*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Sep 02, 2014, 10:20:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
657942 Posts in 9260 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 83 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Print
Author Topic: In Bone There Is A Marketplace.  (Read 20976 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John
edit0r
Registered user

Posts: 10925


« on: Jan 30, 2006, 08:07:54 PM »

New piece up as of now.
Logged
Ah_Pook
Registered user

Posts: 6082


« Reply #1 on: Jan 30, 2006, 08:54:47 PM »

metal taught me novelty is overrated
Logged

Blame it on the girls who know what to do
Blame it on the boys who keep hitting on you
difficult
Registered user

Posts: 2175


« Reply #2 on: Jan 30, 2006, 09:52:14 PM »

Interesting and thought provoking piece for me. I am someone who always tends to value surprise very highly in music - and I don't think it's the same as novelty for me - and usually the music that I like provides surprise even among it's expected elements.
This can take interesting or unfamiliar forms in itself. Maybe here the surprise is something along the lines of "Wow, this all sounds familiar and predictable, but I'm still being affected by it and I don't necessarily understand why fully", and that's often a big surprise.
I think you're on the mark when you say that a big part of the obsessive interest in music is in finding "something new" (and again I'd draw a narrow distinction with novelty, which's a word I always find has a connotation of the trivial). But "something new" isn't indicated by "how it sounds" or "whether you've heard it before", but rather something more along the lines of whether it affects you through a different series of emotional and physical responses that you've felt before, or than you're used to feeling right now. I guess this is maybe why records sound so different at different points in our lives, and why, as John has mentioned a lot recently, trying to review them is kind of a losing battle. (This is partly why I don't tend to write much about music anymore).
I don't know; just some thoughts. But this is interesting and fertile ground for discussion here, I hope.
Logged

Your choke chain collars remind me of summer laughter
John
edit0r
Registered user

Posts: 10925


« Reply #3 on: Jan 30, 2006, 10:46:37 PM »

Quote from: "Ah_Pook"
metal taught me novelty is overrated


this is interesting, because there's that tension in metal between the desire to make Timeless Masterpieces, right, and the sort of harder-faster-harsher thing that really took hold with death & black metal - everything had to be grimmer, darker, more extreme than the thing before it

I think this tendency is asleep now, which on the one hand is good; but some of the most creative ppl (say the dudes in Emperor) seem to really feed on the idea of doing more & better & bigger - complicated relationship between black metal & novelty I think
Logged
coldforge
Registered user

Posts: 11924


« Reply #4 on: Jan 30, 2006, 10:57:03 PM »

I have words to say on this, but they're currently embedded in a 6000-word collection of essays, so they will have to wait a little it. Suffice to say for now that I think that metal is like electronic dance music in that very often it is judged against criteria of genre fulfillment, where quality is to some degree a measure of how adequately and skillfully it fulfills (or frustrates) some set of subgenre stylistic requirements.

And that this is not necessarily always the bad thing it might intuitively seem like.
Logged

Ť l'era del terzo mondo.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #5 on: Jan 30, 2006, 10:59:48 PM »

extremely interesting question posed by this article, one i have no answer for at this point. i hope the final sentence is serious, because i'm very curious about further explorations into the concept. maybe after a while of thinking about it i'll have some of my own. not right yet though.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
John
edit0r
Registered user

Posts: 10925


« Reply #6 on: Jan 30, 2006, 11:03:02 PM »

Quote from: "Andrew_TSKS"
extremely interesting question posed by this article, one i have no answer for at this point. i hope the final sentence is serious, because i'm very curious about further explorations into the concept. maybe after a while of thinking about it i'll have some of my own. not right yet though.


I do mean it, yeah - I think this question is kinda key to how I'm thinking about music lately, I have some other albums in mind to play the question off of
Logged
houdini
Registered user

Posts: 2


« Reply #7 on: Jan 31, 2006, 04:27:43 PM »

But is it even possible for something to be new, really new? Is there anything TRULY original anymore? There is no one who is not influenced by someone or something. And we can't possible be searching for COMPLETE originality, because we always want something familiar to hold on to. But I guess we're talking in shades and layers of novelty.

No answers, just thoughts.
Logged
theartlessmonster
Registered user

Posts: 5178


« Reply #8 on: Jan 31, 2006, 05:21:12 PM »

i doní t think itís one sided, that itís only the public really clamoring for new, that drives the artist to innovation. i sometimes think artists feel just as compelled to be innovative as much the listeners find the new sounds compelling.

I personally donít think a piece has to be a complete innovation to be excellent or get acclaim, if this were true why would covers of songs get any acclaim at all?  Kind of like you were saying houdini, people do like to hold on.  and somehow this is harking back in my mind to the axl rose and embalming fluid wanting vampires.  

So anyways, I think there is some ground there maybe more than it seems.
Logged

Don't be a swiss roll.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #9 on: Jan 31, 2006, 06:48:11 PM »

There is no real split between the public and the artist. A few artificial ones, but not in pop music. The artists all come straight out of the listening public.

And there are a lot of extremely innovative covers.
Logged
theartlessmonster
Registered user

Posts: 5178


« Reply #10 on: Jan 31, 2006, 07:00:04 PM »

Quote from: "Good Intentions"
There is no real split between the public and the artist. A few artificial ones, but not in pop music. The artists all come straight out of the listening public.

And there are a lot of extremely innovative covers.


I think artists are born artists, and that yes, artists then end up listening to music of other artists, which I would say G.I. is exactly maybe part of the reason which compells them to be innovative, they want to create something different from what they have already heard.  

And I didn't say covers were not innovative, but I said that they are not completely and strictly new.
Logged

Don't be a swiss roll.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #11 on: Jan 31, 2006, 07:30:46 PM »

I walk under the "there is no material split between art and not-art" banner (we people don't care if the slogans aren't catchy), which means that I don't believe there is such a split between artists and non-artists. But at least now I understand your position in the Bukowski thread.

And your second part begs the question: is anything ever completely new? No, it isn't.
Logged
theartlessmonster
Registered user

Posts: 5178


« Reply #12 on: Jan 31, 2006, 07:50:39 PM »

are you saying that anyone can create music?  

that you don't believe certain people, people I call artists by the way, were just born with a certain amount of talent or call a compulsion even to create music?
Logged

Don't be a swiss roll.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #13 on: Jan 31, 2006, 08:52:21 PM »

Quote from: "theartlessmonster"
are you saying that anyone can create music?  

Yes.

Mainly it's not a matter whether something is music, it's a question of "is it any good"? I get real exited talking about Marcel Duchamp and his readymades, why The Fountain is so fantastic and the others are all crap, so I'm restraining myself from wiriting another almost-on-topic essay.

Mozart, who I can say without any doubt to be the most natural musical talent ever, said that being good at something isn't a matter of talent, it's a matter of spending 10 000 hours working on it. He had spent that amount of time on music by the time he was 12 (maybe even 8? I can't exactly remember). That's something to think about - I don't entirely agree, but I think it is true to a much higher degree than it is false, and if you are going to reduce it to a single sentence, that might be it. Related is a dialogue out of a Vonnegut book (which probably mirrors a dialogue Vonnegut was witness to, possibly a very common one):

[Someone dragged to art meeting] Sir, how does one know the difference between a good painting and a bad one?
[Artist] You look at a million paintings

That is the whole and entire truth.

I say that there are two requirements for being a good artist (and this is purely my conclusion):
1) One must be dedicated firstly to the art.
2) One must be dependable.
Everything else is secondary. Which should explain my stance on the Bukowski thread, which I've decided not to get more involved in.
Logged
rockmeamadeus
Registered user

Posts: 7199


« Reply #14 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:30:47 PM »

I am entirely of the opnion that anyone can create art or music... I mean there are certainly VALUE judgements involved. As in: there is certainly bad, good, and great art. I don't want to wax philosophical too far off-topic here, but I don't believe anyone is born an artist (though I don't believe in that tabula rasa stuff either).

Great idea John has here... I think alot of people (myself included, most of the time) tend to think that novelty, and the search for creating something unique, are the driving forces behind good music... but there's certainly something to be said for something that just is fucking AUDIBLE in a comfortable sort of way. Perhaps comfort is the wrong word... but in this day and age, with so much different music at our collective fingertips, maybe the lack of severe novelty (or the attempt at making something novel) is, in and of itself, something to admire?
Logged
SPACERACE
Registered user

Posts: 12155


« Reply #15 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:36:30 PM »

Quote from: "coldforge"
I think that metal is like electronic dance music in that very often it is judged against criteria of genre fulfillment, where quality is to some degree a measure of how adequately and skillfully it fulfills (or frustrates) some set of subgenre stylistic requirements... And that this is not necessarily always the bad thing it might intuitively seem like.
i agree.

GI, i don't think that's entirely true. while virtually anyone could become proficient with a musical instrument or with music theory, i think that "musical sense," the intangible, is something innate in musicians (and in this case, i include people who are just obsessed with music in general, regardless of whether or not they create it) that can't be taught.
Logged

Supplier of highest-quality synthetic duck butter
rockmeamadeus
Registered user

Posts: 7199


« Reply #16 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:40:54 PM »

Well reese, what I think he was saying was that anyone can make music, which they can... but it takes something more than just being a human with fingers to make great music.
Logged
theartlessmonster
Registered user

Posts: 5178


« Reply #17 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:42:23 PM »

Quote from: "Good Intentions"

Mozart, who I can say without any doubt to be the most natural musical talent ever, said that being good at something isn't a matter of talent, it's a matter of spending 10 000 hours working on it.


you just said two converse things you said "natural musical talent" then you lay all this but "it's only a matter of spending time on it" argument, it doesn't follow

and i will say about your Mozart statement, but there is some energy some force something inside him, that compelled him to spend 10,000 hours on music, and that something I believe is not quantifiable, to me, its mystical, and what makes someone an artist.  and mozart was an artist, so he maybe could not realize not everyone thought like him or even just how talented he was.  

i agree that born innate talent alone will not make you good, practice and learning techniques etc. will definately make someone better at whatever it is they are practicing.  but i would argue someone else could spend 10,000 hours on music and never create Mozart's output, because they were not born Mozart the talented individual that he was, with his exact brain. think about it, you said it yourself, by the time he was 12! 10,000 hours! what other child spends 10,000 hours on music at that early of an age, call it whatever you will but there is more going on there than just dedication to an art and dependability, in my opinion.  it's something else, and he was obviously compelled.

and sure you can look at one million paintings and come out with what you think is good and what you think is bad, it's still subjective, in my opinion.

this thread is about the public need for novelty not what makes an artist so i don't want to continue derailing, but i don't agree with you.
Logged

Don't be a swiss roll.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #18 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:44:36 PM »

Like I said, I don't think Mozart's statement is the whole truth (I think a large part of him making it was him being treated like a sideshow freak), but it is a very, very important point to make.

No, I don't believe there is an intangible quality some people are born with.

When you put obsessive music fans in the group of people with "musical sense" you are agreeing with me in the bulk of what I'm saying - that dedication to the art is the true seperation to good and great art.

Let's put it this way - there are people who've spent 10 000 hours on their art who aren't great artists, but every great artist has spent 10 000 hours at their art.

There is the implication that if you have talent, doing well is easy, which is simply nonsense. Better to believe that there is no such thing as talent - more good art will be made that way.
Logged
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #19 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:49:20 PM »

Quote from: "theartlessmonster"
and i will say about your Mozart statement, but there is some energy some force something inside him, that compelled him to spend 10,000 hours on music

It was his dad.

Mozart was an immense natural talent, without a doubt, but to some degree at least he was manufactured as a musical talent. Another interesting example, who is a bit of a tangent to this discussion, is John Stuart Mill. But anyway.

There are entire traditions, marvellous and rich traditions, of people who reach that point through work, dedication and immersion in the art alone. Primitive art and folk art are the best examples.
Logged
SPACERACE
Registered user

Posts: 12155


« Reply #20 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:54:02 PM »

blake, i just read it as sort of a utilitarian approach to art, like it's a craft rather than an art, and i can't see it that way, because to me, art in and of itself is inherently impractical and it always will be.

and as for the original article, i figgur it this way: once a method (or maybe even a whole style) has been done, done again, perfected, then done some more, the natural human tendency is to think of ways to change it or go for something else entirely. i listened to the clips on mr. kirkwood's website, and while i agree that it's good, after so long, simply well-crafted examples of a supposedly ageless genre without anything that hasn't been done before tend to all blend together in my head.
Logged

Supplier of highest-quality synthetic duck butter
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #21 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:58:25 PM »

I don't give the utilitarians an inch.

Just because art is impractical doesn't mean one shouldn't work at it.

Or weren't you talking about my posts?
Logged
rockmeamadeus
Registered user

Posts: 7199


« Reply #22 on: Jan 31, 2006, 09:59:26 PM »

Quote from: "reeseboisse"
blake, i just read it as sort of a utilitarian approach to art, like it's a craft rather than an art, and i can't see it that way, because to me, art in and of itself is inherently impractical and it always will be.


Ah. Well I, myself, certainly don't take a utilitarian stance on it. It is certainly an impractical thing... I think that it's the WILLINGNESS to be impractical and create art, and devote time to it, that is the defining characteristic.


PS Anytime a person prefaces a statement with the phrase: "Due to my extensive reading of Nietschze and other heroic prose..." I can't take them seriously. It just makes them look like a giant cock. So I'm glad you edited that shit out.
Logged
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #23 on: Jan 31, 2006, 10:01:56 PM »

I removed it, since I realised that my intention doesn't come over at all. I was trying to cite my sources, realised it read like an appeal to authority, got rid of it. The part "this is my view" is still there

Quote from: "rockmeamadeus"
Ah. Well I, myself, certainly don't take a utilitarian stance on it. It is certainly an impractical thing... I think that it's the WILLINGNESS to be impractical and create art, and devote time to it, that is the defining characteristic.

This is the point I'm rying to make.
Logged
theartlessmonster
Registered user

Posts: 5178


« Reply #24 on: Jan 31, 2006, 10:05:01 PM »

oh that's good to know then someday i can grow a little mozart of my own i mean, if he can be manufactured, hell, maybe i'll start mozart manufacturing in mass production as fast as i can, i can have a mozart every 9 nine months.  

no i could have 12 sons make them all spend 10,000 hours on music and i may never get a mozart.

still not buying it and still you say two converse things

"it's better to believe there is no such thing as talent" but you believe mozart is an "immense natural talent"

and that's right reese, i believe to there is a difference between spending a lot of time being dedicated to and learning a craft and creating art

ok done.
Logged

Don't be a swiss roll.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Print
LPTJ | Last Plane Forums | Last Plane | Topic: In Bone There Is A Marketplace.
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc