Okay, easy subject. What the hell is music?

[jobycom]

First thing this morning I clicked on Rabrrrrrrrrr's thread of Steve Vai. It's a jaw dropping, awe-inspiring, humbling-in-a-way-that-makes-you-realize-you-will-never-be-THAT-good-at-anything guitar piece displaying technical brilliance, innovation, and inspiration. But you couldn't dance to it. And frankly, it inspires the intellect more than the soul. This is in no way a criticism of the piece, just a categorization of it.

Contrast to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which touches emotional places in your soul you may not otherwise know exist.

Contrast to a simple digeridoo piece with a monotone drone and sometimes no discernible rhythm.

Then there are lyrics, when a simple song with a forgettable melody can become transcendent because of a few words inferior to any Shakespearean sonnet. Take any rock ballad.

What is music? What makes it great? Would the definition be based on the sound, the effect on your emotions, or on the intellect? Do lyrics enhance or detract from music, or are they a different art form altogether? Why is simple sometimes better than complexity, and other times unsatisfying?

I've never taken "Music Appreciation for Dummies," so help me become an non-Dummy.

[Crabby Appleton]

1. You got it - "touches emotional places in your soul " nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Music is any combination of sounds and silences that an artist frames as music.

John Cage gave us 4'32" in which he framed the random noises of an audience, concert hall, and surrounding environs as the music piece, with the performer doing nothing but signaling the beginning of the frame and the end of the frame.

To a person in the right frame of mind, the sound of a factory is musical (and I've tried this, and yes, it is).

The random noises of outdoors is music.

Your question is perhaps more rightly asked, "What is *good* music?"

And that's a great big argument, but I would say the foundation point has to be that the composer has brought the music from his/her soul, and the ones performing it are bringing the performance out of their souls, even in the most abstract and technical and theoretical music (such as Schoenberg or Stockhausen or Steve Reich or Philip Glass). Music is vibrating air in a way that brings an emotional response (including the emotional response of a purely intellectual experience).

Good music - like all good art - does this without the use of trickery or cliche or empty sentimentalism.

And so, Brittney Spears technically performs music, but it ain't good music, because it has in it nothing of the soul.

Kenny G is pure cliche, dishonest emotional manipulation, and empty sentimentalism, and so it ain't good music. But he is, in the strictest sense, performing music. And he performs technically brilliantly, but it's chicanery.

Penderecki's "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" is not music in the "normal" sense, though it uses a chamber orchestra - but it is music in the purest sense in that it is created out of the depths of human suffering, soul-felt by the composer, to speak to other human beings of suffering, pain, and the violence of war (and in this case, specifically, the violence of atomic bombs).

[ghostsofgiants]

3. Good post.

[jobycom]

5. Good analysis, but you left out a key ingredient (which may define our differences)

You don't once mention the person hearing the music, only the person creating it. Do you believe that "good music" is defined only by the creator, not by the audience's reception, or rather, how well the artist met the demands of the audience? Surely you've heard music that fits each of your criteria--original, inspired, soulful--but that is boring is Hell, because it is played only for the artist? I'm not talking about something so complex that it takes a genius to appreciate it, I'm talking about art so personal that it touches only on the experiences and expectations of the artist. Like one of the few decent non-musical lines from "Purple Rain," when the club owner tells the Kid "You're music makes sense to no one but yourself."

And I'm also curious--do you really believe that ANY artist operates completely without "trickery, cliche, or empty sentimentalism?" When does a technique or formula go from inspiration to cliche? When does a technique become derivative? Certainly long before Britney Spears does it, but even the Steve Vai piece you posted earlier (and thanks for that) had its formulas, and relied on techniques and concepts of music created before him.

I've begun to think that you and I agree on art most of the time at the highest levels, but I'm not as dismissive of the more mundane as you. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. Life is too short to accept mediocrity, in answer to your non-question about the mundane.

As to the rest - the hearer is certainly part of the sum total of the artistic process (or in the case of paintings or plays, the viewer; or books, the reader). Art is hopefully not created in a vacuum of only the artist.

HOWEVER -

and this is a big HOWEVER -

the trap of the mudane, the mediocre, the cliche, the empty sentimentalist, the cloyingly sick and saccharine, is to create art purely for the needs (or supposed needs) of a theoretical audience. At that point, it ceases to be art (though it might still be technically valid), and becomes a commodity - or "pop art", which is basically industrialized art meant for mass consumption (cf. American Idol, Kenny G, Thomas Kinkade, Home Interiors, Precious Moments, and so forth).

The artist (in my opinion, following the examples of James Joyce, van Gogh, Picasso, Zappa, Mahler, Schoenberg, etc.) creates the art for the artist - creates the art that is within, holding to the internal integrity, without regard for how the audience will perceive it or hallow it or condemn it, holding true to the artist's artistic vision. And thus so much of our greatest of art is art that was panned, condemned, misunderstood, and vilified when it came out.

As Zappa said in his book, and I paraphrase here, "I write the music that I like; I'm just lucky that there are people who want to hear it." Something like that - but it boiled down to, and this is the mantra of all the greatest artists, "I create what I like, regardless of how the audiences receive it, and I would create it even if no one liked it".

And thus even some people in the employ of the king or other benefactors (such as Rembrandt, Mozart, Da Vinci, Galileo), who were creating art for a specific audience (their patron, or the people who hired them to do a portrait or compose a chamber piece, etc.), still managed even within the expectations of their audience to offer high amounts of creativity and individuality that, hundreds of years later, continue to elevate their art to the level of genius; while the great majority of portraitists and composers fall away into obscurity for their lack of vision or creativity.

Or even, to take some real pedestrian examples, Johnny Cash or Loretta Lynn, who very much existed within a rather specific and narrow genre, and were raised within a very narrow musical experience, but found and created ways to go outside the cliches and norms of that genre to create a lasting legacy that should live on for a long time AND still managed to find a large audience.

But as for me, personally, I want art that the artist created for the sole reason that the artist couldn't NOT create it - from within, from the soul, and totally without regard for how it will be received by an audience. Some of it might not be good, sure; but even the stuff I don't like I will value far more than art that is created technically perfect and even easy to listen to, but which is devoid of vision or integrity.

To artist I say, "Don't create art that you think I will like - create the art that your inner vision demands that you create, else you die from the suffering of not letting it out."

[jobycom]

10. Forgive me, but a lot of that is a cliche that says little,

I've said the same thing many times--art must come from the soul of the artist, yada yada yada. I use that to justify liking Tom Cruise (who acts from his soul, yet whom you hate), and to justify disliking Steely Dan (whom you like, IIRC), who doesn't play from the soul, so much as from a desire to sound "cool."

Art NEVER comes from the soul without regard to the audience it is created for. Artists create for an audience, to make the audience feel what they feel or understand what they understand. I agree with your basic sentiment, that the creation must be the artist's vision, must be something the artist likes to create and wants to communicate. But to say any artist does that without regard for the audience is just wrong. The choice of the art form has to do with the audience, the communication of the art form necessarily includes what the audience wants. Art is communication from the artist to the audience, and neither part of that equation is the weaker.

That's where we disagree so often. I've certainly seen you praise artists I think of as derivative, formulaic, etc. You've seen me do it. That's just a question of exposure and taste, not of the essence of art. But you seem to exclude from the category anyone who doesn't speak to you at your highest level of understanding, whereas I try to view art for what the artist was trying to communicate to the audience. Yeah, Britney Spears is not much of an artist. But her songs are creations of someone, and that someone--producer, writer, etc--is communicating something. Maybe not what Beethoven or Shakespeare or F Scott Fitzgerald communicated, but something. I will listen for what that is, and try to appreciate it. I won't seek it out, mind you, but if I'm forced to listen, I won't close my mind to it. I will hear it for what it tries to do. I may decide then that what it does is worthless, that it is only an attempt to fool kids into buying records based on some formula for "cool" that someone discovered (which is exactly what I hate about Steely Dan, who to me is more manipulative and formulaic than Spears, despite their greater technical skills and musical understanding). But I will at least listen for what is being communicated, from the artist's perspective, rather than moaning that it doesn't fit my perspective.

The artists I find mediocre are the ones who perform only for themselves. The ones I like most are the ones who build a dialog with the audience. Watch your Steve Vai clip again. He's playing for both--he's flirting with the audience as much as enjoying what he's doing. That's a true artist. His technical skill is amazing, but it's his communication skills that creates the art.

That's why I don't dismiss more mundane art. It is an attempt to communicate to a less technically aware audience. Or sometimes it is just an attempt to have fun. I don't whine about what I'm exposed to just because it doesn't satisfy my highest intellectual centers. I experience it for what it is. Life's too short, as you say, to do otherwise.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. Let me refine my comments a bit more -

I should have been more explicit, especially between making art outside the audience (such as painting or composing) and making art when the audience is present (performing, or an art show).

When I say a good artist creates without regard to the audience, I'm not talking performance - I'm talking the act of creation (and so here I remove performers from the equation for a moment, and will talk of them later).

The artist must create the art that is within the artist, without regard to audience (as I said before). Meaning: the artist has to please first the artist, and let out what is within. And then, hopefully, it will find an audience.

My issue is with the artists who create only for an audience - we see the producers of Brittney and other pop music doing this; Kinkade does it; Precious Moments does it. "Okay, here's a riff that will sell" or "Ah, this is a sound that will sell", and so forth. An artist that performs based solely on what the audience wants is not an artist - he or she might be a crafter, sure; but not quite an artist.

Like my art teacher used to tell me, there's nothing wring with graphic design, and it has a high creative component, but do not mistake it for art. Graphic design has a commercial intent, as does pop music and much other "art" in the entertainment industry. Art does not.

And don't get caught up in my like of Steely Dan - I like the music, but I don't find it particularly genius or creative; it is, however, easy to listen to and has some compelling components. But high art it is not. I do not go out of my way to hear Steely Dan, but I enjoy it when it comes on.

As to performers - in the act of performing, one would hope that they ARE indeed caring about the audience. They need to be in dialogue with the audience during the performance (as Vai is in the clip), adjusting to the subtle or overt feedback they are receiving from the audience, and letting the audience know that the performer cares. For a musician, this is done in real time. For a painter or an author, it must happen after the art is created - but I know of few artists who do not at some point require and seek feedback from their audience in order to grow and to become better and see what is working and what is not working, where the communication comes through clearly and where it is muddled.

But the artist must still create for the artist.

Those who create solely for the audience are not artists - they are craftsmen at best, charlatans at worst. No harm in being a craftsman (someone needs to make regular barrels, and standard furniture, and normal plumbing, and whatnot).

But as a society, especially with the mass media and growth of the entertainment industry and monopoly of radio and television, have devolved and make little distinction now between art and craft; between that which is designed to speak to humanity, and that which is designed to sell a product. We elevate mediocrity and call it an A (in art, and in other fields). There's a wonderful American-style egalitarianism in that attitude, and I appreciate that, but it also muddies the waters too much.

And I will admit that the process of making a product designed to sell, and selling it, is an art in itself. The product, however, not so much.

When I paint, or make music, I do not think about the audience (unless I'm in an actual performance, or having an art show, and have the audience physically present) - I create for me, because I have a certain vision and idea of what I would people to see/hear/feel in the music and the art. But I do not put down a brushstroke or a note with the thought "What will they like? What will sell the most product? How do I please them the most?"

This might be an elitist attitude, and it is not to say that i don't also enjoy some of that which is the graphic art equivalent, but speaking personally I *do* draw a distinction between art and craft.

But I fear I have rambled, and lost some focus because I've not eaten in hours and I'm feeling the loss of energy.... to lunch! Then I shall return.

[AllegroRondo]

ah, 4'32"

ever hear Frank Zappa's recording of it?

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. I've not heard his, though I'd like to hear. I have heard my own performance, however.

Which, I will say, in the many times I've performed it, has often achieved the level of sheer genius and technical brilliance so as to make steelworkers cry.

[AllegroRondo]

7. darn double post

[WritingIsMyReligion]

12. John Cage!

He's so funny/weird. He did one song--"Music of Changes I"--that sounded like my cat walking across the piano, I kid you not.

Sorry. I have nothing of value to contribute, I just was happy to know something being referenced in this intellectual discussion.

[GirlinContempt]

15. I have this really interesting album

That is artists from all over the world who created peices of music made only of sounds recorded in their home cities. Some of them are amazing. They could reporocess it however they wanted, they just couldn't add any rhythm or music.
It's free to download.
http://autresdirections.net/inmusic/article.php3?id_article=44
Some of my favorites:
RANDOMNUMBER / Fennings (leeds / england)
ROBOKONEKO / Brume (sydney / autralia)
GALAKTLAN / Walking Home In Tallin (tallinn / estonia)
SORA / River Runs (kyoto / japan)
They're all great, though. Also available are photos and explanations by the creators of each track.

"The random noises of outdoors is music." just made me think of it. It's really worth checking out.

[begin_within]

4. The art of sound. Period.

To define it any further is to limit it.

[jobycom]

6. I kind of like that.

:thumbsup:

[wildhorses]

14. i think that about covers it

:applause:

whether one likes it or not, is where the subjective applies.

the definition needs to cover the broad objective, imo.

[Tyler Durden]

13. And it doesn't have to be "good" in ANYONE'S eyes...

MUSIC is mainly in the mind of the Music Maker, I believe.