element), can indeed not be judged objectively on every single one of all those levels. There are simply too many factors at play, not the least of which are those related to the indivdual who is listening — some of these factors musical, some having nothing to do with music at all — making it indeed totally impossible to write the definitive, all-comprehensive book on what each of us should perceive as “great art”.

But that transcending aspect is not what I have been talking about thusfar — Beelzebub forbid —, no, I have been talking about _the intrinsic quality_ of piece of art, which, in my opinion, exists seperately from its transcending powers. And that intrinsic value is also the very element which, if to be understood and fully appreciated, requires what I mentioned before: talent, empathy, intelligence, knowlegde. You don’t need talent to experience (some of the) the beauty of the work of art which is Brahms’ 2nd Pianoconcerto. You *do* need talent, insight and knowledge however to better appreciate the musical achievement of that work.
You don’t need to be a director to be able to appreciate and form a valid opinion on “The Godfather’, you do need to be talented and knowledgeable about cinematography to really see the complete picture though. Excuse the pun.

I can’t speak for other people about the transcending aspect of art, nor would I want to, because that aspect depends in no small part on what those other people are capable of bringing to the encounter with the work. The intrinsic quality of a work does NOT depend on that though, existing as it does as an absolute given. In my view at least.
(Frankly I’m not all that interested in the transcending aspects of art to begin with anyway, if only for the fact that that is all too often the domain where pompous pseudo-intellectuals come blabbering about self-improvement, soul-searching introspection and life-enhancement or other such tiresome nonsense.)

_


----------



## Cygnus64

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> For that matter, there are many accounts of great composers not only disliking other great composer's music, but venomously insulting their works.



"Listening to the fifth symphony of Ralph Vaughan Williams is like staring at a cow for 45 minutes." - Copland  



> Film music is less meant to last for centuries than concert hall music because it is more concerned with serving a film than remaining timeless,



Opera was the original "film music". 8) A lot of the non-sung incidental music has survived even though the operas haven't- Meditation from "Thais" being one of them.

Lots of film music (a ridiculously vague term) has survived when the films haven't: Warsaw Concerto, Waxman's Carmen Fantasy, Dam Busters march, Copland's suite to "The Red Pony". "Unchained Melody" is from a film called "Unchained" that 12 people saw. Willie Nelson- On the Road Again= film music. Prokofiev's score to Alexander Nevsky is a staple of the repertoire. 

My point: good melodies can survive. Genre is irrelevant.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

You are talking about concert hall composers who dabbled in film music, not film music composers. Or in songs as underscore, once again, a different beast.

Opera still was different as the music was primary where in film it is secondary or even tertiary to the picture and dialog.

Anyway, some film music may indeed survive the ages, who knows? But that is not one of the goals of a ilm composer when he is working on a score.

As fior the quotes of famous composers dissing other famous composers, there is this thing called professional jealousy that even great composers are not immune to.


----------



## Cygnus64

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> talking are talking about concert hall composers who dabbled in film music, not film music composers.



Sorry, I don't accept your limited definition. Nor should you. :wink: Litmus tests are far better for science than for music. 

I'm a classical musician. Last nite I did a pops gig- I was a pop musician. I've done 100s of sessions, when I do them I'm a "studio musician". If I do wedding gigs, I'm a "wedding gig musician". I've done 100+ orchestrations, I'm an "orchestrator". I'm whatever the paycheck says I am.  

Howard Shore was in the SNL band, he also wrote an opera (The Fly). Is that invalid? Do those not count? Hans Zimmer played with Alicia Keys on the Tonight show- was that wrong, should he not have done that?  

I'm a musician. So is Hans Zimmer, and Danny Elfman too. I do a job, I make music. Danny Elfman is whatever he wants to be, whether it's singing Dead Man's Party or writing Batman stuff. So is Copland- he wrote film scores and got huge checks. And the bank cashed them.


----------



## madbulk

midi_controller @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> madbulk @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ed, or David, What's that thing... where you say "Hey wait, Piet says you have to be blessedly born with the special receptor that enables you to perceive what's good and what's not," even though Piet said nothing of the sort...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taste can be 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 personal preferences, and the faculty to recognize it when it does, has nothing subjective about it. (...)
> 
> The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Whoops. I stand corrected. Re-peat, seriously? Born with? What's that mean, born with ears? 
Gotta go regain my footing now. So pleased to wake up and find this hopeless thread still going.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Cygnus64 @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> talking are talking about concert hall composers who dabbled in film music, not film music composers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't accept your limited definition. Nor should you. :wink: Litmus tests are far better for science than for music.
> 
> I'm a classical musician. Last nite I did a pops gig- I was a pop musician. I've done 100s of sessions, when I do them I'm a "studio musician". If I do wedding gigs, I'm a "wedding gig musician". I've done 100+ orchestrations, I'm an "orchestrator". I'm whatever the paycheck says I am.
> 
> Howard Shore was in the SNL band, he also wrote an opera (The Fly). Is that invalid? Do those not count? Hans Zimmer played with Alicia Keys on the Tonight show- was that wrong, should he not have done that?
> 
> I'm a musician. So is Hans Zimmer, and Danny Elfman too. I do a job, I make music. Danny Elfman is whatever he wants to be, whether it's singing Dead Man's Party or writing Batman stuff. So is Copland- he wrote film scores and got huge checks. And the bank cashed them.
Click to expand...


True, but we wear _different_ hats when we do _different_ jobs. Most great concert hall composers have one eye on the score pad and the other on history,. If you do that while you are working on a film score, you will probably create some terrific music that does not work with the film


----------



## Cygnus64

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> Cygnus64 @ Sat Apr 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> talking are talking about concert hall composers who dabbled in film music, not film music composers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't accept your limited definition. Nor should you. :wink: Litmus tests are far better for science than for music.
> 
> I'm a classical musician. Last nite I did a pops gig- I was a pop musician. I've done 100s of sessions, when I do them I'm a "studio musician". If I do wedding gigs, I'm a "wedding gig musician". I've done 100+ orchestrations, I'm an "orchestrator". I'm whatever the paycheck says I am.
> 
> Howard Shore was in the SNL band, he also wrote an opera (The Fly). Is that invalid? Do those not count? Hans Zimmer played with Alicia Keys on the Tonight show- was that wrong, should he not have done that?
> 
> I'm a musician. So is Hans Zimmer, and Danny Elfman too. I do a job, I make music. Danny Elfman is whatever he wants to be, whether it's singing Dead Man's Party or writing Batman stuff. So is Copland- he wrote film scores and got huge checks. And the bank cashed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but we wear _different_ hats when we do _different_ jobs. Most great concert hall composers have one eye on the score pad and the other on history,. If you do that while you are working on a film score, you will probably create some terrific music that does not work with the film
Click to expand...


Most composers were hired/commissioned for a specific gig/show/reason. I doubt that any were concerned about history, just getting the job done. 

Again, "film score" is so vague. There are so many variables that I find it impossible to put into one category.


----------



## re-peat

madbulk @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> (...) Re-peat, seriously? (...)


Yes, seriously.

_


----------



## TheUnfinished

I wonder Re-peat if you could explain some of the science behind humans who are born with a keen acuity for understanding and appreciating music?


----------



## AC986

midi_controller @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Wow. This is getting outright disgusting.



Hahaha! You need to get out more.

This thread must be very painful for you. I can understand that. Most of your sentences are punctuated with question marks. Are they rhetorical?

Mark Kermode. Big fan for years of MK. Why? He doesn't get it right sometimes and watching that many films who would. But he has that important ingredient. He has a sense of humour and you would need that given %99.999+ films you watch are going to be crap. Barry Norman always thought that, but then he was always swayed by actresses he liked.
And let's not forget MK is one of us. Plays double bass in a skiffle group for years.


----------



## re-peat

TheUnfinished @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> I wonder Re-peat if you could explain some of the science behind humans who are born with a keen acuity for understanding and appreciating music?


No idea, Matt. I've posed a very similar question a week or two ago, in a discussion very much like this one, to some other members who strongly believe that talent isn't innate but can be developed. This was how I asked it:

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 a phenomenally good String Octet? Music on a level that most mature and fully educated composers never reach. Why? 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 whole lot more. 

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. 

_


----------



## madbulk

re-peat @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> madbulk @ Sat Apr 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) Re-peat, seriously? (...)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, seriously.
> _
Click to expand...

That is a tough row to hoe. But fine, fortunately I don't think the rest of your argument rests on that one. 

Reductio ad absurdium, btw, is what I was trying to get at before. There's something that I only see on the relativism side of this thing, in your arguments... but may just overlook on the part of whatever my team here might be called... the elitists?
But I'm beginning to think, while it's bad form from a logic standpoint, and so I can poke at it, it's fundamental to your world view. That taking it to it's ridiculous conclusion IS the point, and that it's the right way to approach it.

You defined objectivity in a way that you know I can't satisfy, and therefore think your argument has won.

We don't need the word "great." I won't be giving you the qualities of objectivity that you demand. You insist on absolutes. But absolutes can fly in the face of truth. I'm not saying they necessarily do here -- that would be to insist that I'm right and you're wrong -- and I do not insist.

But you, Midi C, if I'm not mistaken, said you valued everybody here equally based upon a supposition that we all satisfy a basic threshold. You dismissively ask, "WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE," but you've drawn your own, "members of VI" -- and I find that unreasonable. Charitable? Yes. Well intended? Certainly yes. Perhaps even makes you a better person than I. 

With all the respect and humility I can attach to this, I am not equal to you. We are different. I am better suited to appreciating a great many things about which I am better educated, experienced and enthusiastic about. And I believe you are as well.

And if you think that's wrong? You go on smelling a rose and thinking it smells great, but I know my roses, and I know what roses are capable of beyond the ordinary smell either like or dislike. You don't even know what to try to smell in there. Can I codify it so that you can repeat my "process?" No. But nevertheless, my appreciation is greater than yours. 

And I think that's probably your cue to define "appreciation" to suit your argument. And that this generally is what we're doing here.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I think that anyone who says that they don't assign any more weight to e.g. Hans Zimmer's opinion on any aspect of a film score when he expresses it here over say, Choco's (not picking on you Choco, just a random choice) is either lying or foolish.


----------



## TheUnfinished

re-peat @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Sat Apr 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder Re-peat if you could explain some of the science behind humans who are born with a keen acuity for understanding and appreciating music?
> 
> 
> 
> No idea, Matt.
> 
> I consider talent a fixed quantity that you're born with.
> _
Click to expand...

My quotes are furiously cherry-picked, obviously... And I think this is potentially a fascinating subject, but I think it's only honest to state your position on talent as a theory that is unproven, rather than a fact.

You've said you don't know and then given an answer as if you do. I don't seek to back you into some kind of corner, just as much as I seek not to misunderstand you.

I'm just saying that a chunk of what you've argued here is based on a 'belief' you have in inate talent, and it is just a belief. One that would be utterly fascinating to look into from a more rigorous scientific perspective. Indeed, I might go and have a look to see what studies are out there. It's a classic nature versus nurture question and I sure don't know which is more likely to have an impact in such cases.

I guess my main reason to pick on this particular aspect, is to reflect what I said in an earlier post, about approaching a debate without the will to see if something new can be learned from it. You (and others, on both sides) appear quite absolute in your position, despite being unable to explain it in a quantifiable manner.

Perhaps it isn't quantifiable? In which case, taking an absolute position seems a stretch, at best. 

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're right. Because I don't know the answer. But I'm interested to know whether there is potentially out there. 

I think this is a potentially fascinating debate, as long as people bring a bit more openness and honesty to it and look to develop ideas rather than jump feet first into absolute positions and then barracade themselves in behind them. And I'm speaking broadly here, not just levelling this at you Piet, even though I started out theis post in direct response to some things you said.


----------



## madbulk

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> I think that anyone who says that they don't assign any more weight to e.g. Hans Zimmer's opinion on any aspect of a film score when he expresses it here over say, Choco's (not picking on you Choco, just a random choice) is either lying or foolish.


Don't forget stubborn.


----------



## midi_controller

adriancook @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> This thread must be very painful for you. I can understand that. Most of your sentences are punctuated with question marks. Are they rhetorical?



Not at all. If you can answer them, I'd be very, very interested, as would probably every single person who has ever tried to figure out what makes music so meaningful to human beings.

Anyway, @re-peat, I'll have a go at your question. How do I explain these young artists? I believe (based primarily on logic and studies such as The Grandmaster Experiment, but as we cannot prove it one way or the other you can take it as speculation) that they had just the right circumstances. They had the right parents, were born in the right time, in the right place, with the right upbringing, were exposed to the right things, and every single one of them started very young and focused on the subject they were later to become masters of. There are literally countless things that can have an effect on our development, and it starts during infancy. We do not know the perfect soup that creates a prodigy, but one thing is certain, they do not develop on their own. 

We can also test this idea by changing even one factor, and considering the outcome. Would Mozart have become a famous composer if he had been born to a farmer, or had never had access to a musical instrument as a child?

@madbulk: I thought we had moved on from the opinion thing. No, I didn't draw that line that everyone's opinion here on music matters more than others, I made the distinction (and a subjective one at that) that an educated position holds more weight with me than one that isn't, and I assume that most people here are educated in music to some degree. I stipulated that I believe anyone can become educated on a subject. I don't have a bar that tells me how educated someone must be before I listen to them, or in which way they became educated, or even which people's opinions are worth more than others. I believe that everyone can bring something to the table, and will not discount what someone says based on some perceived shortcoming that I place upon them, as I consider that blatantly unfair and doing so could rob me of a very good and interesting viewpoint.

@Jay: What if, when asking for advise, Choco was the one who had been through something very similar, while Zimmer may offer an opinion, but one not based on experience? Whose opinion is worth more then? I really think it comes down to a case by case basis.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

MC, that is an unrealistic scenario. There is no imaginable example with film scoring where that would be possible. It is equivalent to asking "if donkeys had wings would they fly south for the winter? "


----------



## re-peat

TheUnfinished @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> (...) I think it's only honest to state your position on talent as a theory that is unproven, rather than a fact.


I don't know, Matt. I look at myself and I see it proven. I look around me and I see it proven, I listen to the stuff that gets posted in the MembersComposition-section and I hear it proven. And I listen to all the music that I consider sublime, and I hear it proven again. There are those with talent (from a little to a lot) and those without it. And there are only a handful with an exceptionnal talent.

In contrast, I have never heard or seen a single indication, or been aware of a single phenomenon that points in the direction of "talent is something you develop rather than be born with" to be a possibility.

Why is Federer considered by many the most talented tennisplayer in recent history? Why is Ronnie O'Sullivan considered by most of his fellow players and ex-players/commentators to be the most _naturally gifted_ snooker-player of all time?

The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is those two words: naturally gifted.

_


----------



## Guy Rowland

re-peat @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> By the way, M. Kermode, that’s the guy who considers “Inception” a hugely important and intelligent film, isn’t it? Well, I am truly sorry, but that’s the type of opinion that immediately tells me that M. Kermode is an entirely negligible voice in any discussion on film and certainly on intelligence.



>8o 

And there, I will just have to let those casually (and, sorry, stupidly) dismissive words speak for themselves, and consider how that attitude may have a bearing on this discussion.


----------



## G.E.

Oh look,it's THIS thread again... :roll:


----------



## Musicologo

Oh wow. This thread just seems a reprise of the SAME conceptual mess all over again. haven't we been here recurrently? It is not a musical problem is a semantic one...

1) We're not talking about "faith" or "talent" we're discussing gradients of craft and gradients of ability and training in a certain craft.

2) Piet's argument seems flawed in that point. What I think he means by "recognizing talent" is simply recognizing craft - a whole series of parameters (he described them - harmony, melody shape, etc...) that, of course, if you don't know the language and conventions of that craft you're unable to grasp or take pleasure from them!...

3) Does music need *that* craft to be great?... It depends. Craft and Empathy don't go side by side. A music becomes popular when it is *empathetic, when several people are moved by it.* That doesn't say anything about its complexity or craft. On the other hand, most music that is laborious or crafted might not be empathetic. It can be "GREAT" in that sense, and the ones educated on the conventions of that craft, will take great pleasure and empathy from recognizing that craft, and will consider it great. BUT the conventions of craft, don't make something objective neither great per se!... Probably most indians or africans will never consider beethoven or bach great, because they don't value that craft. On the other hand I doubt that Piet or any "educated western composer" would pay his tribute to the polyphonic singing from georgia or the complexities of Madagascar music, because they are oblivion to the values and conventions of that craft. And that will say nothing about their popularity as well.

4) Does one have to be gifted to compose "great music"? No. It's like natural selection or chance. IF you work long enough on the conventions of a craft you might become expert in it and compose great things regarding those conventions. On the other hand, 99% of the people will never get there... and then, because it's natural distribution, aleatorically, there are those who have natural predispositions to manipulate those conventions, in any field, since they are infants... It's sheer luck and context. 

5) Do I find all this "greatness" subjective? Well, the bach and beethoven, certainly YES, and I already proved empirically why. Because they are based on "artificial craft", on a set of subjective parameters culturally-constrained.


6) Isn't John Williams great then? Universally? No. He is great inside the conventions of western film music, following the trends and conventions of orchestral concert music and the conventions of adapting american movies to that language

6) Then what is GREAT music after all? I'd say, if I aim objectivity, then great music should be the one that is universal. The problem is: are there universals in music?
Since last time I've written about it, I've found there are some (see Jordania, 2013; Zagorski-thomas, 2012): we all have human bodies. Provided they are functional, music that follows embodied conventions and gestures that are common to us all, will work.

7) What music is that? Well, that would be: empathetic music relying on bodily metaphors.so EMPATHY is still, the main criteria, for as much others will try to say it's "craft" or "internal quality" bollocks. It is the CRAFT of empathetic methaphors indeed.
For instance: we all have a heart. Our sense of time is relative to that 70 pace. So, the sense of fast music or slow music is more or less universal. Moreover, a strong beat will affect us physically, therefore music with strong beats will tend to have impact on us. Furthermore, we all communicate with our bodies - there are gestures, facial expressions, hand movements that are "universal". In that sense, when we manipulate an instrument using those gestures we are able to recognize their shape metaphorically, that is why we are able to recognize Sadness or Angryness in some melodies. And now I'm not talking about saying "a tune is sad because it's in the minor mode", that's culturally constrained. I'm talking about "that tune is sad, because it mimics the energy and gestural shape of a human being sad". 

8 ) Those conventions and criteria are more difficult to parametrize, and describe, but that doesn't make them unexplainable or in the realms of faith. Simply there is not yet a systematic craft relying on them. HOWEVER, and now we can wrap up the argument - ALONG history perhaps some composers made some tunes that were extremely effective in conveying metaphorically those emotions, and thus move a large number of souls empathetically, and none of those souls need to be "educated" to recognize that - because these conventions are universal and rely just on our innate ability to communicate emotions, moods and affects.
Those are the great works that stand the test of time.

9) In the end: I believe then, there are universal great works, that rely on empathetic universal cues. I believe most of them were composed by accident because that craft was not systematized. It had to be intuitive to compose like that and those who were able were cunning and lucky. And so I completely disagree with Piet in this point.
BUT I also believe that are several systematic crafts along history and places (namely western classical music, indian ragas or arabic maqdam), and composers who are VERY good at manipulating those systems AND only a few elites able to take pleasure from them. I agree with Piet in this particular point. They are great composers BUT not universal.

10) Was there any composer who joined both worlds?? Being highly skilled on a systematic craft AND intuitive enough to move souls empathetically?
Probably yes, although I don't know exactly whom, we'd need a survey to testify his/her impact globally, not only in the western world. Extremely proficient in a craft and also able to create empathetic music... But at least now we know we're talking about overlapped abilities, one of them universal, the other not really....

My 20 cents 

P.S. Adding some examples:
I'm the first one to love cheerful and rhythmic latin music. It makes me wanna dance, it makes me happy inside. It's jolly music and it sells million records. Because it is empathetic. Is it great music? Well, I do not recognize western-classical-craft in there. It seems "simple" to do. I'd say it is just "popular".
I love Mozart Lacrimosa from the requiem. It moves me a lot. And I recognize a ton of craft in there. Is it great music? I recognize objectively that is is Greater than the former, because it moves me AND it has craft. I still don't know if it is universal!.. We'd need to know the opinion of other non-western people to know if also moves them, even if they don't recognize the craft in there.
I recognize the amount of craft in stokhausen in general, although his music doesn't move me. Is it great music? Well it is greatly crafted, but I doubt it says much to anyone not in pair with that craft...


----------



## TheUnfinished

re-peat @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Sat Apr 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) I think it's only honest to state your position on talent as a theory that is unproven, rather than a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, Matt. I look at myself and I see it proven. I look around me and I see it proven, I listen to the stuff that gets posted in the MembersComposition-section and I hear it proven. And I listen to all the music that I consider sublime, and I hear it proven again. There are those with talent (from a little to a lot) and those without it. And there are only a handful with an exceptionnal talent.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt your sincerity in your position Piet, but I don't read anything in that paragraph that goes any further than just saying "Because I say so". Though I'd be genuinely interested to hear more about how it's been proven to you.



> In contrast, I have never heard or seen a single indication, or been aware of a single phenomenon that points in the direction of "talent is something you develop rather than be born with" to be a possibility.


Nobody has ever progressed to produce great quality in an artistic through sheer bloody hard work? They've ALL had the spark of greatness? Ths inate quality that still hasn't been addressed?

You see, without making any attempt to define this 'natural talent' people are born with, this posit can neither be proven or denied, because it relies on a completely unknown quantity. It's a completely nebulous concept, it's fuzzy logic. Anyone who gets branded with having 'natural talent' gets that branding because they have subsquently become a good/great performer in their field. And someone hasn't done so didn't have that talent? It's a self-fulfilling argument.



> Why is Federer considered by many the most talented tennisplayer in recent history? Why is Ronnie O'Sullivan considered by most of his fellow players and ex-players/commentators to be the most _naturally gifted_ snooker-player of all time?
> 
> The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is those two words: naturally gifted.
> 
> _


I am quite happy to concede that to be the very best in your field you have to have an aptitude for the skills necessary for that field, be they physical or mental, which when applied to hard work and dedication is an irresistable force. But to what extent that is some gift you're born with and to what extent it's driven by discovering a love and dedication for that field and a bloody-minded attitude towards succeeding, I think requires... deserves... a more rigorous test.


----------



## givemenoughrope

I think JW was/is as good as a film composer gets. Robust themes, knows the orchestra as well as anyone, can conduct and frowns on the click track, knows how to let a story unfold perfectly, etc; he's got everything. He's a giant. That assessment is as much based on what I hear/see as what I've heard from others. I haven't pulled apart more than a couple of his cues (on paper) but, like everyone here, I've listened to many of his scores repeatedly (the popular ones and the some earlier 'Johhny' ones) with and wo the movie and they are great. The chase at the end of Raiders never ceases to blow me away every time I see it. I read every interview, etc. Always interested when he scores a film even if the film doesn't look that great.

That said, I'm not really moved by his music all that much. He didn't inspire me to want to score films/tv. He plays the Bowl regularly and I never go. I'm not really a big fan of his. It's hard to believe that I'm alone in feeling that.


----------



## re-peat

Music and/or the talent for it aren’t science, *Matt*. I can’t prove anything. If I could, it would be no longer about music and talent, because with music and the talent for it, we’ve entered a domain of the human identity where logic, measurements and ratio don’t rule, a domain that falls way beyond the grasp of science. It’s the same thing with humour and poetry. Totally unscientific. The second you try to put any of this — music, humour, art, ... — into algorithms, charts, definitions, axioms and/or formulas, you kill it. 
There are certain things about who we are, human beings, and what we are capable of that I, for one, happily qualify as a total mystery, a magnificently unscientific wonder.
I don't wanna hear the introduction to the first movement of Beethoven's 7th — two and a half of the most beautiful minutes of music I know (I rarely cry when I listen to music, but these few minutes bring me very close, every single time I hear them) — nor the talent of its composer, scientifically explained. That would be, quite literally, _inhumane_, I believe.

*Musicologo,* I think I’m quite capable to distinguish between talent and craft. Craft can, at its best, be exciting and awe-inspiring, sure, but it is ultimately a banality and uninteresting. Talent is what breaths life and wonder into music. (Granted, the two overlap, mingle and have frequent sex with one another during the course of a good piece, but the fact remains that only talent is able to give a piece a timeless quality.)
If Williams’ “The Asteroïd Field” were only crafty, I’d listen to it maybe three or four times, be respectfully impressed, and then discard it for eternity (as I do with all crafty-only music). But “The Asteroïd Field” is so much more than that. It near explodes with astounding inspiration, it’s a fountain of musical invention on a *very* high level, it is the work of a uniquely talented musician at the height of his powers, almost arrogantly self-confident, yet completely unselfconscious, showing the world his effortless supremacy. And it is that aspect of the piece, and not the craft with which it was assembled, that make it the musical delicatesse on which I know I can feed for the rest of my life. 

_


----------



## Musicologo

Piet, all that you talk is a mix of your awe for the craft AND empathy towards a mix of parameters. You seem to NOT want to dissect them, name them, and you are comfortable with the idea of "magnificently unscientific wonder", but all those things can have names and can be dissected. If we go piece by piece, case by case we can understand exactly WHY and how you're moved or find something great. A professor tried to do that with me with several examples and suceeded... Sometimes we are talking about a detail on a melodic line, other times it is a timbre, other times it is an association that can be related with childhood. In each piece we've found 20, 30 parameters, not easily explained in words, but with patience and labour we get there.

I mean Alan Lomax used 37 parameters to characterize Songs, and Jordania proposes at least 70 different criteria to analyse music.

And part of each will be highly subjective and others will be universal and objective.

You don't want to do that, neither want to be involved in that. But please don't say it "kills it", neither that is "unexplainable". There are people working on those issues for a living!...

The way I see it, music is not very different from culinary. It's all about knowing all the ingredients, and how to mix, cook and season them. Romantics used to say that some food only tastes good when made with love!... Yet we have culinary robots now, and recipes with precise quantities and timings that work perfectly and in the end if you're served that food "blindly" you might end up eating something delicious without being aware it was an amateur following a recipe doing it.

I believe the same will happen with music sooner or later.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Piet is right. There is an undefinable "something extra " that great composers' works have that people just know when they hear it, even over great periods of time.

It is what makes e.g. Mozart Mozart and Haydn Haydn. Mozart was as student of Haydn, they wrote in very similar styles and if you analyze all the elements, it is a close call. But if you listen to them enough, it becomes apparent that there is just a "spark" to Mozart that Haydn does not have and people have now known that for centuries.

One can get very, very good through hard work, experience, and education but true genius is a gift.


----------



## dcoscina

I enjoy and respect Williams as a composer and film composer. I've met him on a few occasions and he's gracious and humble. I try to remember that because he's got this wealth of talent and technique but he's as modest as they come. 

I truly wonder whether he cares about topics like this or just does what he does. I suspect it's the latter. Not to say it's not worth having a dialogue on the qualitative aspects of music but as others have said, this is an argument that will continue to spin round and round. 

I enjoy music that challenges me. I respect composers who are better than me (translation: ones who thought up and execute music in ways I wouldn't have thought of). I enjoy learning from these guys. I've been studying Stravinsky's music for the past year and it's an ongoing joy. It inspires me to be a better composer. 

For me, a lot of current film music doesn't resonate with me because it fails to inspire- that doesn't mean there's no inherent quality in the music, it just doesn't do anything for me based on my preferences that were shaped from listening to jazz and classical music as a kid, playing in jazz orchestras as a teenager and then studying music theory and composition in university. It doesn't mean it's no less substantive to millions of other people. 

I will say for me personally, I do believe there is an objective marker one can use for all of the arts. One can measure a piece based on technique if one is predisposed to knowing the parameters with which to do so (like a road map of sorts). where my philosophy deviates from perhaps others is that I no longer believe it makes me a "better" musician or person to know the difference in application between a dominant 7 flat V and a half diminished chord.

I'm continually impressed by the humility of many masters of any discipline because the really elevated and evolved ones don't use their ability to divide themselves from others.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

But Dave, Stravinsky certainly was not humble


----------



## re-peat

Musicologo,

I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. (Just as I did, a few months ago, when you said that music has no intrinsic value.) And when I say ‘completely’, I use it in the most complete sense that the word ‘completely’ can have.

There is no way — I stress: no way — that any professor, not even all the world’s sages put together, can explain music. (I’m aware it’s been tried often enough, and people are probably still at it, yes, but the only thing this type of research has proven and will prove is that it can’t be done. Which I consider its most honest, though entirely predictable, success.)

Analyze every nano-second of every single bar if you like, measure every single aspect of a piece of good music with the most accurate equipment known to science, bring in psychologists, neurologists, cardiologists and every other ologist you like, go with a microscope over my skin and scan my brain while I’m listening to it, but there is no way that the wonder of great music can be captured (in its enigmatic entirety, I mean) and defined by even the most advanced scientific observation and analysis. The unique greatness of music begins where analysis has to stop.

Scientists who claim otherwise should see a hubrisologist.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Dammit, i hate this but again I have to type "Piet is right."


----------



## G.E.

re-peat,the way you describe talent is no different than how older civilizations blamed lightning/everything in nature on the wrath/will of the gods.To cope with the overwhelming complexity of the universe and due to their ignorance,the best explanation they could come up with was "because god".

So in this case,because of your unfamiliarity with fields like psychology and neuroscience,you are explaining what you perceive the best you can.And natural talent happens to be a convenient way for you to claim to know something which you don't understand. 

I respect your beliefs and I'm not saying that you should change them.But please stop acting like you know better than everyone else and drop the elitist attitude.(And yes,I know this is ironic coming from me after the way I phrased this post)


----------



## madbulk

Many times during the past day or two people have swooped in here to let us know what a great waste of time we were contributing to.
Personally, I think we're getting somewhere.


----------



## JohnG

I agree with Madbulk. I think it is interesting and painful, but that we are getting somewhere.

Even if that means I now need a hubrisologist.


----------



## midi_controller

madbulk @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> Many times during the past day or two people have swooped in here to let us know what a great waste of time we were contributing to.
> Personally, I think we're getting somewhere.



Have to disagree, I think we are just going in circles at this point. There have been many questions left unanswered here. There have been many positions claiming to be the truth, but with little to back them up. Above all, there have been a multitude of misinterpretations. I'm afraid I'll just end up repeating myself now, since most of the points I've made have just gone unaddressed, so I don't think I can add too much now.

The only thing I can say here is please guys, back up your claims. Don't just say something and expect everyone to take it as fact. When you say something like "people are born with talent" without evidence to back you up, and reject or ignore any other viable options, it seems more like this is what you want to be true, for one reason or another, because the alternatives make you uncomfortable. The same with saying that music is not subjective. The null hypothesis when it comes to music is that it has no intrinsic value except what the listener places on it, based on a myriad of influences in their own lives. If you have a better hypothesis, please, tell us. _Write it out!_ But "Because I said so" is not a reasonable place to come from. We have to look at these things logically, in a way that can be tested, for in what other way can we know that there may be truth in it?

@Jay: If you believe that my scenario is unrealistic, then you lack imagination. Example off of the top of my head: A composer may ask if they should leave their full-time job to pursue their passion of scoring film, even though they have a family that depends on them. Would Zimmer, whose opinion may be colored by his success, be the best person to comment on that, or someone who has been in the same position? What about someone struggling with having to make adjustments at the studio _while_ the musicians are being recorded, _completely on their own_? 

I'm sure even Zimmer himself would agree that he has not faced all the challenges that could be leveled at him in the film music world, and has even looked to others for their thoughts and support when faced with an issue he was unfamiliar with. A better equivalent than what you posted would be asking someone who works on expensive European sports cars for a living what is wrong with my little Honda. Sure, they may have some good input, but in this circumstance I'd give much more weight to the man who works on little Japanese cars.


----------



## Musicologo

Challenge to each one of you: Apply all that as been said and all your beliefs regarding music to culinary and tell me if your thoughts are the same. 



> There is no way — I stress: no way — that any professor, not even all the world’s sages put together, can explain music.



Are we talking about "the work/the sound" ( the dish) or "the process of conceiving/making the sound" (the ingredients/confection) or "the reception of the sound" (the feel one has when we taste it and what we think about it and about the craft of the cook) ?...

I surely can describe and explain the first.
I surely can describe the second, when I do it.

I surely CANNOT describe the third because it occurs individually inside each one's head. I can try to understand it, at least.

There are parts of *music * - the sound, vibrations, which are objective and reducible to very concrete things: we can name them, measure them, etc. We can test them, and even reproduce them!! Either by humans or by machines (in progress).

There are parts regarding *the reception* of music which are highly subjective and not quantifiable. Those cannot be explained easily. Piet, I think you are mostly talking about this level, even though you want to speak about the whole. 

------
I'm backing up my assumptions with a TCHARAM!...
Empirical test:

ftp://arts.ucsc.edu/pub/cope/invention.mp3

ftp://arts.ucsc.edu/pub/cope/chopin.mp3

What are these?... Ignoring the interpretation/recording quality perhaps someone would like to comment on the _intrinsic qualities of this music_, without resorting to further information and being honest to themselves.

Then, and again, making an introspection, think to yourselves about these works with the following informations in mind, and think what difference on your judgment it would make.

1) These works are original bach/chopin unpublished manuscripts found recently. 
2) These works are original bach/chopin unfinished works, completed by Prof David Cope
3) These works are totally composed by prof David Cope
4) These works are totally composed by a student
5) These works are totally composed by an artificial intelligence

Perhaps we can learn more about music and ourselves if we do this exercise in an honest way.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Sure, right after you explain to me why with two Boston brothers raised in the same household by the same parents, both of whom love lobster, nonetheless one loves lobster and the other dislikes it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

[quote="midi_controller @ Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:12 pm"
@Jay: If you believe that my scenario is unrealistic, then you lack imagination. Example off of the top of my head: A composer may ask if they should leave their full-time job to pursue their passion of scoring film, even though they have a family that depends on them. Would Zimmer, whose opinion may be colored by his success, be the best person to comment on that, or someone who has been in the same position? What about someone struggling with having to make adjustments at the studio _while_ the musicians are being recorded, _completely on their own_? 
.[/quote]

I thought we were discussing music creation, not career trajectory.


----------



## midi_controller

You never specified. Still doesn't hold up, since if I wanted to create something period appropriate to the 11th century, Zimmer might not be the best person to talk to about it. I still think it's a case by case basis.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> You never specified. Still doesn't hold up, since if I wanted to create something period appropriate to music from the 11th century, Zimmer wouldn't be the best person to talk to about it. I still think it's a case by case basis.



And Choco would? Anyway I am done. I have read all the arguments that contradict what a lifetime of music making has proven to me and made the best points I can make. JW's place in history and his reputation are secured, as are those of all the true geniuses as opposed to those who are talented but less so, so I am not really concerned about those who are so committed to the egalitarian ideal that they argue against what I consider the obvious.


----------



## midi_controller

Sure, if he had more experience in using period appropriate 11th century music in a film than Zimmer (of which I don't believe Zimmer has had a chance to do yet). No offense Jay, but I consider that very obvious. No one person is an expert on everything.

Also, no one was arguing against John Williams greatness, or that of anyone else, only the criteria on how one comes to the conclusion that they are great (by nature, or by collected, albeit subjective, opinion).


----------



## Musicologo

> JW's place in history and his reputation are secured



Allow me to even debate this. What history? What reputation? Secured for how long?
I highly doubt that more than 10% of the world knows who JW is, and from those 10%, probably only 1% actually _knows_ his music. And those numbers might be even worse in the span of 100 years.

I believe Lata Mangeshkar has her place in "music history" much more secured than JW and probably most westerns in this forum would think otherwise. Please stop being so centered in one culture/geography/paradigm, especially when your culture is being outnumbered. History is being rewritten and reviewed at all times, criteria change constantly, anyone who reads Taruskin with a grain of salt has found out about that now.

It's certainly not an issue of egalitarianism, it's an issue about lack of relativism.


----------



## David Story

“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as variations of wave pressure.” - Albert Einstein (who oughta know)


----------



## markwind

David Story @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as variations of wave pressure.” - Albert Einstein (who oughta know)


z

Regardless if the quote is true (i'm sure some made-up quotes sneaked in over the years ), I subscribe to it a 100%.


Edit; It seems the whole Talent concept is up and about again to be discussed. I wish you all good luck in this (third, fourth?) attempt at trying to find that common ground . I'll be off trying to be productive and stuff. 
It's an interesting topic and as interesting as it is, as meaningless it is to discuss it.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Musicologo,

I see that you are familiar with Lata Mangeshkar's work.

Firstly, I think this thread is pretty much clear on the topic that we are talking about Film Composers primarily.

Lata Mangeshkar is a singer.

I am very much an Indian (born and brought up here). And I am very familiar with her work, having heard her songs since childhood.

Yet, I would with all due respect not put her anywhere near John Williams. This has nothing to do with the west or whatever it is you are implying. 

Just because there are a lot more People of Indian origin by sheer numbers does not mean Lata Mangeshkar is automatically more relevant.

Absolutely, John Williams has a place in music history. What the hell are you talking about?


Tanuj.


----------



## AC986

One of the things John Williams will be remembered for in history of film books will be as the guy who brought back orchestral music to the cinema.

In the same way that this guy will be remembered as the man who started it all off in that manner. 

The master of them all. Take it from 4:13 if you can't sit through all of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDyjPB_AEBU


For brass lovers take this from 3:52. An unstoppable juggernaut. Fantastic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueS07YbMeUw


----------



## TheUnfinished

I actually think this whole discussion HAS moved in some interesting circles more recently, so I do wish people would stop coming in and saying "It's done" "We've done this".

If you're no longer interested, you are welcome to leave, rather than repeatedly return to AGAIN try and force your will upon a discussion amongst many who are enjoying it.

The main underlying point I've been working towards is this: I welcome the position that there is an underlying 'something' that leads to genius, I agree with some of it, I disagree with some of it. 

But what I really wanted to see an end of in these discussions is someone at the same time as acknowledging they can't quantify or explain their position then having the gall to be derisory, dismissive and rude towards someone who dares to argue against it. Don't treat people with contempt if you knowingly can't persuade them of your position, whatever your position is.

This is merely vitriol, not argument, it does a disservice to everyone here at VI Control.

We appear to be moving beyond it in this thread and I'm enjoying much of what is coming from both sides of the argument now. You may not give a shit what I think, but that won't stop me caring about having good and interesting and respectful discussions about this thing we love and care about so much: music.

Onwards and upwards.

P.S. I admire John Williams' work enormously, he does things his contemporaries can't (which is good, because we ceratinly don't want a bunch of people just copying him, that would be very boring), but like some others rarely listen to it for pleasure. Film music would be much the poorer without his contribution.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Huh - I see the thread took a nature / nurture turn along with all the other huge issues we don't agree on. It's a debate I've never got - it's always seemed completely self evident to me that both aspects are true. Raise baby Mozart among remote arable farmers where he had no access either to music, instruments or learning and it seems highly doubtful we'd have the canon we have now. Put random baby in the arms of Mozart's parents and that's equally true. I've never understood why the debate is always framed in terms of "which is it?" You may as well ask "what keeps you alive, food or drink?"

Yet again, the truth is more nuanced - a theme which has cropped up again and again in this thread is that its when the more dogmatic or extreme views are raised ("all opinions are equal regardless" / "you have to be a great composer to fully appreciate great composition") that they fall apart.

I'm still shell shocked by how Piet dealt with the question "can film critics who aren't also filmmakers have valid perspective on film?". A critic remember (one would hope) is someone who has devoted their lives to the study of a particular art form, so they're a good group to test this hypothesis - people steeped in the art itself, but not practitioners. He took the one name I chose as an example of a critic who isn't a filmmaker, picked one opinion he has without looking at either what he actually said, the context or his argument, found it disagreed with his view and then dismissed his validity as a critic and his core intelligence - and that was the end of the discussion on that question (aside from using a few other examples of only artists can fully appreciate other artists etc). Really? I mean, REALLY?!

But it's not an isolated case. I notice Piet did the same when Matt challenged the nature / nurture notion that "I consider talent a fixed quantity that you're born with" was simply belief, by responding with observations about those who are and aren't talented, from Members Composition contributors to Roger Federer. It completely sidesteps the (awkward) question, as none of us can possibly know the proportion of nature vs nurture that makes up each of those individuals - the final presented word was simply that some people are naturally gifted (nature). That's a logical fallacy - even if this is true (and personally I absolutely think it is), in all probability it only tells part of the story - every one of those examples will have been raised in an environment which has enabled their talent to flourish (nuture). I fnd myself absolutely agreeing with Matt's conclusion that its nothing more than a belief system.

All this genuinely surprises me, because I absolutely regard Piet and his views highly (and think he's an excellent composer).

Well I think, as ever, its all in my sig. I've so often looked again at that sig and thought "what a pompous idiot I am", but never replaced it cos it just seems so apt so often.


----------



## AC986

John Williams Close Encounters is more than a nod to Eric Korngold. :wink:


----------



## MR F

adriancook @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> One of the things John Williams will be remembered for in history of film books will be as the guy who brought back orchestral music to the cinema.
> 
> In the same way that this guy will be remembered as the man who started it all off in that manner.
> 
> The master of them all. Take it from 4:13 if you can't sit through all of it.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDyjPB_AEBU
> 
> 
> For brass lovers take this from 3:52. An unstoppable juggernaut. Fantastic.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueS07YbMeUw



OMG thank you for that! I haven't heard this soundtrack before- my jaw is on the floor.


----------



## Daryl

Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> A critic remember (one would hope) is someone who has devoted their lives to the study of a particular art form, so they're a good group to test this hypothesis - people steeped in the art itself, but not practitioners.


It all depends on the critic, IMO. I can give plenty of examples of critics (not necessarily in film) who really haven't a clue.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland

Daryl @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A critic remember (one would hope) is someone who has devoted their lives to the study of a particular art form, so they're a good group to test this hypothesis - people steeped in the art itself, but not practitioners.
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on the critic, IMO. I can give plenty of examples of critics (not necessarily in film) who really haven't a clue.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


Indeed - but the question is not about deriving the general from the particular. Can a critic - or indeed ANYONE who is not thenselves a practitioner to a similar high standard - fully appreciate art?

Where I have some sympathy with Piet's view is that only a skilled musician can fully deconstruct something to its component parts (possibly). That's quite different to a full appreciation though, that's a technical skill.


----------



## markwind

TheUnfinished @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> I actually think this whole discussion HAS moved in some interesting circles more recently, so I do wish people would stop coming in and saying "It's done" "We've done this".


The discussions before moved too, and interestingly so I might add, it just never arrived at an conclusion. Its the inherent feature of this discussion is to be conclusion-less, at least in regards to the attempt to establish an objective truth about the inherently subjective nature of a culturally established concept called "Talent". It's an opinionated subject. And opinions are fine, but they are presented with contempt and condescending attitudes. The fact that a discussion is able to move past such attitudes, does not mean that people are not getting tired of the initial elitism that is portrayed in it. 

If you're talking about a disservice to the forum, I would like to have that mentioned too that someones displeasure with such topics is allowed to be expressed too.


----------



## madbulk

No problem with contributors insisting on civility and expressing frustration. That's different, Mark, from swooping in to dismiss the whole thread. That's just time to change the channel.


----------



## Musicologo

Tanuj,

Sorry if I mislead you with my phrasing. I was not comparing JW with Lata Mangeshkar, in terms of film music composition. I used her as an example to question what "history of music" is and how western-centric it is. Because JW may have found its place in "american history of music from the 20th century", but for sure, that "history" is not a definitive one, neither the most relevant one considering the whole world. 
It's not a matter of dismissing someone's talent, is just a matter of putting it in perspective - relativism - and pointing out that the impact of someone might be huge in some contexts and circles and totally irrelevant in other ones.

JW is probably irrelevant to most Indians, while Lata is probably unknown or irrelevant for most Americans, while they both, for sure, deserve a solid place in music _histories_ for different reasons, because_ inside their own contexts_, they impacted millions of people.

P.S. BTW I'm greatly enjoying this thread and similar ones before. I think questioning everything and food for thought are great places to start. Of course one knows we'll never get to consensus or ending anyway... Piet is perfectly aware how much I respect his insights and opinions and his vast knowledge of film music and ability to listen to things. Just because I question everything and sometimes I play the Devil's advocate doesn't mean I am "against" someone in any way. It's just an intellectual exercise.


----------



## re-peat

midi_controller @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> There have been many questions left unanswered here. (…)


*Midi*, that is true, yes. (I don’t think we’re going in circles though, even if, as is likely, we will never find many satisfying answers.) But you know how it is with these type of discussions; while busy thinking about a reply to one argument, suddenly something gets posted that grabs your attention even more, and before you know it, we’ve moved on a few pages, and several things have to be left behind, remaining unfortunately unattended. If it’s any consolation, much of what I said and asked seems to have been conveniently ignored or very poorly read as well. Unavoidable, it appears.

There’s one thing I want to make clear though: nothing of what I say is meant to sound like “Because I said so.” That’s not how I usually argument a case. In this particular discussion however, I have often little more to offer than a — granted — rather weak “because that has always been my experience, and is therefore my strong conviction”, since I’m very much of the opinion, entirely based on my experience of course, that we’re talking about quite unprovable matter: music, where it comes from and why it can be as good (or as bad, or as mediocre) as it is.
There is no backing up anything of what I say with unequivocal evidence, because as I said before, I believe we are discussing a subject that is far too elusive and ambigious to allow itself to be captured in any such kind of rational and logical analysis or argumentation. I still haven’t read the first persuasive reasoning for saying that talent is not innate but nurtured, either by the way. Nor do I expect to.

Interpretations, assumptions and perceptions. That’s what we have been presenting each other with and I don’t think we’ll advance much further than that. But I don’t mind. I welcome anything that makes me think. (In the privacy of my elitist mind, of course, I obviously know that I’m absolutely right on every single point I make. As should everyone else be. And this is a spot where other people would, I guess, insert a smiley.)

And, I can’t deny it, there have a few things been said which I will *never* understand springing to the lips of a musician. The most baffling one being: “Music has no intrinsic value except what the listener places on it.” I simply cannot fathom a musician would ever say that. It boggles, as only an extremely boggling thing can boggle.





Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> It’s a debate I've never got, it's always seemed completely self evident to me that both aspects are true. (…)


*Guy*, I obviously agree, as any sane man would, with the idea that mastery is the result of a combination of nature and nurture. (If we had left it there three pages ago, that would have been entirely fine with me, although then, we would have missed some good posts too.) Thing is, confronted with people who draw the nurture card almost exclusively, I am kinda forced to put my views forward in a somewhat less nuanced way than I normally would. Faced with someone who flat out denies the existence of natural gift, claiming it is all a matter of parenting, (self-)education and stimulating circumstances, I can’t but take a slighty more extreme stand than I would usually consider sensible.

Your question as to whether critics can *fully* appreciate music (or art), I would answer with a polite ‘no’. That is, if they are only critics and nothing more. (See my paragraph on Michelangelo a few pages back.) If you don’t know, first-hand, what it’s like to compose a melody (sweat over it and eventually come up with a good one, or fail miserably), to find the ideal structure for it, to find the perfect match between content and timbre … your views on and evaluation of a piece of music will inevitably always be handicapped to some extent, I believe. (Again, this needs a far more nuanced elaboration, but basically, that is what I think.)

And I am sorry that my Kermode-remark shocked and annoyed you. But seriously, yeah: anyone who considers “Inception” an important and, above all, _intelligent_ film, instantly creates a very awkward silence at my table, and can do no better than to follow that up immediately with a “I shall grab my coat.”

Composers have proven to be extremely poor and even nasty critics as well, I know — and that might appear to contradict my point —, but I believe most of that is largely due to matters such as ego, personality clashes, hype, the times, intolerance or simply bad bernardshawish character. The entire generation of Brahms, Schumann, Liszt, Hanslick and Wagner, for example, was completely polarized — and to a ridiculous, even horrible degree — over the Brahms-Wagner conflict, making it literally impossible for anyone involved to express a tolerant, open-minded view in public. We know that Brahms, privately, had admiration for Wagner and Liszt, and vice versa, but in public they all felt obliged, or were forced to say derogatory and pretty awful things about one another, as did everyone else in their respective camps. Only to say: most anything that has been written or said during those years is a very unreliable source for honest, unbiased opinion.
(And talking about Wagner, his views on fellow composers, contemporaries and predecessors, are entirely coloured by his anti-semitic views, his gigantic ego and his self-advancing politics.)

A comparable thing happened in France, near the end of the 19th century, where composers found themselves torn between their own more classically oriented instincts, the inescapable all-overturning presence of Wagner, and the new generation of noisemakers carrying names like Debussy and Ravel. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that some of these established figures (Saint-Saëns, d’Indy, …) said some questionnable, misguided things when in the midst of such “the-times-are-a-changing”-turmoil.

J.S. Bach wasn’t too impressed with the music of his sons either, considering it too simple, too superficial and too eager-to-please. And yet, C.P.E. Bach is now very much considered as a major name in the history of music. And only right that he is. Truly fantastic composer.





G.E. @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> re-peat,the way you describe talent is no different than how older civilizations blamed lightning/everything in nature on the wrath/will of the gods. (…) But please stop acting like you know better than everyone else and drop the elitist attitude. (…)


*G.E.*, the way you read my posts is no different than how someone who just underwent a major lobotomy would do it. You haven’t understood a single thing of what I’ve been saying, it seems.
And, I’d have to be killed first before I drop my elitist attitude. In fact, the more people not unlike yourself I encounter, the more I am strengthened in my elitist views.

_


----------



## AC986

MR F @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> adriancook @ Sun Apr 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things John Williams will be remembered for in history of film books will be as the guy who brought back orchestral music to the cinema.
> 
> In the same way that this guy will be remembered as the man who started it all off in that manner.
> 
> The master of them all. Take it from 4:13 if you can't sit through all of it.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDyjPB_AEBU
> 
> 
> For brass lovers take this from 3:52. An unstoppable juggernaut. Fantastic.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueS07YbMeUw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG thank you for that! I haven't heard this soundtrack before- my jaw is on the floor.
Click to expand...


Yeah that second movement is something else!! What a performance.


----------



## AC986

re-peat @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> *G.E.*, the way you read my posts is no different than how someone who just underwent a major lobotomy would do it.
> _



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Ohhhhhh God.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Aww, and it was all going so well until the last paragraph, too.

Perhaps its just a terminology thing, then. I'd argue til I'm blue in the face that it is perfectly possible for a non-practitioner to FULLY appreciate an excellent artistic endeavour, because I consider the work in itself to be the be-all-and-end-all. To use film as an example, no matter how difficult it was to make, and how well written, acted and directed it might be, how remote the location or how skillful the editing, how subtle the sound design or how empathetic the score, full appreciation is not measured by due consideration of those things because they are not the thing itself - they are the construction of the thing (at least in my view). The magic of art, all good art, is to stand apart, to take the listener / viewer / reader out of where they are into some place else, and full appreciation of that I'd argue is to be fully immersed in the thing itself. A further understanding and appreciation of what it took to get there is a fascinating hobby on the side or professional interest.

Even in my hobby on the side / professional interest, there I'd think its a very grey area as to being an intelligent, well read and well versed non-practitioner and a practitioner.


----------



## G.E.

> G.E., the way you read my posts is no different than how someone who just underwent a major lobotomy would do it. You haven’t understood a single thing of what I’ve been saying, it seems.



Oh please... :roll: 
I've understood everything perfectly fine,trust me.
But I realize that my comment was a bit disrespectful and I want to apologize for that.


----------



## markwind

re-peat @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> And, I’d have to be killed first before I drop my elitist attitude. In fact, the more people not unlike yourself I encounter, the more I am strengthened in my elitist views.
> _



This made me laugh a little... Social ineptness, Winning!


----------



## re-peat

Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> (...) I'd argue til I'm blue in the face that it is perfectly possible for a non-practitioner to FULLY appreciate an excellent artistic endeavour (...)


I agree — only a worryingly supercilious man wouldn’t — that an informed, well considered opinion of a non-practioner is entirely valid, and can be full of interest and relevant observation. And it might even be, and often is, that that type of opinion is the only one that is of real use to other non-practioners, but … I do maintain, till I’m ultramarine in the face, that you’re allowed a deeper look into a work of art, or a piece of music, if you have some of that artist/composer in you.

Critics as educated, keen-eyed and discerning representatives of an anonymous public … fine, no problem at all with that — after all, most human artistic expression is, directly or indirectly, usually meant for some type of public anyway — but, personally, I am far more interested in what, for example, Leonard Bernstein said on Beethoven than what Alex Ross might have to say.

See, Bernstein’s remark that “Beethoven always perfectly knew what to do next” — and I have never read or heard a wiser word on Beethoven anywhere else —, that is a comment that can only have come from a musician, and a musician with a more than unusual talent for composition himself. A mere critic could never arrive at that level of insight, because it requires an intimate familiarity with and a thorough understanding of the process of musical composition. In other words, you have to be a pretty good composer yourself to be able to make such an observation.

Now, spot on as that remark may be, it is probably of little use or meaning to the non-practioning public at large, I’m aware of that. Which is where the critics come in, I suppose.

_


----------



## ed buller

re-peat @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> See, Bernstein’s remark that “Beethoven always perfectly knew what to do next”, that is a comment that can only have come from a musician, and a musician with a more than unusual talent for composition himself.
> Now, spot on as that remark may be — and I have never read or heard a wiser word on Beethoven anywhere else —, it is probably of little use or meaning to the non-practioning public at large, I’m aware of that. Which is were the critics come in, I suppose.
> 
> _



i agree it's an inspired insight...not sure I agree it's lost on the general public though. Even to someone who doesn't write music i feel that they would understand how advantageous it would be to "know what comes next" instinctively . That's Bernsteins unique talent i think...making non musicians really appreciate the craft.


e


----------



## midi_controller

re-peat @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> There is no backing up anything of what I say with unequivocal evidence, because as I said before, I believe we are discussing a subject that is far too elusive and ambigious to allow itself to be captured in any such kind of rational and logical analysis or argumentation. I still haven’t read the first persuasive reasoning for saying that talent is not innate but nurtured, either by the way. Nor do I expect to.



The only time I asked for unequivocal evidence was to prove that music can be judged objectively, since one would need that in order to verify the hypothesis. For a statement such as "some people are born naturally gifted", I'm simply wondering where that idea comes from. This is why I tend to ask so many questions in my posts, because it's how I test ideas to try and find out if they hold up under scrutiny, and for that particular idea, it's never held up at all. For where would one find talent within our genetics? How would you measure this intrinsic talent in a way that rules out it being developed? Has there ever been a child who sat down at a piano and didn't make a horrible racket the first time they played? 

The only thing I've heard is that some children seem to excel more than others in terms of musical, artistic, or intellectual development, but that can be logically explained by looking at the circumstances they were raised in, and as I pointed to before, this idea has actually been tested and found to have some merit (although it cannot be proved, since it isn't reproducible).



> (In the privacy of my elitist mind, of course, I obviously know that I’m absolutely right on every single point I make. As should everyone else be. And this is a spot where other people would, I guess, insert a smiley.)



This is where we differ. The only reason that I go with the idea of nurture over nature is because it simply has more evidence. I'm completely open to the alternative being true, given a substantial basis for it, or that of a third option that I've perhaps never even thought about. I don't know that I'm right, I could be completely wrong, but I just go where evidence and logic points me, until new evidence is presented.



> And, I can’t deny it, there have a few things been said which I will *never* understand springing to the lips of a musician. The most baffling one being: “Music has no intrinsic value except what the listener places on it.” I simply cannot fathom a musician would ever say that. It boggles, as only an extremely boggling thing can boggle.



I said that was the null hypothesis, again, until better evidence comes along. It makes sense from a certain standpoint, but then we would start getting into a completely different discussion about how music has developed over time and the possible ways in which we have attached meaning to sound. I'd be willing to have it, as long as people are open to the idea, but not here, this thread has gone too far off topic already. The poor OP is probably thinking we are all insane by now, he just wanted to share his love of John Williams music :D.


----------



## Hannes_F

midi_controller @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> And, I can’t deny it, there have a few things been said which I will *never* understand springing to the lips of a musician. The most baffling one being: “Music has no intrinsic value except what the listener places on it.” I simply cannot fathom a musician would ever say that. It boggles, as only an extremely boggling thing can boggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that was the null hypothesis, again, until better evidence comes along.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid this does not work along the lines of a null hypothesis and then adding some factors for a first order approximation, and then a second order approximation and so on. To me this seems as hopeless as a fish that tries to fly by swimming at sea ground until something better comes along.

A null, even if repeated infinitely, always stays a null. If we try to grasp musical genius in such a brain-mind way it is like catching a shadow - when we open the hand, it's gone.

Here is a suggestion for subjective evidence: Why not try for a time which kind of mindset inspires your own music better? And _then_, after and in case that we realize a difference, ponder or meditate or theoretize about why this is the case?


----------



## midi_controller

@Hannes_F: Well we can get technical and say that yes, I shouldn't have added "except what the listener places on it" to that sentence. The null hypothesis when it comes to intrinsic musical value is indeed that it doesn't have any. The second part I assumed everyone would agree with: that we place subjective value on music.

Without evidence to disprove it, at least in science, one typically follows the null hypothesis. Which is why I've taken that stance until new information points me in a different direction.

In what other way may we look at musical genius than, as you put it, a "brain-mind" way? Is it wrong to seek answers to these questions using the best means that we know of to discern the truth? 

I think every question has a logical solution, although it may be difficult and time consuming to find. Even music, what makes it what it is and why we seem like it, in all of it's seeming mystery, could very well be explained logically given enough time and study. Of course, once again, this is my deterministic viewpoint coming through. But what we don't know shrinks, albeit very slowly, every day, and every day those ideas that "It just is" keep fading away.


----------



## re-peat

midi_controller @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> (...) The only reason that I go with the idea of nurture over nature is because it simply has more evidence.


No, it hasn’t. Unless a few pages of this thread went missing, I haven’t seen even the tiniest hint of a shred of a suggestion that the existence of any such evidence might indeed need to be considered.



midi_controller @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> Is it wrong to seek answers to these questions using the best means that we know of to discern the truth?


Wrong? Perhaps not. But it’s certainly denying humanity one of its last vestiges of its unique identity that isn’t completely ruined yet by serious-looking men in white coats dissecting the lot with unimaginative logic and putting dead numbers and percentages to everything.

What evidence or logical explanation could ever make listening to music a better, deeper experience? What sort of 'truth' are you looking for that will make music more musical? What explanation could you possibly want to reveal to you — in clinical black-on-white-ness — the impact of great music (and the talent behind it), if all that music needs, to be music, is right there in the music itself? 

Why need evidence and explanations for any of this in the first place? What sort of doubts and insecurities compel you to want logical explanations even for those aspects of our human identity that have so much appeal and so much power precisely because they are illogical and irrational?

_


----------



## Jaap

I understand some of the feelings expressed here and just my small contribution here.

As a good professional (in a working situation) one should be able in my opinion to disconnect from emotional feelings towards any kind of composer and music to be able to judge and qualify music. This to make the right judgement to know what you can and can't do or to submit a professional view on a matter when advice is asked.

If somebody comes to me for an indepth analysis of Bach I am able to give that. I can point out the strengths of his counterpoint, the richness of his harmonies, the limitations of his orchestrations of his time and how he bypassed them etc etc.
Do I like Bach personally? No, not at all. Most of his music I don't enjoy listening to from a personal perspective and it doesn't touch or move me.
When I was teaching I am happy that I can "disconnect" from my emotional feelings towards music since that made me a better teacher in my opinion. If I would just express everything I felt I would withhold the student from much more important music material then I my own taste.

Am I therefore automatically a good composer? No, but I know my place. I know I am a good craftsman within certain margins (both commercial or artistically) and that makes I can do my job when regarding to composing fine.

When I listen to John Williams I see a craftsman extraordinaire and I can place myself in the business on the right perspective. Is he god for me? No not all, but he is a good inspiration and motivation for me to continue, but also to point out to others.
I am happy with the level I am working on. It is not AAA list, but it's fine for me. Most of the time I am working on project that are worth my level and vica versa. Of course I put the bar higher and higher for me everytime when I develop myself since I will always try to move upwards, but with a realistic view. This is made possible because I can disconnect from my emotions and also analyse my music like it isn't mine at all and therefor gives me a honest opinion on where I stand and what I should work on etc etc.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Interesting post, Jaap - again, for me though I'm not sure how much of that is what I'd consider "appreciation". Art by its nature engages emotionally, so when you step outside that to be analytical, its not the same as artistic appreciation. And analysis is certainly not bad (though there can be a tension). It's helpful and indeed essential if needing to learn - it's just something different and more akin to science (which is perhaps what Midi is looking for?) And of course that analysis might bring with it appeciation of its own, as one reflects on the skill of those who created the art - again, I think its a different thing.

A scientific description of "red" (wavelengths of light, absorbtion / reflection / human optics / brain receptiors etc) could it no way inform the nature of redness to someone who is colourblind, it would instead be providing a technical description. The nature of redness, the thing itself, has to be experienced in order in any way for it to be appreciated. The very idea of musical appreciation devoid of emotional reaction for me is a nonsense, and - by its every nature - the experience can only possibly be subjective (nb - that does not necessarily imply that The Thing Itself does not contain any definitive qualities if analysed).

I wonder if these differing views on what is meant by appreciation is behind a lot of disagreement here. I'm not suggesting a 10 year old's simplistic definition whereby you just have to like something, I mean that focus on the thing itself. So in your case with Bach, you have little appreciation, but you have greater appreciation for John Williams, it seems. And appreciation (again, in this definition) can be superficial (humming a pop tune) or - at its most extreme - so deep it can actually affect or change a person's nature. 

And yes, there can exist a tension, and critical faculties can inhibit appreciation. The thread I started on Captain Philips came about because with 10 minutes to go, the music totally took me out of the film (there was a 5 minute cue from another film that I knew intimately). At a stroke the artifice was broken for me, I was no longer on the high seas off the coast of Somalia, I was in heated rows in Remote Control / edit suites. If I had no knowledge of either that music or the process of filmmaking, it's almost certain I'd have enjoyed the film more. In my case this interference is at a relatively low level - when things are working as they should I tend not to think about such things and become fully immersed in the film / music / whatever, its only when something goes wrong that I'm snapped out of it.


----------



## Hannes_F

midi_controller @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> In what other way may we look at musical genius than, as you put it, a "brain-mind" way?



midi_controller, if this is a serious question and not only rhetorical then ultimately it will be very difficult to find an explanation that you can accept. Because we can not somehow mutually transfer our experience and therefore you can only believe or discard it if I say that there is much more than brain-mind, especially but not exclusively when it comes to musical genius.



> Is it wrong to seek answers to these questions using the best means that we know of to discern the truth?



Absolutely not. However these means include _all _of our faculties and possibilities from physical experience on towards the faintest intuitions and highest inspirations. Brain-mind is only a tiny fraction of that with very limited reach. It is the little assistant that can be of great practical help but usually lags way behind in the really important things.

Unfortunately words hobble for describing this because they are very much at home in brain-mind world. It needs poets, mystics or philosophers to work around that limitation. One other possibility to break through this barrier can be music though. 



> But what we don't know shrinks, albeit very slowly, every day, and every day those ideas that "It just is" keep fading away.



You are sure?

Then what is it that you strive for and seek by music?

Again, observe to which results it leads you. Be your own empirical investigator whether your ideas inspire your music and life or not. Nothing much can argue against that.


----------



## Jaap

Great reply Guy to my post. Thanks! 

I think you make some very valuable points for this discussion and show some good insights on also how to look at things.
It is a very interesting discussion and subject. I really like the way you use the word appreciation. It gives me some food for my thoughts.

If I go back to my statement about Bach I would actually say I appreciate him, because from an "intellectual" point of view I can enjoy listening and analyzing his works and that can give me great satisfaction.
I wonder myself now if this is also some sort of emotional connection and I guess in a way it is and maybe my words where too black and white.

I think it comes more to a point, when I think about it, to affection. When listening to music with not my "professional" hat on (and it took many years to enjoy listening to music without thinking as a "pro") is that I look for some kind of affection in any kind of entertainment or art and for me affection is not per definition related to appreciation.


----------



## midi_controller

re-peat @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> midi_controller @ Sun Apr 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) The only reason that I go with the idea of nurture over nature is because it simply has more evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasn’t. Unless a few pages of this thread went missing, I haven’t seen even the tiniest hint of a shred of a suggestion that the existence of any such evidence might indeed need to be considered.
Click to expand...


Read the thread again.



> midi_controller @ Sun Apr 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong to seek answers to these questions using the best means that we know of to discern the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong? Perhaps not. But it’s certainly denying humanity one of its last vestiges of its unique identity that isn’t completely ruined yet by serious-looking men in white coats dissecting the lot with unimaginative logic and putting dead numbers and percentages to everything.
> 
> What evidence or logical explanation could ever make listening to music a better, deeper experience? What sort of 'truth' are you looking for that will make music more musical? What explanation could you possibly want to reveal to you — in clinical black-on-white-ness — the impact of great music (and the talent behind it), if all that music needs, to be music, is right there in the music itself?
> 
> Why need evidence and explanations for any of this in the first place? What sort of doubts and insecurities compel you to want logical explanations even for those aspects of our human identity that have so much appeal and so much power precisely because they are illogical and irrational?
> 
> _
Click to expand...


This, right here, is the problem, this anti-science rhetoric, the idea that science somehow sucks all the life away from art and makes it all meaningless. This is why it's hard to discuss this topic with you re-peat. The way you have posed these questions is outright insulting, because you obviously haven't taken a single second to think about possible answers to them. I can answer every single one of your questions with great depth (if I try to ignore how you are obviously trying to belittle me) but what the hell is the point when you are so obviously closed to anything that resides outside of your little comfort zone?

No, I think I'll leave you where you are. If you choose to have an open mind about these things, then I'll be more than happy to talk to you about it. If you choose to limit your knowledge so severely, especially in a field that you most likely have dedicated a lot of time to, then I feel sorry for you. Science is about the search, the exhilaration when you discover new information, the great ways that you can use that information in a practical and very tangible way. I find the scientific process to be not only great fun, but incredibly enlightening at the same time, and I'm sorry that you may never be able to share that with the kind of mentality you just showed.

*@Hannes_F:* Indeed, it was a serious question, but I think I see where you are coming from. As I mentioned before, I take a more deterministic viewpoint, and not everyone follows a similar train of thought, which is perfectly fine. I don't mean to belittle your beliefs or those of anyone else, but when looking for the truth, we have to work from the most basic positions, ones that do not include any sort of spiritual nature, divine intervention, or supernatural influence, since these positions are not falsifiable. As such, I tend not to subscribe to them, at least not until there is sufficient reason and or evidence to support those positions.

I don't understand your two questions though. Of course I'm sure. We learn more about our world, ourselves, and our universe every day. New discoveries happen all the time now.

As for what I strive for and seek by music, the same as everyone I suppose. I love writing it (most of the time), I love playing it, listening to it, studying it. The more I learn, the more I see how it interacts with our minds, the connections between sound, emotion, and physical response, how that may have developed over time, it's evolution and history, the more I fascinated I become. I strive to be the best writer I can, to evoke in others what others have evoked in me, and the more knowledge I have, the better I understand music and how it works and why, the better I can do that. I'm not sure what else to say.


----------



## rayinstirling

midi_controller @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> As for what I strive for and seek by music, the same as everyone I suppose. I love writing it (most of the time), I love playing it, listening to it, studying it. The more I learn, the more I see how it interacts with our minds, the connections between sound, emotion, and physical response, how that may have developed over time, it's evolution and history, the more I fascinated I become. I strive to be the best writer I can, to evoke in others what others have evoked in me, and the more knowledge I have, the better I understand music and how it works and why, the better I can do that. I'm not sure what else to say.



Would you mind giving us/me an example of your compositions so as we/I can understand where I've been going wrong. I shouldn't be feeling the next line I write, but simply sticking to the formula learned in nearly 50 years as a musician.

It isn't that I'm in denial of the usefulness in studying theory and form but! for me there is something else happening that I put down to the human condition or in my case the condition of the human.


----------



## re-peat

midi_controller @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Read the thread again.


I have. Nothing in here that even hints at qualifying as evidence to me. Maybe to you some of it does, but then I can only say that I wouldn’t trust you as a man of science and logic either, if you’re so easily prepared to twist non-evidence into evidence, or invent evidence where there is none.




midi_controller @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> I can answer every single one of your questions with great depth


I very much doubt it. 

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Please allow me to take this opportunity to say something.

Often I post my opinions that are based on my knowledge and experience. When I do, some will agree; some will disagree; some will initially disagree but reflect and decide I am correct; some will initially disagree and reflect and then still disagree.

I am totally fine with ANY of that, no problem at all. What I am NOT fine with is the intellectually vapid response of "prove it."

Most of it is not provable nor can it be disproven. Further, I am under no obligation to prove _anything_ and as I say I don't care if I convince anyone that I am correct. I just put it out there for folks to think about and either reflect or do not reflect on it. And I receive a fair number of PMs thanking me for doing so.

So once again, agree or disagree with me, fine, but please do not resort to that silly "prove it" type of response.


----------



## Hannes_F

Jay, the irony is that real musicians are still in this thread trying to help out with whatever their souls can offer to newcomers that, instead of listening and learning and trying to grasp at least _something_, in exchange try to explain what is music to the professionals that have dedicated their life to it, and that from a half-baked amateur pseudo-scientific (and not even a really scientific) point of view. The situation is a bit bizarre ... and still there is hope. This speaks very much for the friendliness of this forum imo.

BTW deterministic is not the same as reductionistic.

@midi_controller Please don't take my words as unfriendly or even directed to you exclusively. What I see is that you and others stick to 19th century concepts that still are taught in schools unfortunately and in some parts of the scientific community that dig not deep enough. The problem is that this mindset leads to negations more than to discoveries. Also it it has become a kind of parlor game to explain everything in a reductionistic-materialitic-darwinistic fashion and ignore any counter arguments.

All fine and good, but leave arts out of the game. This is, like I said, like a fish trying to fly by swimming near to the sea ground. The first proposition for a fish that wants to learn flying is not to ignore any more that there _is _something else above the water, and also observe, accept and appreciate that there are actually exemplary other fish that actually _can _fly, at least for a short while. As long as the fish does not accept or appreciate that or strive for it all he can do is to learn how to swim faster, stronger, more agile, more fitted, more evolved and more whatever - but still at the ground of the sea.

I know and appreciate that it is not easy to change this sort of mindset because it means a change of fundamental paradigms. However it is very well worth it imo, especially if dealing with art. You seem to be of the honest and fair and open kind, that is why I am responding at all.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Ah well...


----------



## Musicologo

From my part I already gave a very simple and tangible answer WHY I even bother with this questions: to be able to Model music and automatize it, and provided examples that noone bothered to comment.

I believe (at least at this stage) that there are many aspects of music that can be "grasped" and "reduced to numbers" and then be taught both to another human being and to a computer.

This makes the "process of composing" reproducible on the same level as kitchen recipes for instance.

This forum can deny this purpose or dismiss this goal, or even mock the practical results of this endeavor, but I still think that the simple task of bothering to do this leads us somewhere.

At least I'm learning a lot about the craft.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> From my part I already gave a very simple and tangible answer WHY I even bother with this questions: to be able to Model music and automatize it, and provided examples that noone bothered to comment.
> 
> I believe (at least at this stage) that there are many aspects of music that can be "grasped" and "reduced to numbers" and then be taught both to another human being and to a computer.
> 
> This makes the "process of composing" reproducible on the same level as kitchen recipes for instance.
> 
> This forum can deny this purpose or dismiss this goal, or even mock the practical results of this endeavor, but I still think that the simple task of bothering to do this leads us somewhere.
> 
> At least I'm learning a lot about the craft.



Great, the McDonalds-ization of music. :roll:


----------



## Musicologo

> Great, the McDonalds-ization of music. Rolling Eyes



We've been there since forever? What a commission is? The only Music not mac Donalds is the one you create in the spot NOT for money, but for your own joy and pleasure and want to share with your friends!...

As soon as it is made for money, Yeah, it's business, it's an industry, and you have to be as effective as possible! Industry - the same concept has been applied in many areas many years ago.

What is Tin Pan Alley, Hollywood, Bollywood, Music Libraries? It's industry!... Simply, it's an industry mostly made of human work instead of machines...err... wait! What ARE samples?? What are sample libraries? Oh, wow, we replaced musicians for virtual stuff!...

So now you're rolling eyes when I want to do the SAME to the composition process??... It's just the logical step. And believe or not it's been around since the 50's with Xenakis and Hiller. 

Gourmet music will ALWAYS be gourmet music. Machines will never replace a human if that is what you looking for. Like there is always market for gourmet food, hand made craft or a personal taylored dress.

But like in any other activity there is place for "fast music". And In the process of learning how to do that you learn more about the process itself and also learn more about the human nature and how humans work. I think the idea has plenty merit in itself and will not ruin your business because the target is clearly different.


----------



## Rv5

*A few disclaimers and introduction* regarding some psychological research: Abuses of statistics - A person only ever uses 10% of their brain. In influencing another person, words account for 7% of the effect, tone of voice for 38%, and body language for 55% (one study, in 1971, not replicated). Popular statements involving numbers are often urban myths, such as the above.

Psychologists do what they can to avoid such pitfalls. Previous great scientists such as Newton, Faraday and Einsteing believed they were unearthing God's hidden purposes and designs for the universe - psychology however, has been wary of being over-ambitious in seeking universal laws of human behaviour. Psychologists prefer to start from a basic and empirical level, looking at the nature of human behaviour in specific and controlled circumstances.

Of course specific and controlled circumstances may well be unrealistic (ecological vadility problem), but they enable the evironment to be standardised for different participants, thus removing the effect of what is called "nuisance variables" on the outcome. If however, the environment turns out to be important, it can be varied in its turn, but in a controlled way.

What remains important is that the hypotheses may still be testable in laboratary settings, providing they make predictions in such settings. What remains key to ensuring this, is good experimental design. Simple but ingenious lab setups can sometimes yield powerful results.
*
Take for example* "The Mozart effect". How would you set up test conditions to test the theory that listening to Mozart bring out cognitive gains (such as memory)? Before beginning, it is important to define the population from which participants are sampled: gender, income, nationality, profession, ethnic group, expertise may all affect the results. Choice of how long the Mozart extracts would be, how many of them, what type of music, how would improvements in mental performance be measured etc need to be made. It would be essential that participants are randomly allocated to the different treatment groups in the study as this would help ensure there is no systematic difference between the groups, that might intefere with the effect that we are looking for (e.g. musical exposure, intelligence). Once data is collected, a statistical test can be used to determine whether or not there is a significant difference between the groups. If the Mozart exposed group obtained higher scores on our measure (e.g. memory) we would accept the experiements hypothesis.

It's not all so easy, and advances in neuroscience and neuropsychology are yielding geat results in studies on music and the brain and attempts at addressing a broad range of questions: 

Individual differences
Nature/nurture questions
Cross-cultural and cross-species comparisons
Evolutionary questions
Brain specialisations
Creative processes
Performance
Education
Theraputic applications

As well as these questions music science researchers use a very broad range of methodologies:

Questionnaire studies
Personality questionnaires
Interview studies
Cross sectional studies
Longitudinal studies
Cognitive paradigms: Gestalt psychology
Memory models
Electroencephalography (EEG)
Event-related potentials (ERPs)
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
Positron emission tomography
Experience sampling
Point-Light displays
Video coding
Neuropsychological rehabilitation studies (coma, alzheimers, parkinson's, developmental disorders)
Anthropological and comparative studies
Neuroimaging
Neuropsychology

To name a few. So what of our findings regarding the Mozart effect. For publication and qualification the study will be scrutinized and must fit certain critera. However we still cannot assume that publicised research is necessarily 'good' or 'right', but it should be sound research that can be replicated. The published essays/research are then usually accompanied by critical reviews of the studies, offering different viewpoints and arguments against or for the findings of the study. If not accompanied by, then cetainly would be available soon after. Resarch papers can take a while to be published for this reason. There are certain lines of study which findings have been replicated and re-enforced through different types of research. Here are some 'micky-mouse' bullet points:

Darwin:
Music is universal
Musical abilities emerge spontaneously in children
Music arouses strong emotions in humans
These factors all suggest that "musical ability" is a specific human trait

Casual listeners can distuingish infant-directed singing from other forms (Trehub et al., 1993b; 1997)

Mothers tend to sing in the same pitch levels and tempo on different occasions (Bergeson & Trehub, 2002)

This is known as 'motherease': the way mothers sing to their child, another universal trait of the human speicies. This is used to support music as an adaptionist trait whereby music helps mother-infant relationship and infant survival (Trainor et al., 1997).

From newborn, infants prefer consonant to dissonant intervals (e.g. Masataka, 2006)

Interval of perfect fifth important for infant listeners (Trainor & Trehub, 1993)

Human infants are sensitive to musical contour (Ferland & Mendelson, 1989, Trehub, Bull & Thorpe, 1984) and dissonance and consonance (Schellenberg & trehub, 1996; Trainor & Heinmiller, 1998; Zentner & Kagan, 1998)

Infants exposed to a Mozart sonata periodically during a 2-week period are able to then distinguish it from a different Mozart sonata (Saffran et al., 2000)

Infant's short-term memory is influenced by: Tonaility (Trehub et al., 1990), temporal regularity (Bergeson & Trehub, 2006), degree of consonance (Schellenberg & Trehub, 1996; Trainor and Trehub, 1993).

Understanding of key and harmony emerges over the first 5-7 years (Trainor & Trehub, 1994)

There is little difference between traines and untrained children in their ability to detect temporal irregularities (Drake et al., 2000)

There is a lot of research into the similarities and differences between music and language (shared brain functions e.g. Shared Syntactic Resource Hypothesis (SSIRH)). Infants learn a lot about language and music without any formal training.

Steinhauer et al (1999) showed that perception of phrase boundaries in speech associated with an Event Related Potential (ERP) component called the Closure Positive Shift (CPS). Later studies included filitered or hummed studies to demonstrate that the CPS was sensitive to prosodic rather than syntactic cues. Knosche et al (2005) looked at ERPs in response to phrase endings in musicians and found component is similar to CPS. Using MEG they identified brain areas associated with generation of the CPS in music. These brain areas are:

Anterior and posterior congulate cortex and Posterior hippocampus.

Things start to get more complicated past this point, but to summarise there is a lot of neuropsychological research on music and language that show shared mechanisms regarding the two. This strengthens some hypothesis that music is an adaptation of language. However this can also suggest because trained musicans show higher cognitive functioning in some research regarding language tests, there is biological benefit to music and our species in evolutionary terms.

There are biologically strengthened cognitive functions in musicians over non-musicians for language, (Chartrand & Berlin, 2006).

*So what?*

The brain is little-understood, however increasing understanding of the neural mechanisms implicated in music and language has clinical as well as theoreticl implications. Take for example stroke victims: "A recent study by Sarkamo and collegues (2008) provides evidence that regular listening to music can aid in the recovery of brain functions following a stroke." (Patel 2010)

There is also evidence to suggest that music can help premature babies in their recovery. Premature babies show difficulty in sucking, however through music therapy these babies showed slower heart-rate, regular breathing and also began to suck. The health benefits here have huge potential for these babies; obviously sucking feeds but also helps shape the facial structure of babies.

Music also has helped stroke victims with aphasia (language impairment doe to central neurological dysfunction). These victims can sometimes sing familiar songs with great fluency. Using 'musical speech therapy' or more accurately 'melodic intonation therapy' (MIT Albert et al., 1973) these patients were able to communicate through singing. (Preliminary data reported in Schlaug et al., 2008, supported this idea by showing that a patient who underwent forty sessions of MIT showed a greater verbal fluency and greater right hemisphere activiation when speaking than did a patient who underwent SRT: 'speech repetition therapy'

The difference here between the use of 'speech' therapy and 'music' therapy is of particular note; the main difference being the use of melodic speech intonation and rhythmic tapping. It is worth mentioning here again infants have a preference for consonance over dissonance and are able to distinguish between familar melodies and non familar melodies.

*Theories on the origins of music* fall into two main camps: adaptionist theories, the first of which you find in Darwin's The Decent of Man ( 1871), are theories based on evolutionary development for human survival i.e. the reason we have innate musical ability (all 'healthy' human babies) is because they developed to help our survival.

Three of these main therories are: 1. Sexual Selection 2. Parental Care and 3. Group Cohesion

The other main camp being nonadaptionist theories which state that music did not develop to aid human survival .i.e no natural selection for music abilities in our species and that it is a human invention.

There are arguments and evidence for both sides. The most prominant non-adaptionist theorist is Pinker (1997) who described music as 'auditory cheescake' and 'biologically useless' for humans.

One last fairly interesting point regarding humans and music: A very useful (unfortunate) way to learn about the brain is from patients with brain damage. By knowing exactly what part of the brain is damaged; we can learn how important it is for a given function. The following is a case of a 61-year old Canadian man who was documented by Peretz (1993).

"GL was referred to us in 1989 because of his persistent amusia... GL stated that he was tonally unable to pick out familiar music and did not enjoy music any more. His musical background is that of a non-musician who was nontheless an avid music listener to popular and classical music, attending concerts and musical recitals very regularly before his illness... Contrasting with his relatively good linguistic abilities, recognition of tunes (without lyrics) was totally abolished. Out of 140 musical excerpts (including his national anthem) that are very familiar to everybody in Quebec, he could not identify a single one."

This was following an aneursym on the right side of his brain, followed a year later by a mirror aneurysm on the left side. This resulted in a diagnosis of severe Wernicke's aphasia and amusia (broadly defined as loss of language comprehension and musical ability, respectively. (Tan, Pfordresher, Harre). This lead to questions about perception of melody, a basic musical ability that nearly everyone takes for granted; how do we learn and retain the thousands of tunes we 'know'?

Well it goes on and on but I'm out of steam! Above are just some random blurbs and basic introduction to music psychology. I shouldn't think it is particuarly coherent but perhaps presents some research and findings that may be of use regarding some questions asked in this crazy thread.

Of particular note is the findings that human babies have innate musical ability that are then subject to musical training and or enculturation. A paper I highly recommend on this is: _The Origins of Music: Innateness, Uniqueness, and Evolution_ (McDermott & Hauser, 2003)


----------



## rayinstirling

But what has all that to do with specifically composing?


----------



## Musicologo

Complementing Rv5 I have to absolute mention Deutsch studies, namely the book "The Psychology of Music", 3d edition, from late 2012 presenting more than 20 state-of-the-art research articles on many levels discussed above.

I find the work of Patel remarkable and I was dumbfounded by simple things like - the ability to coordinate to a beat, a thing that we all do intuitively, is impossible for dogs, cats and animals in general, HOWEVER araras, parrots and some sea lions are able to do it.

This suggest that the ability to coordinate to a beat is related to language mechanisms (since all those animals "talk"), and is probably a spandrel - something that evolved not necessarily with that end in means, it was fortunate accident.

Many, many more fascinating things could follow, and READING and KNOWing these studies is the first step to understand and change your mind about a myriad of things related to music and human nature in general. Ignorance is not a bliss.

Related to composition - The composition process is an entanglement of several things. And I believe supported on all the scientific evidence and empirical evidence from my daily life that it can be systematized and decomposed in several ways, the same way a cook can write recipes.

What are we doing when we study music, we study scores, we use musical theory and so on to compose something new? Think about that. Try to think about every step of the way. It's basically a chain of decisions. And every decision can be explained logically and mimicked and justified.

Even if you don't know how to verbalize it or WHY you made that decision, that is just ignorance or not thinking enough about it or lacking concepts to describe it.
But other people are doing that for you right now.

My examples of David Cope before I think were pretty enlightening. A computer did those mockups. When you can teach a computer to compose "like bach inventions" or "like chopin mazurkas" I think that in itself says a lot about how we are able to write recipes for music efficiently and how much we have learned about the process of composition.


----------



## José Herring

I should know better than get involved, but Piet, I'm dying laughing at your insistence of being "objective" then go on to make every subjective argument in reference to "art" that I think I've ever read. If subjectivity is narrow minded as you say, it is even more narrow minded to take opinion as fact. I'll even go as far to say that it's your opinion that there is something objective in something as subjective as a single subjects artistic output. Stravinsky was a man, not an object.

But, will agree that there are individuals who posses a larger amount of ability than others and when realized in their work, it elevates them to a status of near God like idolization.

In my narrow minded subjectivity I'll offer my opinion, knowing full well that it is opinion.

All artistic endeavors are a form of communication. A communication has a source point (person originating the art) and a receipt point (the audience receiving the artist work).

Thus real artist have to take a certain responsibility. That is you have to know the audience you're communicating to. If you can reach that audience and affect them, then you are successful whether or not your art is any good. Only amateurs evaluate on whether a work is good or bad. Professionals look at whether it's effective or not. The twist being if it's not effective there is usually some technical issue involved.

Having actually done concert work, film/tv work and record work, I can tell from subjective experience that the audiences are completely different. 

The concert crowd expects high art. They expect that you're going to challenge their view of the world. They tend to be more educated and thus you have to frame your art in that way. You are kind of free to do what you want in this field. But, you're also free to starve to death until the world slowly comes around to your subjective viewpoint on what you consider "high art". 

The film crowd doesn't expect to notice music. And the few times they do, you have 30 sec to a minute to hit them with a theme that is memorable. They react to music on a visceral level. 

The record crowd is a different beast. It's actually two crowds. One is straight up commercial. Just wants something that they can drive to, pump them up on their way to work. The other appreciates certain bands and musicians for what they have to offer. A message that communicates to their view of the world.

Within each audience their can be a fair amount of artistic expression. Of stretching the expectations of the listener. But, film music will never be anything other than film music. Any attempts to make it art "objectively" usually gets a resounding rejection.

Bach certainly pushed the boundaries of what you can expect in church, but a large part of his work still remained, church music.

Jerry Goldsmith a bold innovator. I could listen to him all day, but his music never ventured beyond being film music. And, in meeting with him a few times I think that always bothered him, that people weren't that interested in his music beyond film. It was so much the case that the only times I got to meet him was at his concerts, because there were usually so few people around 

So every great artist has to be framed in the work they do. There is good and bad in every medium. Objectively speaking, it can be good or bad, but again that is entirely on the ear of the subjective beholder.

I think of it like this. If I were a lawyer trying a case, I'd pitch my arguments to the jury that didn't know anything about law. If I was arguing a case in front of the supreme court, then my arguments would be different. 

It all depends on audience.

And your idea that there are certainly people "born with superior insight", is a bunch of crap. And, that you somehow are insinuating that you're of the superior crowd endowed with a particular insight that nobody else has. Kind of funny.

In spite of our many clashes, Piet, believe it or not I don't hate you. I actually think that you have a fair amount of unrealized potential as a composer. And, my last piece of advice to you, is to take a few of your pieces and just try to get an audience for a small concert. The musicians will complain, you'll barely draw an audience, some people will think you suck and some people will think you're a genius, but you'll come away with the realization that it is all subjective. Maybe history will make your art objective, but in the moment, it's hot and painful and exhilarating at the same time. I guess because I come from a performance background I live in the moment, not really thinking objectively. But, I don't see how anybody could be objective about music, it excites too much passion in people to be reasonable. Doctors are reasonable. We're artist. We're passionate. I'm sure that Beethoven would have hated for his pieces to be considered objectively. He wanted to people to feel his art and get his ideas.

So if the original poster is so moved by John Williams that he thinks he's God. So let it be. 


Ok, getting ready for your condescending insults Piet. It use to bother me, now I kind of just laugh. Because again, I have to look at the subjective source that it's coming from


----------



## AC986

Bach wrote church music? Bach wrote music that was used in churches is more appropriate. You can't judge musicians like Bach. No one judges Bach and some others like Bach. They're beyond being judged.

If JW is God, then what does that make Bach?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Great, the McDonalds-ization of music. Rolling Eyes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been there since forever? What a commission is? The only Music not mac Donalds is the one you create in the spot NOT for money, but for your own joy and pleasure and want to share with your friends!...
> 
> As soon as it is made for money, Yeah, it's business, it's an industry, and you have to be as effective as possible! Industry - the same concept has been applied in many areas many years ago.
> 
> What is Tin Pan Alley, Hollywood, Bollywood, Music Libraries? It's industry!... Simply, it's an industry mostly made of human work instead of machines...err... wait! What ARE samples?? What are sample libraries? Oh, wow, we replaced musicians for virtual stuff!...
> 
> So now you're rolling eyes when I want to do the SAME to the composition process??... It's just the logical step. And believe or not it's been around since the 50's with Xenakis and Hiller.
> 
> Gourmet music will ALWAYS be gourmet music. Machines will never replace a human if that is what you looking for. Like there is always market for gourmet food, hand made craft or a personal taylored dress.
> 
> But like in any other activity there is place for "fast music". And In the process of learning how to do that you learn more about the process itself and also learn more about the human nature and how humans work. I think the idea has plenty merit in itself and will not ruin your business because the target is clearly different.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. There are commercial restaurants that serve high quality, non-gourmet faire, all of which taste different but good. Tons of them. And then there is McDonalds-Jack In The Box, etc. You cannot reduce it to either "pure" or "commercial" .


----------



## José Herring

adriancook @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Bach wrote church music? Bach wrote music that was used in churches is more appropriate. You can't judge musicians like Bach. No one judges Bach and some others like Bach. They're beyond being judged.
> 
> If JW is God, then what does that make Bach?


There are Gods. Then there's GOD! We judge to understand even if that judgement is far inferior to the actual creation or creator that we judge. I've learned so much fron Bach even though i totally suck.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Once again, it is silly to be comparing Bach and JW. They did two different gigs. Film composing has a different, more limiting set of imperatives.


----------



## midi_controller

I just want to say thanks real quick to Musicologo, Rv5, and jose for their posts. I may not agree 100% with your conclusions in certain cases, but your presentation of ideas and research are fantastic. 



rayinstirling said:


> Would you mind giving us/me an example of your compositions so as we/I can understand where I've been going wrong. I shouldn't be feeling the next line I write, but simply sticking to the formula learned in nearly 50 years as a musician.



What? I'm confused. What does my music have anything to do with this conversation? You shouldn't be feeling the next line you write? Why not? If you aren't moved by your own music, I'd imagine no one else would be either. Can you not do both? Use your knowledge to improve how well you convey what you want to convey? Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say here.



EastWest Lurker said:


> I am totally fine with ANY of that, no problem at all. What I am NOT fine with is the intellectually vapid response of "prove it."



Intellectually vapid? Asking for proof is intellectually vapid? Are you _serious_? :lol: 

So a response of "it just is" is perfectly fine with you, but asking questions, the reasoning behind that thought process, and, god forbid, some evidence to back up a claim is intellectually vapid. What can I say to that?



EastWest Lurker said:


> Most of it is not provable nor can it be disproven.



In science (oh no, not that again), when a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is rejected. When one says that something is true simply because it can't be disproven, that is considered an argument from ignorance, as it's excluding the possibility of a third option that we have yet to find.



EastWest Lurker said:


> So once again, agree or disagree with me, fine, but please do not resort to that silly "prove it" type of response.



How can I agree with you without some from of evidence to back up your claims? Why should I automatically disagree with your position without asking for your reasoning behind it? Should I just sit back, listen to your "wisdom", and reflect? I'm sorry Jay, you are not superior to me or anyone else, no matter how much you may think so. Back up your claims.



Hannes_F said:


> Jay, the irony is that real musicians are still in this thread trying to help out with whatever their souls can offer to newcomers that, instead of listening and learning and trying to grasp at least something, in exchange try to explain what is music to the professionals that have dedicated their life to it, and that from a half-baked amateur pseudo-scientific (and not even a really scientific) point of view. The situation is a bit bizarre ... and still there is hope. This speaks very much for the friendliness of this forum imo.



Shame on you Hannes. Here is this disgusting elitism coming back into this thread. Real musicians? Professionals? Why are you are automatically putting yourself on a pedestal? Are the rest of us here not real musicians? How do you know who is professional or not? You claim some are talking "from a half-baked amateur pseudo-scientific (and not even a really scientific) point of view", and yet allude that by following the scientific process to seek truth, I'm being reductionistic, and yes, you've gotten that bit wrong too, since I am in no way adhering to that philosophy (not that there is anything wrong with it).

Of course your words are unfriendly, and of course they are directed at me (who else said they followed a deterministic viewpoint?). You are being flat out condescending, something I'm getting quite a bit of in this thread.

I'm completely open to alternate points of view, and have stated multiple times that I only go where reason, logic, and evidence point me, as these are the best tools available to me to find truth. Present these, and I'll be more than happy, even excited, to change my position. It's that simple. The problem is you didn't express exactly what it is you want me to consider. In your own words:



Hannes_F said:


> However these means include all of our faculties and possibilities from physical experience on towards the faintest intuitions and highest inspirations. Brain-mind is only a tiny fraction of that with very limited reach. It is the little assistant that can be of great practical help but usually lags way behind in the really important things.
> 
> Unfortunately words hobble for describing this because they are very much at home in brain-mind world. It needs poets, mystics or philosophers to work around that limitation. One other possibility to break through this barrier can be music though.



You've said nothing here. I assume you are talking about things of a spiritual nature (which as I said, I have no issue with but do not follow myself) but can't be certain because you've literally given me nothing to go off of.

I hate lashing out like this, but I'm not going to sit here while some of you put yourselves on pedestals and consider yourselves so much better than the rest of us. You have taken what could have been an interesting discussion and turned it into a pissing match. Why did you even bother to post if you are so consumed that you are right? Do you really think that highly of yourselves that you have to teach the rest of us the errors of our ways? That you have to attack and demean when someone disagrees with your obviously superior insight? You all seem like intelligent people, you should know better.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Yes, asking for "proof" that music is genius is IMHO intellectually vapid. it is not quantifiable, it is sensed over generations in the hearts and minds of the listeners.

There is a famous story of a master chef and his sous chef. The chef tells him, "And now, I add some oregano" and he does so.

The sous chef asks, "How much was that, 1/2 a tsp?"

The chef says, "you don't measure it, you watch me" and does it again.

Composing great music is exactly that process. You cannot measure or quantify it. Genius is genius is genius because it is genius.


----------



## midi_controller

Wait, what? I know that we have touched on whether musical genius is something you are born with or not, and we have touched on whether musical greatness is something that can be measured objectively or if it is the collected subjective opinions of many listeners that give it that title, but at no point did anyone bring up if music _is_ genius or ask for proof of that (the question isn't even a very good one, since it can be interpreted in many different ways).

Interesting example though, since you could measure the amount of oregano that the chef was putting into the pot and it would be just as good, despite his request that you don't. So composing great music is done by watching someone else add elements? I'm not sure I follow your logic there.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Man, you just don't get it. The chef's point is that you have to develop a feel for it rather than relying on measuring. That way you can create many great dishes, not just one. It is the difference between the great and those who are merely good.


----------



## JohnG

midi_controller @ 28th April 2014 said:


> I hate lashing out like this, but I'm not going to sit here while some of you put yourselves on pedestals and consider yourselves so much better than the rest of us. You have taken what could have been an interesting discussion and turned it into a pissing match. Why did you even bother to post if you are so consumed that you are right?



Dude -- who's putting himself on a pedestal now? 

Some people disagree with you and you are sure you've a better way to think about it. No problem -- that's what an open conversation is all about. But if anyone's "consumed" about being right, maybe it's you? 

No doubt there are interesting studies of music, but if we limit discussion only to what's "provable" (a scary word if there ever were one), it would lop off a lot of interesting areas. Demanding on an internet forum that everyone "prove" his opinion is unrealistic.

How about love? Sadness? All nurture? All nature? Can you prove them?

I found Rv5's discourse genuinely interesting, as someone who likes music and has raised children. However, if we are restricted in our discussion by the need to prove everything based on whether or not a chimpanzee can follow a rhythm, that makes it tough to fully appreciate Mozart. 

Moreover, if that kind of study represents the pinnacle of scientific information that has been accumulated about music, though diverting, it seems nearly irrelevant to answering whether or not JW (or any composer or artist) is "up there" while the rest of humanity -- isn't.

I don't think one can prove any of this and it comes down to opinion. You don't agree -- no problem.


----------



## Hannes_F

@ midi_controller

In answering some of your questions:



midi_controller @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Are the rest of us here not real musicians?



I am not talking about the rest of this forum. Here are excellent musicians.



> How do you know who is professional or not?



I don't. If you read my post carefully then you will notice that I said 'real musicians'. I used the word 'professional' in the next sentence then since you are explaining what music is to people that structured their professional life around it. But that was a distraction actually, not so good of me.

Musicians - amateurs or professionals alike - that really get into it will most likely have experienced some moments in their life when that _something _happened that can't be described. The moment when you surprise yourself and do something you can't even fully grasp in the first moment. This moment of genius may be rare but it exists, it is a reality. You look at it or listen to it and wonder "I did that?"

Some people experience similar moments when they love, some when they see their kids grow up. Great scientists know it, the genuine researchers and inventors. Creative people talk of being 'in the flow'. It is the intrinsic knowledge of being on the right track, even if you can't exactly define why.

Related to it is the momentarily feeling when you go off the track. I can only describe it how it is for me but when composing there is a moment when I know that this is not the right note. If I override that and build on on that wrong note I more often than not have to repair that and everything that followed from there cumbersomely (is that a word?) afterwards.

Likewise there is a sort of technical and a mathematical intuition. If I say that during my physics and mathematics study and work I _felt _in which line I made an error then this will be most probably seen as exaggerating or bragging or elitist p***ing match but what can I say? It is something that brain-mind can't explain but it is real, very real.

So, back to being a musician. If you ever feel in your life that special moment where you _know _ that some note or musical line or rhythm or whatever is _right_, and it is right, exactly how it is; and in feeling this note you suddenly are connected to something more, something else, something greater; and because you keep being in that flow you are able to tap it for more of those notes or lines or rhythms; if you ever feel one of those genius moments ... no matter whether you earn money with it or not and be it in a concert or while busking, composing or just singing and dancing, then I consider you a real musician. Many here have experienced that I'm sure.

Technique is necessary, absolutely. Or else you will loose that flow after the first seconds because you stumble over your limited abilities. But technique is not 'it', it helps 'it'. When technique tries to be the master then 'it' evaporates.

midi_controller, it is awfully difficult to talk about those things and not sound elitistic. I am really sorry about that, honestly. That may be a reason why most able persons prefer rather not to talk which is much wiser most the times. And before you suspect me of being elitistic again: I am not a flying fish, except of very rare occasions. But these rare occasions were enough for me to know that they are reality, and also they are enough to know that flying fish are there and most times I recognize them immediately in their work even if I don't say it.

By now you must probably be entirely mad at me and see me as that strange forum uncle with spleeny ideas. From your point of view that might be true. Nevertheless I wish you many of these magic moments when you feel 'it'.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

You are much nicer than me Hannes. I just wish him to go away


----------



## Hannes_F

Jay, I want him to take advantage on the long hand - in a good way.


----------



## Musicologo

EastWest Lurker:


> Nonsense. There are commercial restaurants that serve high quality, non-gourmet faire, all of which taste different but good. Tons of them. And then there is McDonalds-Jack In The Box, etc. You cannot reduce it to either "pure" or "commercial" .



Well, I'm still not convinced that computers cannot produce fairly decent music... while mac donalds food may harm your health in the long run, I don't know if computer-composed music will harm more your health than amateur-composed music or student-composed music xD Besides, I believe it will be a process of improvement, since computers don't compose alone, they only compose what the programmers tells them too. Like there are fantastic sample libraries and cheap ones (and you work on that you should know!), there will be fantastic virtual-composers and cheap ones!... and I can't see anything wrong with that. The process to get there is what really counts for me!...


*Hannes*, one of my point in this discussions is that when you actually FEEL those moments (and I have some of those, passionate moments when I just know things not knowing why, or I just feel and get emotional, etc) instead of just thinking "wow!" I actually think "why did I FEEL that? What happened here?" or "Why do I get chills everytime this singer hit that note?" or "What happens for so many people like this music?"... I question, question a lot, all the time. And I try to come up with explanations for every of it. And some times those are VERY difficult to come up with!... Because some times there are things not easily translated with words.

But that doesn't mean I should not TRY it or learn more about it and find a way, that works, that I can actually explain it!...

Another recent hint: the problem of counsciousness is very hard to grasp and it is a totally open issue. First it were the philosophers trying to deal with that. Recently the neurosicentists become interested because they had technology and systems able to deal with the question. So they had TOOLS to approach the question for another point of view...

And now, guess what: Physics starts to deal with the problem too, because someone actually found an out-of-the-box formulation and "language" to approach the problem.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d


Once you come up with ways to describe and analyse your questions you can start to wonder about it!...

I'm trying to do that with music all the time. And using digital media to aid me. And so far I've had some results. My computer already composes some fine simple tunes that actually sound good, because I formalized some "ways of composing". Are they going to excel? Are they going to be brilliant? 

Probably not. Because a human being is WAY too complex to be reduced to numbers just like that (it may take many, many years). But, the effort is worthwhile and can produce interesting results, some of them "useful" (even if it is for background music or muzzak), and I learn a lot in the process...

And, maybe, why not, someday I can actually learn so much that I can actually start composing and producing really interesting music!...  So far I've been slowly improving, just gimme more 50 years so I can win my Pulitzer!


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Well, I'm still not convinced that computers cannot produce fairly decent music...



Why would you want them to? 

I bet that one day, computers will be able to simulate other "real life" human events like watching a sunrise, eating a good meal, taking a holiday at the beach... even sex.

But, there will always be one thing lacking... authenticity.

Science is wonderful, but it will never be able to replicate authentic human expression - in music or any other artistic endeavor.

I'll take the real thing any day.


----------



## midi_controller

@JohnG: All I asked for was something to back up these claims that people keep making. I guess that makes me the bad guy here, where we all need to take things on faith because people say so. I never said I was right, I said I went with the evidence, and that I could be totally and completely wrong, but no one ever substantiated their claims.

@Hannes_F: Of all the things you've just pointed to, I've not seen one that says I shouldn't look at the reasoning behind them and just accept them. What drives that intuition? Just because you can't describe something, does that mean there is no description for it? Aren't you curious at all?

@EastWest Lurker: And with that sentence, you've just lost all the respect I've ever had for you. You may not care, but I do, since I hate losing respect for people. But fine, as you wish, I'll go away. You can all talk amongst yourselves, congratulate each other on being superior to the rest of us and nod your heads about things you are certain you are right about but don't even seem to be able to articulate. I'm not going to sit here trying to help you guys understand why some people rely on basic deductive reasoning and why the scientific process is important and critical to the advancement of knowledge. I'll just continue to seek out answers, I love doing so, and hope that one day you might be able to share that too.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

It was a joke MC.


----------



## rgames

I haven't read most of the thread, so maybe this already came up, but here's a comment:

Applying scientific principles to music is not appropriate because there are not (at least nobody has yet found them) any basic underlying principles to be tested with a scientific approach. Defining "good" music is not a *predictive* process (at least not to date) - it is a *descriptive* process.

In other words, good music is not defined and then realized, it is realized and then defined.

True science works both backward and forward in time - scientific principles are *both* descriptive and predictive. Musical "goodness" or "quality" or whatever you want to call it has no predictive metric. Such a definition in music works only backward in time as a description of what people liked, it has never been predictive of what will be liked at some point in the future.

You need only to look at musical history for proof of that fact - history's greatest composers are those who at least partially re-wrote the rules that applied to the previous generation. For that reason, it is more appropriate to say that musical "quality" is more closely related to denying a scientific approach than supporting it.

rgames


----------



## David Story

Thanks Jay, Hannes, for being so eloquent on an elusive subject.

Isaac Newton occasionally tried to publish under another name. There were scientists that saw it was him immediately: "I recognize the Lion by his paw".

There is a quality to great creative minds that is both personal and universal. It's intangible, as all mysteries are. Yet very real. Not every work by Mozart is immediately recognizable, not everyone can sense his genius. Not everyone can see shades of ultraviolet, but it's real. Mozart's genius is real, and generations of people around the world recognize that quality. You might not.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to say, science is true whether or not you believe in it. Same for art. Art that contains truth and brilliance. Like JW, for example.

I spoke with Morten Lauridsen yesterday. He may appear as an ordinary person, and in some ways he is. When he starts to play the piano and sing, the world changes. He's beyond good, he's great. Not flashy or superficial. Profoundly true and a joy to experience. 

He's a great man. So great that other artists who have big egos defer to him. Cause Lauridsen is a musical genius, and everyone learns from genius.

Recognizing a higher level of talent, a higher level of truth, is essential for personal growth. 

In science, every discovery leads to new questions. Listening to music causes a number of changes in blood chemistry. Here's one example:http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/music-dopamine-happiness-brain-110110.htm
Explaining this one change will require many questions to be answered. There wont be an explanation of music. That's something you learn by studying with master artists, teachers and through self study. No formula.

As for computer made music, well, it aint got soul. 

I observed is that if you put bad music by a machine on the same program as bad music by a human, you get confusion. The opposite of the clarity great art brings. And there is no good art by algorithm, even with neural nets. Always sounds and more importantly feels random.

If we ever create self-aware computers, they will make art that is a mystery to themselves. Especially the good stuff.


----------



## re-peat

midi_controller @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> (...) the scientific process is important and critical to the advancement of knowledge.(...)


I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, Midi. It’s just that there are some of us who feel that there are certain things which human beings are capable of — music, humour, kindness, poetry, inspiration, grief, art, … — which aren’t completely dissectable by science alone (to a fascinating degree they can, sure, but not _completely_), nor can any new scientific understanding make these things mean more to us than they already do. 

Science has nothing to add to humour, apart from making it less funny. There is not going to be a “Eureka!”-moment that will make looking at Rembrandt’s self-portraits an even more intense experience than it already is. Science, we feel, can’t contribute anything to our understanding of the purely musical aspect of great music which will increase its intrinsic and/or perceived beauty. The spell which music has over so many of us can, up to a point, be scientifically explained — I don’t think anyone of us doubts that — but only up to a point. Beyond that, there is something else at work — something for which I don’t have a word but which is precisely the thing that causes music’s timeless enchantment — which falls well beyond the reach of clinical logic, rational scrutiny and scientific provability.

What it comes down to, I think, is that some of us think that science is not omni-scient and maybe never will be. And we're fine with that.

In that sense, I feel, and excuse me for saying so, that of all the participants here, you are perhaps the least 'scientific' one, refusing, as you do, to accept science's limitations and believing that every single human puzzle can and should be solved completely by science — and by science alone — and that a strict and rigorous scientific approach in these matters is the only valid one. 
That sort of thinking I find rather unscientific because it ignores what science can and above all can't do, and it also ignores the chaotic (and I use ‘chaotic’ in its scientific meaning), unpredictable, inconsistent, instinctive and spiritual side of the human identity. 
Man moves in mysterious ways, Midi, and some of us don't expect, nor need, to find the full explanation for that in science alone, that's all.

None of us questions, let alone mocks, the tremendous and world-changing importance of science, no one doubts that it changes our understanding of who we are on an almost daily basis, no one needs convincing of its spectacular achievements, but even so, we also feel that the enlightening power of science is not without its limits. Which, I’m quite sure, any true scientist will agree with. There is a place for everything, and while science, probably more than any other discipline, has a near endless territory to cover, the human mystery in music (or art, or humour, etc. …), we feel, is not its turf.

I still don’t quite understand how any of this can be labelled ‘disgusting’.

_


----------



## José Herring

Great post Piet, and I do mean that with all sincerity.

I will add this from personal experience.

Scientific observation can play an important roll in determining what is effective and what's not. Empirically speaking, and not in the kind of metaphysical way that I suspect that midi_controller is referring to.

Before I go to bed and head into Vi-control obscurity again. (got a ton of things on my mind these days so taking part in discussions is a bit too much to handle). I will offer these things that I've observed in case it might help anybody. Or, these things might just be purely obvious.

JW has said that there are two components that go into stellar music making. a) The composition and b) the performance. I would also add the production, but I'll leave that out for now.

In my experience playing numerous pieces by various established and neophyte composers I've observed this. And, it's as close to empirical is I've ever gotten in music:

1) You can take a mediocre piece and execute it in performance to the highest degree possible and still create a great artistic effect.

2) You can take a brilliantly written piece and perform it so poorly that all brilliance is lost on the listener.

3) You can take a poorly written piece, played by the best players excellently and it can still be a miserable failure. :lol:

So I have noticed in all great works of art that not only are they brilliantly written, but they are written in a way, that no matter how challenging, can eventually be performed well. 

It springs to mind Nielsen's Clarinet Concerto. By all accounts should be a great piece, but it's so awkward to execute that almost all of it's brilliance is lost in performance. Though I still love it.

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


----------



## Guy Rowland

Yeah, great post Piet.

For most of my life I've rubbished philosophy as pointless navel-gazing meandering (heaven forfend). Eventually I came to very reluctantly accept that if pretty much anything is discussed with enough depth, you end up at philosophy.

I have a great book, Quantum Questions, which is an anthology of the writings of 8 of the greatest physicists of the 20th century (Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, Schroedinger etc). All, the editor argued, had a mystical worldview, in that all understood the limits of their science. The appreciation of art (or, more controversially, religion / spirituality) cannot be the domain of science, even though science can describe all sorts of valuable and fascinating things about art. 

I'm pretty sure that my earlier example of redness came from that book - although redness can be scientifically described to great precision, science can not inform of the thing itself. The only way for a colourblind person to actually experience what red is - assuming the defect was in the eye or optic nerve - would not be to read up everything about it as it would not in any way inform of the nature of the thing iself, but to get someone else's eyes and optic nerve and plug it into the person's own brain. At once a gruesome but astonishing thought.

So to me, Piet, your post leads to a further conclusion. Intellectual analysis - conscious or otherwise - is more in the domain of science than of art. That's why I have a different definition of artisitc appreciation to yourself. It can deepen appreciation of how something is constructed and be valuable and provide joy and marvel at the skills involved, but it cannot truly deepen appreciation of The Thing Itself, which is an experience that lies outside intellectual analysis. 

One often hears of learning how to "read" a film, a term and a process that fills me with misery. A film isn't meant to be read, it is meant to be watched (and listened to). Of course I understand that there is an intellectual process to be gone through in terms of academic (or hobbyist) learning about craft, and that can be valuable, but I think its a logical fallacy to say that only by going through this process can one more fully appreciate a film. The disengagement with the emotional response is the critical flaw - art isn't about science, but it certainly has to do with emotion. But I realise that's where we fundamentally differ - you have the emotional response as distinct from the artistic appreciation, I say the emotional response IS the artistic appreciation, and academic appreciation is something else again, however profound that may be in an of itself.

Does any of this matter? Well, sort of. My conjecture is that when Beethoven wrote his works, if he was thinking of an audience at all, it wasn't one purely of other incredibly talented composers. It lessens art itself to reduce it to this level. I guess I'm non-elitist in that I think art is for all. Opera is for the Shawshank inmates. Appreciation can be superficial or profound and still not be academic in nature.


----------



## AC986

josejherring @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> I've learned so much from Bach even though i totally suck.



Then it's totally impossible to suck.  

Everyone who attempts to make music a career or a hobby should be made to study Bach for at least an hour a day or face ridicule!! 

Anyone who wishes to learn an instrument properly HAS to play Bach early on or face punishment!! 

Handel works too in a more commercial way.

And I would add that even if we write music that has been made extremely simple by our own choice, a grounding of Bach will help that simplicity to work in a far more satisfying way than otherwise.

Guys like Thomas Newman and John Williams I'm sure, probably spent a lot of time playing Bach at one time or another. This does not mean that what they write is steeped in counterpoint or has to weave some sort of complicated Baroque web, but I would bet it has helped, even subliminally, enormously with their fluidity if writing techniques.


----------



## re-peat

I agree with all that, Guy. 

The problem with writing one’s thoughts down, is that you have to somehow squeeze them into those sentences which you’re capable of writing. And despite managing a decent paragraph or two in English, I still am much too poor and clumsy a writer to be able to fully convey — accurately, thoroughly and concisely — the “flock of butterflies”-like whirlwind of my thoughts and views, especially when it comes to vague, complex and inexact areas such as the one we are discussing here. And that often reduces those thoughts and viewpoints, once written down, to a mere and sadly unnuanced and one-dimensional shadow of what they actually are.

It may appear from my previous posts that I’m very set and inflexible in my ideas on how I approach art and listen to music and such, but I’m not. Anything but, in fact. I’m often more like a child actually, a child visiting the circus for the first time, overwhelmed and breathless with wonder and amazement, or like a young dog let loose in a wide field: curious, excited, undisciplined, eager to hear, see, smell everything … That is very much how I listen to music a lot. And at other times, yes, I may be a bit more analytical and intellectual about the whole thing. But it’s not one or the other with me. It never was, it never will be. And I always do need both for the experience to be complete.

There is actually something rather circus-like in the interaction between music and myself: on the one hand, it has organisation and a healthy amount of strict disclipine and self-control (otherwise the program would have no structure, the acts would be boring, the animals might escape and the high-wire acrobats might plummet to their death), but on the other hand it also explodes with sheer emotion, bravoura, magic, passion, anarchy and antiestablishmentarianism. And that’s what I like, and that’s who I am, and that’s also how I really feel and think about all of this.
A layer of chaos, impulse, instinct and raw emotion on top of (and often in conflict with) a layer of order, intellect, restraint, analysis and abstraction. Dionysus and Appolo. Music itself is like that. And so is my response to it. 

Even my views on objectivity and subjectivity are not nearly as fixed as I wrote them out. Personally, I feel that music can reach a level, yes, where its beauty becomes indeed so ‘absolute’ that mine or anyone else’s subjective abilities to appreciate it, or not, become irrelevant. It is there for anyone who wants and who can enjoy it. That’s what I mean by its objective quality. 
But of course, there plenty of subjectivity in all of this as well. The simple fact that art has to be absorbed by an individual makes in instantly a subjective affair, because in one way or another we all act like filters and amplifiers — and very individually tuned ones at that —, and the things which I filter and/or amplify are unlikely to be the same things that you’d filter and amplify.

All this to say: I do have a perspective in all of this, but it’s not so much from a fixed spot as it is from a spinning merry-go-round.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

A lot of this discussion about the "science of art" reeks of college dorms to me.

I remember Paul Simon telling an interviewer that he is embarrassed by the pretentiousness ness of some of his early lyrics like "The Dangling Conversation."

He said something like, "Look I was young and a recently graduated English major. That's what I thought sophisticated thinking was."

SO, I guess I view the discussion as sophomoric in the literal, not the pejorative, sense and have had less patience with the point of view of Midi Controller and Musiclogo than I perhaps should have had.

I want science to cure cancer. I don't need it to tell me why Mozart is great. He is great because he is great and people, musicians and no-miusicians have intuited that for centuries.


----------



## AC986

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> I remember Paul Simon telling an interviewer that he is embarrassed by the pretentiousness ness of some of his early lyrics like "The Dangling Conversation."



Yeah he was.

He and his wife were in court yesterday I see. The pair of them were having a fracas in their house late at night. Apparently they were arguing about this thread and it all boiled over.


----------



## Hannes_F

midi_controller @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> ... trying to help you guys understand why some people rely on basic deductive reasoning ...



midi_controller, I don't think that all of us don't understand deductive reasoning. I for example have worked many years in fundamental research in experimental physics and have found deductive reasoning to be a most valuable tool, for example in typical troubleshooting situations.

However it is important to notice that deduction is only _one _tool of several, and most certainly not the only valid one. There is a saying: If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail. This seems to happen a lot - since deductive reasoning has its undisputed merits it is applied to anything, in any situation, and exclusively.

However a structural weakness of deductive reasoning is this: _If at any point there is an error either in the premises or in the reasoning itself, and be it ever so tiny, it can cause all the conclusions from there on to be completely wrong._

And if you really think about it there are a lot of premises that a seemingly precise and scientific world view might be based on. These are some typical examples: 

(1) that nature can be described as functions and operations of matter
(2) that matter exists by itself
(3) that our matter is the only matter there is
(4) that consciousness consists of material operations 
(list not complete)

These premises are highly controversial today, none of them are proven. Actually there are strong arguments that speak against them. I'll pick two examples:
For a reference to (2) see e.g. the book "Es gibt keine Materie!" (translated: "There is no matter!" by Hans-Peter Dürr if you can read german. 
http://www.amazon.de/gibt-keine-Materie-Hans-Peter-D%C3%BCrr/dp/3861910284/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398787870&sr=8-1&keywords=es+gibt+keine+materie (http://www.amazon.de/gibt-keine-Materie ... ne+materie)
Hans Peter Dürr is a former co-worker and successor of Werner Heisenberg, one of the fathers of quantum physics. I have met him serveral times and discussed some of the topics in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Peter_D%C3%BCrr

For a reference to (3) see the current discussion about dark matter. It seems as if the forces acting on our matter only come from our matter itself in a very small percentage and the rest comes from widely unknown sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Include these into your deductive reasoning and then we could begin to really talk in a scientific manner in the sense of the word.

Now, despite the premises mentioned above are highly slippery still often whenever a phenomenon can (seemingly) be described by reducing it to a combination of some of these premises it is perceived as 'scientific progress'.

One example that might be well known to you is the Libet experiment and its conclusions. In short, this experiment is showing some brain activity before a test decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
The result of this experiment has been hailed in the scientific yellow press (and in the usual press) as the final proof for premise #4, because it seemingly showed that 'free will' should be an illusion played by the brain. In combination that would then be one more proof for premise #1. Which would then in consequence include that everything, even music and genius, could be described as originating from material functions.

However especially with such an important topic it is crucial not to negate the fundamental criticism at the interpretation of this experiment, beginning with the critisism of Benjamin Libet himself. Again I have to point to the german edition of Wikipedia here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libet-Experiment

For me what actually is a kind of unconscious latency compensation related to physical actions incorporating the body inertia has been grossly mis-interpretated here. We are used to anticipate physical movements in order to be in time. Do a countdown for somebody to walk and you will notice that he unconscously will move his center of gravity before in order to be able to walk on 'zero'. It is not possible otherwise, and all our consciousness endowment is so trained for this that it blends these actions into one. Other examples would be conductors conducting ahead of time, organ players playing in advance, tennis players to haul off, wind and brass players to inhale and find the lip position, string players to move the bow in advance for staccato notes. Latency compensation is everywhere, we can't evade it. And as our cognition of time is highly subjective we are used to blend several incidents into one.

Now this latency compensation that has its traces in the brain activity has been taken as a proof for allegedly denying the freedom of will and even the responsibility for actions. This is a classical example already of the typical jumping to conclusions without checking other possibilities - as long as it goes along the lines of 'proving that consciousness is a function of matter'. See how garbled the results of deductive reasoning can be: highly adventurous conclusions based on unproven (and even unlikely) premises, denying all and everything that is not material ... and in it's consequences utterly wrong.

This is why deductive reasoning really needs to be put to its place - a good tool but only if completed by inductive reasoning and the rest of possibilities that we have. Some of those have been mentioned above already, so I'll shorten this post here.


----------



## Hannes_F

Musicologo @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> Another recent hint: the problem of counsciousness is very hard to grasp and it is a totally open issue. First it were the philosophers trying to deal with that. Recently the neurosicentists become interested because they had technology and systems able to deal with the question. So they had TOOLS to approach the question for another point of view...
> 
> And now, guess what: Physics starts to deal with the problem too, because someone actually found an out-of-the-box formulation and "language" to approach the problem.
> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d



Musicologo, conscousness will always be hard to grasp as long as if you try to explain it as a function of matter. Especially as matter per se does not even exist. See my post above for more reference.

From there it is more self-evident to ask whether not rather matter is a function of consciousness. Actually quite some physicists have been approaching it that way. One more german reference, sorry:
http://www.amazon.de/Physik-Transzendenz-Physiker-Begegnung-Wunderbaren/dp/3932130243/ref=pd_cp_b_0 (http://www.amazon.de/Physik-Transzenden ... =pd_cp_b_0)
(translation: Physics and transcendency. The great physicists of our century and their encounter with the wonderful).

You'll find many highly illuminative texts by Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck and others. A who-is-who of quantum physics.

In regards to the approach mentioned in your link - it is one of many but don't overlook this:


----------



## José Herring

Very well thought out Hannes. At least what I could understand. 

Also in the creation of artistic works, heuristic discovery plays a big roll. 
_
involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods_ :mrgreen:


----------



## PMortise

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> It was a joke MC.


Careful Jay - you may have to prove it. :lol:



> I want science to cure cancer. I don't need it to tell me why Mozart is great. He is great because he is great and people, musicians and no-miusicians have intuited that for centuries.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA (Word-up.)


----------



## Musicologo

Hannes_F and Piet: THANK YOU! uff.

Finally I've seen "something" I can be satisfied with. Something about the premises and the logical involved in the argumentation on Why should we disagree.


> There is a place for everything, and while science, probably more than any other discipline, has a near endless territory to cover, the human mystery in music (or art, or humour, etc. …), we feel, is not its turf.



After reading your concerns about how you feel science has limitations and is not able to fully grasp the phenomenon of music, neither it is useful tool to describe it for you, I might disagree with that at some levels.

I think science provides us models. reductionist models. and gives us lots of hints. And I think I was very clear when I say my goal is to work with models and to use computers as aid, as a mathematician uses a calculator and how we nowadays use sample libraries to replace real musicians, in some contexts. Science provides me useful tools to replace or mimic things otherwise I wouldn't have access to.

Also, for me analysis and science ENHANCE the musical experience. I will give a very basic concrete example regarding simple music theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mkRwkQRoQ&feature=kp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mkRwkQRoQ&amp;feature=kp)

When I listen to this I am moved and touched and surprised. All those twirls of emotion typical in any song you find great. When I try to "dissect" WHY I've found that one particular moment (among many others) were specially touching: at 1:10 when she says "when I'm down and feeling BLUE". 
And then I wondered, "what is happening in that moment? What makes this effect in me?". When I do an harmonic analysis I've realized that at that point she uses a strong ambiguous BSus4 chord not seen so far in the progression. And it was "ah!"...
Ok, knowing that particular piece of information doesn't change exactly my emotional experience about the song, neither I'm thinking about chords when I'm listening freely to it. But at least now I know a _reproducible trick_ that can be implemented in other songs to create a similar effect and I have some "peace of mind" because I have a "logical explanation" to "why I think I am moved". It may be a reductionist one, but it works for me. and it enhances my experience overall.

And for me, science in music is all about this. Finding patterns, building abstractions, programming clichés. It can be harmony, melody, intervals, glissandi, timbral effects, a myriad of combined things that make up "something that works at an emotional level". And knowing these patterns and describing them as numbers is useful to use them in future creations, to *perfect the craft*. If I never analyzed those things it would be ALL trial and error!... And I don't find that satisfactory.

Hannes_F: I really appreciate that you took all the effort to write what you did. You clearly explained your doubts regarding the limitations and flaws of some scientific approaches and provided references. That is something I can understand.
It's totally different saying "your reasoning is flawed because it is" than saying "your premises may be flawed at point X,Y,Z.".

That's why I keep saying most of these long discussions are about semantics and misconceptions and ill-defined premises or ideas. We need to be discussing the SAME things and speaking the same language if we want to get somewhere all along.

Finally, going back to the OP JW topic and Piet reasoning:



> Personally, I feel that music can reach a level, yes, where its beauty becomes indeed so ‘absolute’ that mine or anyone else’s subjective abilities to appreciate it, or not, become irrelevant. It is there for anyone who wants and who can enjoy it. That’s what I mean by its objective quality.
> But of course, there plenty of subjectivity in all of this as well. The simple fact that art has to be absorbed by an individual makes in instantly a subjective affair,



This seems contraditory. It is like the tree in the forest making sound or not. Piet believes in an IDEAL objectivity that is "there, above everything". but each of us can only grasp it with our limited senses, therefore it will always be subjective.

Well, if no one can perceive that objectivity (because we all have a filter - our senses) then is it really there?...

And then we enter the redness and all similar arguments. Is the red really there? No what is there are vibrations, they only become RED when seen by our eyes and interpreted by our brain. before that they are only wavelengths.

The same with JW music, or anyone else's music. They are just vibrations, a bunch of wavelengths.

They only become MUSIC in each other's heads.

And because I have this conception - that there is not an "ideal version", because _vibrations are not music_, I cannot accept Piet's vision. We differ in the premise, in the concept of what music is. For me it is only music when it is interpreted, as such, in the mind of each beholder, therefore ALWAYS subjective and with no intrinsic value or existence.

P.S. If music had independent existence and intrinsic value, then it would exist regardless of human ears. We can imagine a catastrophe where human beings were wiped out of earth. But a record keeps playing JW in a stereo... it is playing music?... My answer is: No. If there are no humans to ear it, then it is playing vibrations. 
A dog, a whale, etc ears different frequencies than we do, they interpret vibrations different than we do. What is music for us, might not be for them, etc... Music is a human peculiar interpretation of some vibrations.
Some vibrations are interpreted as sound. Inside sound, some are interpreted as music and others as noise. That is the main concept. If we don't agree in this point, then anything we build on top of it, might be flawed.


----------



## Rv5

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> I want science to cure cancer. I don't need it to tell me why Mozart is great. He is great because he is great and people, musicians and no-miusicians have intuited that for centuries.



Understanding music and the brain has lead to "science" (rather broad field...) helping stroke victims and the recovery of premature babies. Studying how music affects the human brain leads to huge benefits for a large number of people for example children with sensory issues as well as children with autism, i.e. development and well-being. I've never seen a published paper studying music and the brain that does not acknowledge music is a great unknown, and the research is offering a _possible_ explanation of something little understood.


----------



## BachRules

Musicologo @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> ... A dog, a whale, etc ears different frequencies than we do, they interpret vibrations different than we do. What is music for us, might not be for them, etc... Music is a human peculiar interpretation of some vibrations.


But individual humans hear different frequencies from each other, and each individual human interprets vibrations in his own peculiar way; and yet the occurrence of perfect fifths in compositions is phenomenally frequent.


----------



## cmillar

If John Williams were to read this, he'd probably get a chuckle.... or just shake his head.

Writing music for media (film, etc.... even music for the Olympic Games) is so different than being a composer who just sits down and has the freedom to stare at a blank piece of scorepaper and say "hmm.... what should I compose today?"

John Williams (among others) has proven to be a master of the art and craft of composing film music. And some of his music will probably be remembered, enjoyed, and played for centuries, just as some music of Mozart's or Beethoven's.

As the great LA trumpet player Malcom McNab (arguably THE greatest trumpet player in the world) said in a recent interview: (I paraphrase his sentiments) ".... so who cares is some of his music sounded a bit like 'The Planets' or whatever?.... that's what was wanted and required.....JW is the ultimate artistic crafstman and always gets the job done..... he knows how to compose for an orchestra and the players.... he's the best at what he does."

And.... music comes first... then comes the theory and analysis..... Bach breaks all his own 'rules' very regularly ! Analyze it !

A computer couldn't compose what JW is capable of doing, or Zimmer, or Horner, Morricone, the Newmans, the great BBC composers, the great European media composers, Takemitsu, or what Goldsmith did, what Michel Colombier did, Bernard Herrmann, David Raksin, etc. etc. 

Anyways..... back to work myself.... I might find myself asking ".... hmm.... what would JW do here?.... Michel Colombier?.....etc. etc."

Maybe even Holst, Debussy, Wagner, Verdi.... we're very lucky indeed to have so many great artists to be influenced by. 

Keeps us evolving with natural intelligence..... no 'artificial intelligence'.


----------



## cmillar

Another thought...

No two people will ever compose the same music, as their are too many factors at play (social, cultural, upbringing, past musical influences, etc. ) .

We are like snowflakes ! There aren't any two of us who are alike.

Even if we all use the 12-tone system, and even if we are all given the exact same tone-row to begin with, we'll all come up with something different!

You don't need a computer to come up with variations! People are varied enough!


----------



## BachRules

This thread is interesting thread to me, because I'm currently developing algorithms which compose music, and if what I'm attempting is futile, I'd like to know it, so I don't waste my time. If there's evidence in this thread that computers can't compose music, I've missed it.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> And.... music comes first... then comes the theory and analysis.....


I've created (or discovered) theories which preceded music, so I don't understand why you believe this?



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> Bach breaks all his own 'rules' very regularly ! Analyze it !


What are Bach's rules which he breaks? I've found rules written by some composers, but none written by Bach; how do you know his rules?



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> You don't need a computer....


For me, the question isn't whether a computer is necessary; it's whether a computer is sufficient.


----------



## artsoundz

Rv5 @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want science to cure cancer. I don't need it to tell me why Mozart is great. He is great because he is great and people, musicians and no-miusicians have intuited that for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding music and the brain has lead to "science" (rather broad field...) helping stroke victims and the recovery of premature babies. Studying how music affects the human brain leads to huge benefits for a large number of people for example children with sensory issues as well as children with autism, i.e. development and well-being. I've never seen a published paper studying music and the brain that does not acknowledge music is a great unknown, and the research is offering a _possible_ explanation of something little understood.
Click to expand...


http://www.policymic.com/articles/89363/science-shows-how-drummers-brains-are-actually-different-from-everybody-elses (http://www.policymic.com/articles/89363 ... body-elses)


Quote from Piet "Science has nothing to add to humour, apart from making it less funny"

Not true. The mulitverse theory, for example. Reality consists of many unverses, alternate realities where all possible outcomes exist. Professor Stephen Hawkings has much to say about this.
I read that and called dominos and ordered 15 anchovy puzzas to be delivered to Stephen Hawking.
Of course, I then canceled the order knowing that in at least one alternate reality, the pizzas were delivered to a perplexed Stephen Hawking.

Now that's funny. Thanks and a hat tip to science.


----------



## cmillar

BachRules @ Sun May 18 said:


> This thread is interesting thread to me, because I'm currently developing algorithms which compose music, and if what I'm attempting is futile, I'd like to know it, so I don't waste my time. If there's evidence in this thread that computers can't compose music, I've missed it.
> 
> -----With all due respect, because I don't know you and what you do or what your main interest is, but my first reaction to your efforts is simply "Why?"
> 
> Why not try to put the computer to better use.... such as trying to create scientific calculations that might help solve world hunger or something like that? Maybe create another 'Voyager-like' spacecraft that can carry real art and real music out into the stars to show other lifeforms that there is (or was) something created by living, breathing organisms on a planet called Earth.
> 
> Are you a musician? Do you know what 'serial' music is? Non-emotional, calculated music has been tried. It's not that captivating to most people.
> 
> Are you trying to prove something about Artificial Intelligence?
> 
> 
> 
> cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.... music comes first... then comes the theory and analysis.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------Most indigenous peoples haven't waited for science to help them create any art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bach breaks all his own 'rules' very regularly ! Analyze it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are Bach's rules which he breaks? I've found rules written by some composers, but none written by Bach; how do you know his rules?
> 
> - --------by this, I mean that we are taught in traditional music theory that you can't have 'parrallel fifths', certain types of voice-leading movement, etc. A lot of traditional music theory uses Bach chorales as the 'holy grail' of music. We can look at Bach's music, and there are many instances where he was 'breaking the rules'. Even at Bach's time, western music theory had been developing and he knew what other composers had been doing before him to some extant.
> 
> 
> 
> cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a computer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me, the question isn't whether a computer is necessary; it's whether a computer is sufficient.
Click to expand...


------Sufficient for what? Creating non-emotional music? Music to be created by special programming? Music to be enjoyed by other computers?

-----Anyways, with all due respect, most artists, composers, choreographers, film makers, etc. etc. .... we're all trying to 'program' ourselves to be receptive to inspiration from many different sources.... Great Spirit, God, nature, coffeed working on our brain cells, a book we've read, a movie we've seen, a bird we heard singing, a lady out hanging her laundry singing a melody she's just making up, listening to a great jazz soloist, hearing Bach cello suites, ....... 

Will your computer hear a bird sing and get inspired to create some music?

Let us know how it's going! Good luck....... don't know if I helped you answer your initial question or not, though.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I just watched the movie "Her" last night. For all those who are thinking along these lines, you might find it raises some interesting questions without providing specific answers. I know where I come down but others might well not.


----------



## cmillar

Just watched the trailer for 'Her', and yes, it looks interesting and thought provoking.

A couple other thoughts...

- I believe trying to create a computer that can 'create' music will prove to be a pointless undertaking; or at least, it will be endlessly frustrating and could lead to a complete mental breakdown for the programmer involved ! (with all due respect to you that are trying to create a computer program that can compose music.)

- we don't know who or what created our known universe, and I don't think any of us will ever truly know or understand the 'why's' and the 'how's' of this big mystery. We've been trying for a long, long time, and even with the most advanced scientific instruments, all we're discovering is "the more we know, the more we realize the less we know !"

- there are too many variables involved in analyzing the creative process. All the possible parameters, influences, 'muses', etc. etc. can never be accounted for. Every single human in every different culture from every part of this planet, as well as probably any other life form out there in the universe will have a different enough set of circumstances in their life that will affect how they view things, how they are inspired, or how or why they might 'create' music, if they are even inclined to do so.

But, then again, what do I know? I have enough trouble trying to keep up with all the parameters in my v.i.'s and other software!

I'm just saying that the great mystery of how one creates and composes music (or most other artistic endeavors) will never be able to be contained in a computer program. There are simply an infinite number of variables and possibilities.


----------



## Hannes_F

BachRules @ Sun May 18 said:


> This thread is interesting thread to me, because I'm currently developing algorithms which compose music, and if what I'm attempting is futile, I'd like to know it, so I don't waste my time. If there's evidence in this thread that computers can't compose music, I've missed it.



To be fair some here think it is possible and some think it is not. There are arguments for both and while I think it is not really possible you will find arguments on the pro side in this thread:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... t=#3787406
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... t=#3787367


----------



## Musicologo

For me it's not a matter of a computer can create music or not. That's just plain ignorance of what already exists.

A computer is a calculator and can generate music based on some kind of previously seeded material and a set of complex rules. This is a fact. Nowadays you have countless pieces of software that create music out of numbers or seeds. Check out Brian Eno's Bloom for instance: 

http://www.generativemusic.com/



And you have all DAvid Cope's experiences, etc, etc...

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm



http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/263924/


The only question is: does the music it creates meaningful? Is it "beautiful"? Is it "complex enough"? does it "sound good"?...

Then, it's a matter of degree, like in humans. 

Computers mainly generate MIDI information. So the quality of the sound depends on the libraries and effects the programmer assign on top of that midi. So that is highly variable - if my program generates piano music to be played by your mac synth will sound bad, but if I route my program to a Sampled steinway with a decent EQ and reverb it will sound good...

The quality of the MIDI itself (the score, symbolic information), is again, dependable on how complex was the program conceived. I've already made some simple programs that generate beautiful minimalistic piano music in the style of Satie that I love. I could listen to that all day. Some others might not find that style exciting... Also we have to add a "performative layer" on top of that midi information, mainly to simulate a human playing, which is another different and difficult task...

On the other hand with time, patience and depth, some others might program entire orchestral works, David Cope programmed Beethoven 10th symphony or even an Opera!... So it really depends on your time and patience...

It also depends on the quality of algorithms and degree of deviation.
You might argue that a computer will NEVER be as insightful and non predictable as a human... again, it really depends on complexity, processing time and time span. A very complex artificial intelligence might be cumbersome to program, but in 20 years time there might be more efficient algorithms, we're building on top of already existing programs, etc... 

In the end: it's not a matter of "they can or they can't" it's more a matter of "how far can they go? how meaningful can they become?" and we don't have a precise answer for that. It took until 2000's for a computer to beat humans in chess but they got there... I have no idea if they will ever beat humans in "tonal music" game, whatever that might mean. Also, again relativism, what is "meaningful music" to me might not be to you. That's why I left some pages ago the mp3 provided by DAvid Cope for each one to judge... I can tell you by Turing Test that those compositions sound pretty decent to me - if anyone told me they were composed by any composition student trying to compose in the style of Bach or Chopin I would believe that... I've heard humans compose much worse than that... on the other hand, others might still find those computer mp3 rather poor... I guess it's on a case by case basis.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Please don't resurrect this thread. Please. :cry:


----------



## Musicologo

Ok, I'll close my arguments here, I've said more than enough, and I'll drop the link on another thread...


----------



## BachRules

marclawsonmusic @ Mon May 19 said:


> Please don't resurrect this thread. Please. :cry:


Who’s making you read it?



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> BachRules @ Sun May 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is interesting thread to me, because I'm currently developing algorithms which compose music, and if what I'm attempting is futile, I'd like to know it, so I don't waste my time. If there's evidence in this thread that computers can't compose music, I've missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, because I don't know you and what you do or what your main interest is, but my first reaction to your efforts is simply "Why?"
Click to expand...

For money, as a profession. 



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> Why not try to put the computer to better use.... such as trying to create scientific calculations that might help solve world hunger or something like that?


I don’t assume those uses would be “better”. I believe hunger is nature’s way of curing overpopulation, so “solving” hunger would be evil, and I don’t want to commit the evil which you’re advocating, with all due respect. Most people using computers aren’t using them to stop world hunger, so you might ask just about anyone “why” they’re doing whatever they’re doing with a computer.



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> Maybe create another 'Voyager-like' spacecraft that can carry real art and real music out into the stars to show other lifeforms that there is (or was) something created by living, breathing organisms on a planet called Earth.


It had never occurred to me to try that, but now that you mention it, I’m not concerned with what aliens think about Earth, plus my having no idea how to create spacecrafts. This seems like the very last way I might succeed professionally.



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> Do you know what 'serial' music is?


I do.



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> Non-emotional, calculated music has been tried. It's not that captivating to most people.


I figure the problem there isn’t with calculations per se, but with the specific calculations serialists are using. Not all calculations are the same, so why couldn’t non-serialist calculations produce more captivating results?



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> Are you trying to prove something about Artificial Intelligence?


That’s not my purpose, though I guess it could be a side-effect if I succeeded.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> BachRules @ Sun May 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bach breaks all his own 'rules' very regularly ! Analyze it !
> 
> 
> 
> What are Bach's rules which he breaks? I've found rules written by some composers, but none written by Bach; how do you know his rules?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - by this, I mean that we are taught in traditional music theory that you can't have 'parallel fifths', certain types of voice-leading movement, etc. A lot of traditional music theory uses Bach chorales as the 'holy grail' of music. We can look at Bach's music, and there are many instances where he was 'breaking the rules'. Even at Bach's time, western music theory had been developing and he knew what other composers had been doing before him to some extent.
Click to expand...

So when you say “Bach breaks all his own rules”, you mean Bach breaks all your music-theory teacher’s rules? This doesn’t tell me my computer can’t make music; it just tells me that your music-theory teacher misunderstood Bach’s rules. Bach shouldn’t be accused of breaking “his own” rules, just because he broke some random theorist’s rules, with all due respect.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> BachRules @ Sun May 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a computer....
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the question isn't whether a computer is necessary; it's whether a computer is sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sufficient for what?
Click to expand...

Sufficient for making music which sells.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> Most indigenous peoples haven't waited for science to help them create any art.


I’m trying, as my professional goal, to make more money than indigenous peoples.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> Will your computer hear a bird sing and get inspired to create some music?


No.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> Creating non-emotional music?


The music will be in the form of WAV files—just sequences of 1’s and 0’s. I’m venturing that the customers won’t be able to tell whether the 1’s and 0’s were created by a human or by a computer:



> The ELIZA effect, in computer science, is the tendency to unconsciously assume computer behaviors are analogous to human behaviors.
> 
> In its specific form, the ELIZA effect refers only to "the susceptibility of people to read far more understanding than is warranted into strings of symbols....strung together by computers".... More generally, the ELIZA effect describes any situation where, based solely on a system's output, users perceive computer systems as having "intrinsic qualities and abilities which the software controlling the cannot possibly achieve".... In both its specific and general forms, the ELIZA effect is notable for occurring even when users of the system are aware of the determinate nature of output produced by the system. From a psychological standpoint, the ELIZA effect is the result of a subtle cognitive dissonance between the user's awareness of programming limitations and their behavior towards the output of the program. The discovery of the ELIZA effect was an important development in artificial intelligence....
> 
> The effect is named for the 1966 chatterbot ELIZA.... ELIZA's DOCTOR script was found to be surprisingly successful in eliciting emotional responses from users who, in the course of interacting with the program, began to ascribe understanding and motivation to the program's output.... As Weizenbaum later wrote, "... extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people."...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

When the 1’s and 0’s end up in the WAV file, I don’t think the listeners will be able to tell how much emotion went into the 1’s and 0’s, and the listeners will still be free to project their own emotions onto the 1’s and 0’s, as tends to happen.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> Anyways, with all due respect, most artists, composers, choreographers, film makers, etc. etc. .... *we're all* trying to 'program' ourselves to be receptive to inspiration from many different sources.... Great Spirit, God, nature, coffeed working on our brain cells, a book we've read, a movie we've seen, a bird we heard singing, a lady out hanging her laundry singing a melody she's just making up, listening to a great jazz soloist, hearing Bach cello suites, .......


That doesn’t describe me. I don’t meet your conception of “we all”, nor do I care to, with all due respect.



cmillar @ Sun May 18 said:


> Are you a musician?


I don’t meet your conception of “composer” which you just described.



cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> - I believe trying to create a computer that can 'create' music will prove to be a pointless undertaking; or at least, it will be endlessly frustrating and could lead to a complete mental breakdown for the programmer involved ! (with all due respect to you that are trying to create a computer program that can compose music.)


With all due respect, David Cope seems to be disproving your assumption about programmers having breakdowns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope

I studied artificial intelligence in school, and despite your pessimism, there was really no problem of mental breakdowns among people programming computers to do new things. I believe it is the naysayers here who are most at risk of having a mental breakdown, with all due respect.



cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> - we don't know who or what created our known universe, and I don't think any of us will ever truly know or understand the 'why's' and the 'how's' of this big mystery. We've been trying for a long, long time, and even with the most advanced scientific instruments, all we're discovering is "the more we know, the more we realize the less we know !"


That’s what the naysayers told Newton and Einstein, but Newton and Einstein went ahead and came up with equations describing phenomena which were formerly mysterious. Scientists and engineers don’t really need to understand how the universe was created in order to earn money. It suffices, for professional purposes, to create theories or products which people value. That’s how Einstein, Newton, and countless other scientists have managed professionally, despite not knowing exactly how the universe was created.



cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> - there are too many variables involved in analyzing the creative process. All the possible parameters, influences, 'muses', etc. etc. can never be accounted for. Every single human in every different culture from every part of this planet, as well as probably any other life form out there in the universe will have a different enough set of circumstances in their life that will affect how they view things, how they are inspired, or how or why they might 'create' music, if they are even inclined to do so…. I'm just saying that the great mystery of how one creates and composes music (or most other artistic endeavors) will never be able to be contained in a computer program. There are simply an infinite number of variables and possibilities.


A composer can succeed professionally without understanding “every single human in every different culture from every part of this planet”. Bach and Beethoven didn’t understand how the universe was created, and they didn’t understand “the creative process” of space aliens and indigenous peoples, but they went ahead anyway and composed music which sold. A computer program can succeed professionally, as long as it makes WAV files which sell. For that, there’s no need for any grand-unified-theory.



cmillar @ Sat May 17 said:


> Let us know how it's going! Good luck....... don't know if I helped you answer your initial question or not, though.


Thank you. It’s helpful hearing your perspective. I can see why you personally don’t want to program a computer to make music, though I still find computer-composition a worthwhile endeavor for myself.

The mods have set it so I can write no more than one post on vi-control per day, so if I don’t reply further, it’s only because of their actions. I’ll continue reading, in case anyone posts evidence that computers can’t make music which sells.


----------



## artsoundz

Folks, get used to it. It's absolutely going to happen within our lifetimes. 
It may take longer for music w/vocals but for instrumental music- absolutely gonna happen. Few will be able to distinguish between puter music and humans. 

Personally, Im not prepared for that kind of future. Drones everywhere in our skies delivering packages, computer music. Any form of matter including food constructed at the molecular,atomic level- hunger eliminated( good one-but the outcome of that could be a lot of babies)
Lifespan extended to hundreds of years...ok, that one's not so bad....
Maybe if were lucky people will be turned off by that kind of "progress". Witness Segway, google glass. I think the drones delivering pkgs will piss people off.


----------



## cmillar

cmillar @ Sat May 17, 2014 3:52 pm wrote:
Anyways, with all due respect, most artists, composers, choreographers, film makers, etc. etc. .... we're all trying to 'program' ourselves to be receptive to inspiration from many different sources.... Great Spirit, God, nature, coffeed working on our brain cells, a book we've read, a movie we've seen, a bird we heard singing, a lady out hanging her laundry singing a melody she's just making up, listening to a great jazz soloist, hearing Bach cello suites, .......

That doesn’t describe me. I don’t meet your conception of “we all”, nor do I care to, with all due respect.

cmillar @ Sun May 18, 2014 3:01 pm wrote:
Are you a musician?

I don’t meet your conception of “composer” which you just described.

>>>>>>>>>

--Well, your answers are quite revealing, but at least you're honest. 

With all due respect, I still think you're wasting your time. Perhaps you'll find a small market.... maybe for reality shows that feature "people with blow-dryed hair, makeup, and numerous camera angles of their broken nails" pretending that they're the last people on Earth."

Even those types of shows run their course. People find out it's fake.

Have a nice day.... of some sort.


----------



## cmillar

.... I must add something! (before I get back to work on some 'music for hire')

I just feel that people trying to accomplish what you are trying to do have to hear more about life as lived by people outside of your circle.

(We can all get fanatical about our chosen work.)

I've personally been approached more and more lately and welcomed with opened arms as a composer..... why?.... because I am a composer who can actually compose original music that can be 'tailored', 'customized', call it what you will. I'm thrilled, of course! 

And I know I'm not the only person who can vouch for this.

There are producers of films, TV, and live shows who are fed up with the amount of 'GarageBand' demos (for one example) that they receive in the email every day by people wanting to 'compose' music for them.

The producers (I know of) say that it's all starting to sound the same to them. They don't want to hear another demo of pre-programmed loops in which even they can tell where the music originated. They all own Apples themselves! Hell..... at least there is some decent library music for them to work with if that's what they want. 

They want to work with people who can actually come up with something original and who are able to work with timings, themes, all while trying to convey some emotion where needed.

I'll stop here. Some others can chime in.


----------



## artsoundz

"I believe hunger is nature’s way of curing overpopulation, so “solving” hunger would be evil, and I don’t want to commit the evil which you’re advocating, with all due respect"

Thats it for me here. If the mods are going to allow this dumb son of a bitch a platform for his sick twisted views, then I dont want to be associated with this place.

Wtf is wrong with you people? Are you really that frightened of this pos?

Why don't you guys grow a pair.


----------



## Ed

cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> The producers (I know of) say that it's all starting to sound the same to them. They don't want to hear another demo of pre-programmed loops in which even they can tell where the music originated. They all own Apples themselves! Hell..... at least there is some decent library music for them to work with if that's what they want.



I can understand that... but its worth considering that a lot of scores in the past also "sounded the same", especially TV music. We have a lot more music now, a lot more content that needs music, and a lot more producers. The reason some shows in the past we remember as having quite recognisable music was because theme tune's were more important and went on for sometimes 2 mins+! I would bet if you showed the people you're talking about music from older films and tv shows without the recognisable thematic parts, they may even think it could be from the same score.

Im not sure they think it all "sounds the same" because we're all using the same loops. Show them some custom sound design from some Remote Control score and some 8dio stuff and they wont know the difference, to them it will "all sound the same". What will set you apart musically is the STYLE of sound design, not to mention the approach to scoring. A quality producer should be able to tell the difference between Hannibal's music and Breaking Bad. Worth pointing out that to many people ALL OF IT *ALL *"sounds the same". These are people that i swear can barely tell the difference between John Williams and Hans Zimmer. I wouldnt always put too much weight on someone that says they cant hear much of a difference.


----------



## cmillar

Ed @ Mon May 19 said:


> Im not sure they think it all "sounds the same" because we're all using the same loops. Show them some custom sound design from some Remote Control score and some 8dio stuff and they wont know the difference, to them it will "all sound the same". What will set you apart musically is the STYLE of sound design, not to mention the approach to scoring.



Agreed.... I just don't agree that a computer, with even marvelous AI programming, will every truly replace what humans can do. 

If I don't return to the forum, it's because I've been struck down by a thunderbolt for making that remark.


----------



## cmillar

.....whew!.....still here!


----------



## Farkle

@BachRules: I look forward to hearing what you've created, based upon your structures and programs. I would like to hear what you've constructed through your programming. 

I have one question; can your structure emulate an impersonation of a "style"? For exmaple, can I say, "Give me a Copeland-Americana style", and get it? And then, say, "Cool, can I get a dark Romantic style like Brahms", and get that?


I am not criticizing, I am just asking. Thank you!

Mike


----------



## cmillar

I've had dance choreographers say "Can you make the music a 'some kind of Green?'....... you know, not too dark green..... kind of a little lighter shade.. maybe with a touch of Gold ....kind of appearing now and then... but not like stars..... you know?.... more like a memory?..... and piano has to sound like a 6 year old learning to play with a couple of random, strange notes and some bad timing?..... well, and some blue......"

Wonder if the program could work with that?


----------



## Hannes_F

artsoundz @ Tue May 20 said:


> "I believe hunger is nature’s way of curing overpopulation, so “solving” hunger would be evil, and I don’t want to commit the evil which you’re advocating, with all due respect"
> 
> Thats it for me here. If the mods are going to allow this dumb son of a bitch a platform for his sick twisted views, then I dont want to be associated with this place.



artsoundz, feel free to leave or come back whenever you want. However realize that BachRules will and can not even understand why you are upset here. His statement is meant in a purely biological sense as description of a perceived fact within a totally darwinistical-materialistical mindset without any emotions or concessions to tactfulness, compassion or empathy, and if I am right then he will not see it in any other way. While you certainly have the destiny of individual human beings in mind and relate to that. You possibly project emotions like hatred or disdain into his statements that are not really happening ... and this not happening of certain emotions, feelings and intuitive notions explains a lot of the discrepancy about music in this thread too. 

I am saying this although my personal opinions are totally different to BachRules'. However I understand what he thinks and and can even accept it as a possible opinion if I can put myself into the shoes of others. Deep down I realize that we could discuss this a hundred years but will still not meet since the ground on which we are standing is individually very different.


----------



## G.E.

> I believe hunger is nature’s way of curing overpopulation, so “solving” hunger would be evil, and I don’t want to commit the evil which you’re advocating, with all due respect.



I'm sorry but that's stupid,with all due respect. :lol: 
It's like saying that disease,wild animals,natural disasters, are nature's way of curing overpopulation.So using science and technology to create medicine and shelter is evil.In that world you should be dead by now or in a few years,because the average life expectancy would be 30 years.

I detect trolling...


----------



## AC986

Any if you guys ever hear of Bubonic Plague? That was a hellevu population leveller. When it hit this country the first 'known time' it took out half the population.

Anyone is entitled to a view and don't get yourselves upset by it.

I agree Hannes. Very succinct.


----------



## BachRules

Hannes_F @ Tue May 20 said:


> His statement is meant... without any... emotions or concessions to tactfulness, compassion or empathy


Tact, compassion, and empathy would require us to eliminate hunger and disease so that humans pack the earth’s surface shoulder to shoulder?



G.E. @ Tue May 20 said:


> It’s like saying that disease… nature's way of curing overpopulation.


Which I believe also, but what’s the relevance? Why are you using your computer for virtual instruments when you could be using it to stop disease and world hunger?



G.E. @ Tue May 20 said:


> I detect trolling...


What you just said was disrespectful — a violation of forum-rule #7. I am sincere in my statements about hunger and disease. Censorship of divergent viewpoints is for cowards and fascists.



cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> People find out it's fake.


How relevant is that? Is it hard to sell cars because they provide fake transportation and travelers prefer real transportation like riding a horse? Furthermore, it seems you underestimate the power of the Eliza effect. I may present you with some computer-made (i.e., “fake”) text, without alerting you, so we can see whether you ascribe sentience to a computer’s output.



cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> I've personally been approached more and more lately and welcomed with opened arms.... why?.... because... original music that can be 'tailored', 'customized', call it what you will….
> 
> There are producers of films, TV, and live shows who are fed up with the amount of 'GarageBand' demos (for one example) that they receive in the email every day by people wanting to 'compose' music for them.
> 
> The producers (I know of) say that it's all starting to sound the same to them. They don't want to hear another demo of pre-programmed loops in which even they can tell where the music originated….


I’m developing algorithms which don’t use GarageBand or pre-programmed loops — algorithms which compose original music that can be “tailored, customized, call it what you will”.



cmillar @ Mon May 19 said:


> I just feel that people trying to accomplish what you are trying to do have to hear more about life as lived by people outside of your circle.


What real basis is there for your assumption?



Farkle @ Mon May 19 said:


> I am not criticizing, I am just asking.


I understand. There hasn’t been any meaningful criticism here, not even from my passionate detractors. Some indicate they wish I wouldn’t use my computer for composing, but that’s only an expression of wishful thinking. In your case, it seems you’re just asking a question, and you’re being respectful — unlike the ones here having mental breakdowns — and I’m happy to try to answer your question.



Farkle @ Mon May 19 said:


> @BachRules: I look forward to hearing what you've created, based upon your structures and programs. I would like to hear what you've constructed through your programming.


Thanks for your interest. I’m looking forward to publishing when that’s best for my business; but I have to hold back for now, as much as I want an informed discussion here.



Farkle @ Mon May 19 said:


> I have one question; can your structure emulate an impersonation of a "style"? For example, can I say, "Give me a Copeland-Americana style", and get it? And then, say, "Cool, can I get a dark Romantic style like Brahms", and get that?


Is there an objective way to measure whether a particular WAV file emulates a certain style? Without an objective measure, who would be the judge? I don’t wish to sidestep your question, but I can’t answer better without more info. For you, the words “dark Romantic style” may have a concrete meaning; but I have little idea what those words mean to you, since we’re talking about works that would not be written by anyone from the Romantic era. If you gave me a precise definition of what you mean by “Romantic style”, then sure, my program could generate music meeting that definition. If you don’t articulate a precise definition, I can’t guarantee anything, but I’m still going to try to satisfy customers who say they want “Romantic style” without clarifying. Other customers who want “Green maybe with a touch of Gold” music, I will try to satisfy them too and we will see how it goes. The “green/gold” customers would tend not to be discriminating.


----------



## Ian Dorsch

BachRules @ Tue May 20 said:


> Other customers who want “Green maybe with a touch of Gold” music, I will try to satisfy them too and we will see how it goes. The “green/gold” customers would tend not to be discriminating.



:lol:


----------



## cmillar

Ian Dorsch @ Tue May 20 said:


> BachRules @ Tue May 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other customers who want “Green maybe with a touch of Gold” music, I will try to satisfy them too and we will see how it goes. The “green/gold” customers would tend not to be discriminating.
Click to expand...


Sorry man, but these customers are WAY more discriminating. 

These type of 'customers' have a vision or concept that they would like realized..... something more intangible that just saying "Computer, give me Bach from his Brandenburg period", or "Computer, give me some Beethoven fused with Satie", or "Computer, give me some Corigliano like his Altered States film score".

I can see that you might be able to have a computer work out the computations to create something like that.... some kind of 'music on call'..... sort of like a glorified 'Band in the Box'.

A lot of us do that already in our work, you can argue. Sometimes we are just called upon to re-create a style. It can be very intellectually rewarding, trying to compose in the style of someone else. We learn a lot, just like your computer would , I guess. 

I don't think you'll ever be able to program your computer with everything it needs to know in your lifetime.... there's too much, with more possibilities being added every day..... ideas and possibilities dreampt up by humans that are trying to break out of some of the tried-and-true stylistic modes from the past masters. 

Just a thought....your computer program runs the risk of becoming 'dated' already.

Maybe your investors will back out..... it'd be a tough sale on Wall St.!


----------



## marclawsonmusic

/oo\ ;/c] 

Please, make it stahp... pretty please? :cry:


----------

