Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How to Create a Pop Star
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedHow to Create a Pop Star

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13627
Direct Link To This Post Topic: How to Create a Pop Star
    Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:40
Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:


/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.

Yep. Rumour has it that it will be a compulsory round in this season's X-Factor.

I know this is off topic but...

STEVE! Where did your monkey go? Shocked
[/QUOTE]

He got the grand order of the boot, stemming from that entertaining debate we had about adding bands on the CZ, where I did a skit about Yes Minister.

I changed it on a whim.

But, fear not monkey fans. He might well make a blistering return one day!
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
TheGazzardian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8667
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:33
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:


/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.

Yep. Rumour has it that it will be a compulsory round in this season's X-Factor.
[/QUOTE]

I know this is off topic but...

STEVE! Where did your monkey go? Shocked
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13627
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:21

/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. Rumour has it that it will be a compulsory round in this season's X-Factor.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:11
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.
No worries - I feel we passed the point of repeating ourselves long ago.
Why are you replying to me, then?
I didn't say it wasn't entertaining Wink
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

  
 
New-age twaddle?  How about an idea formulated by some of the foundational thinkers of Western Culture, namely Plato and Aristotle?  Give this a try (scroll down to part 5 and on to read the music part):
 
 
No, I don't think you should agree with all of this just because Aristotle said it; I don't.  But dismissing it as "new age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft" does not give due credit to the idea and to its thinkers.
All new-age mysticism is rooted in some partial, often inaccurate, re-interpretation of an older philosophy - there is little "new" in new-age [the epithet "new" actually refers to the astrological age - we are transiting from the Age of Pisces into the Age of Aquarius due to the astronomical event called the precession of the equinoxes - we are currently at the dawn of a new astrological age, hence new-age... apparently... if you believe in astrology... which I don't].
 
This does not discredit the original "thinkers", but it does say many things about modern interpretations of the ideas postulated some 3000 years ago by civilisations who knew less about the physical and biological world than we do now. If I am disparaging, it is not of Aristotle.
 
For the ancient Greeks there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology for example. Having found the mathematic relationships in harmony they saw no reason not to extrapolate that to the whole universe, not only within cosmology (the Musica Universalis: "There is geometry in the humming of the strings... there is music in the spacing of the spheres"  - Pythagoras) but in the relationship between musical harmony, spiritual harmony, emotional harmony and physical harmony. This idea was developed by Plato (teacher of Aristotle) and other later philosophers - the alignment of heavenly bodies affect events in human world, including emotions, well-being etc., if the celestial spheres that carry these heavenly bodies resonate in harmonic proportions, ergo they also affect the human world, if the "music of the spheres" has an effect then it follows that music alone can have a similar effect. I'm unsure how much Aristotle believed this, he is a turning point in the history of philosophy/science and there is a degree of scepticism and guarded qualification in much that he writes on the subject, for example, of the Musica Universalis he says: "they supposed the elements of number to be the elements of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and a number" ... note the "they supposed" there - he was the first of his generation to consider experiment as proof, (though not wholly so), and in doing so established the foundations of the scientific method. He is essentially saying that without experimental proof the relationship between music and the celestial spheres is supposition.
 
Where (in the link you provided) Aristotle gives examples of the Mixolydian, Dorian and Phrygian modes, I gave examples of the Ionian, Aeolian, Lydian and Lorcan (so between us we've covered all seven Big smile) - he also qualified himself as I did: "and those who hear them are differently affected by each" ... again that hint of scepticism in his writing - the language of music is not a universal vocabulary. One quote that did amuse me: "others enfeeble the mind, like the relaxed modes"... of course the relaxed modes are the Ionian and Lydian (Ionian being a major scale popular in pop music and the Lydian is a major scale popular in jazz) - it does appear that "happy" music was frowned upon even back then¹. LOL
 
Of course what Aristotle is arguing for in that article was the musical education for young boys, not that music enbiggens us all, (sorry talk of the Lydian mode invokes Simpsons paraphrase, it cannot be helped) and in doing so gives three alternative uses for music (only two of which we have discussed here, though the third has been hinted at, albeit obliquely) and in doing so discards both music as entertainment and music as art as reasons why young boys should be educated in music - they are not to be entertained while learning and they are not educated enough to appreciate it intellectually... and that's where I take issue with this 2,500 year old philosophy.
 
 
 
 
 
/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.


Edited by Dean - June 15 2012 at 12:18
What?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2012 at 22:34
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.
No worries - I feel we passed the point of repeating ourselves long ago.
 
Why are you replying to me, then?
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Catharsis isn't merely a temporary release of emotion; if we go back to the original sources and look at the writings of Aristotle, who first defined catharsis, we see that the concept of catharsis implies a purification of emotion; that is, the release of emotion and identification with the emotions of characters or musicians in a story or song teaches us to "align our loves and hates correctly," as Aristotle would put it.  This isn't a temporary effect; it's a lasting one, and the whole idea of catharsis was meant to codify the way in which music affected human character.  
If that is the definition of catharsis you are working with here then I don't think it applies to most music, regardless of whether it is high or low art. I question whether a purification of emotions is even possible, especially through something as transitory as music - I suspect that the release experienced is temporary but the memory of that release is longer-lasting, perhaps even permanent in one or two rare (once in a lifetime) events. I doubt that the same peice of music will invoke the same reaction twice - but it can trigger the memory of the original "cathartic" experience. However, even if this were possible there is nothing inherrent in "art music" that would create catharsis that is not present in "entertainment music".
 
I don't doubt that a purification of emotions through music is possible, and even common.  I would say that we tend to scoff at the notion of music permanently affecting our emotions becasue we don't notice it happening.  I would agree with you that the release of emotions experienced in catharsis is temporary, but the memory is what makes the permanent effect possible.  You're making my point without realizing it.  True, the memory of the release of emotion is not often permanent (though it can last a long time), but when you listen to music often, and especially when you listen to the same piece often, as we are able to do in the recorded age, the memory can become more and more pronounced with repeated listenings.  Just as logic exercises the mind, music exercises the emotions. 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Bieber is not "non-art" because the intent was to produce entertainment; he's mere entertainment because the compositions have almost no artistic value.  That could have been because the songwriters' intent was to mass-produce some light fluff that the masses would latch onto (in his case, I imagine that was probably part of it).  It could also have been just because the songwriters were bad (artistically), regardless of their intent.  It's very possible for someone to intend to create a great work of art, and for his music to have almost no artistic value because he is a terrible composer.  It is also possible for someone to intend merely to create something entertaining, and for the result to be a great work of art because he is a good composer. 
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere - you judge art as something that is good and everything that is bad as having no artistic value, therefore is not art. Therefore Bieber's music can never be "art" because it is (in your subjective judgement) both bad and has no artistic value, whereas Coldplay can be both entertainment and "art" because  (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value and Bach is art (sans quotes) because (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value.
 
 I don't hold with that idea - I believe that music is an art-form and creating any music is an art and all music is art. This goes back to my first post in this thread - if creating a pop song was as easy as everyone thinks it is then we'd all be doing it. It is not easy, there is art in the craft of creating a hit pop song just as there is art in the craft of creating so-called "art music". Being bad artistically in the world of pop music means the same as it does in any field.
 
I've tried to use the phrase "almost no artistic value" instead of "no artistic value." I would agree that all music is technically art, and I apologize if I have not been clear in expressing that. I often am too extreme in my language. The first time I used the adjective "bad" in my statement above, I clarified that I meant, "artistically bad." When I say that something is artistically bad, I mean that it has little artistic value, and vice versa. Same for "artistically good." So a good (artistically) composer will create good (artistically) music.
So, in contrast to your characterization above, I would say that Bieber's music has almost no artistic value, and therefore functions as mere entertainment. Both Coldplay's and Bach's music have a great deal of artistic value, and can thus be called great art, but that does not prevent them from being entertaining, either. As I have said before, I believe in objective musical value, so I would not term this a "subjective judgement," although I realize that, from your perspective, it appears to be so. But I don't consider myself the ultimate arbitor of taste, either. I acknowledge that I could attempt to make an objective judgement about music and be wrong. But when I speak subjectively, I speak about the way in which music affects me personally. When I speak objectively (in my view), I'm trying to acknowledge the value that a piece of music has, not merely for me, but for others as well.
 
I hold pop music to the same artistic standard as every other type of music.  I judge it by it's own artistic merits, just as I would judge prog or classical music or jazz by its own artistic merits. 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

I believe that music has higher and lower purposes because certain effects of the music are more profitable to the listener than others.  It's more profitable for a listener to listen to music that improves his character and teaches him to deal with his emotions than to listen to music that merely distracts him for the moment.  Therefore, I think that catharsis is a higher purpose than mere entertainment (as I defined them).
Good for you. I think you are seeing patterns where there are none. If you beleive that a series of harmonic tones can have a positive affect on a persons character and can teach them to deal with emotions then I will call that what it is - new-age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft. (no offense intended)
 
New-age twaddle?  How about an idea formulated by some of the foundational thinkers of Western Culture, namely Plato and Aristotle?  Give this a try (scroll down to part 5 and on to read the music part):
 
 
No, I don't think you should agree with all of this just because Aristotle said it; I don't.  But dismissing it as "new age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft" does not give due credit to the idea and to its thinkers.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2012 at 16:39
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.
No worries - I feel we passed the point of repeating ourselves long ago.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Catharsis isn't merely a temporary release of emotion; if we go back to the original sources and look at the writings of Aristotle, who first defined catharsis, we see that the concept of catharsis implies a purification of emotion; that is, the release of emotion and identification with the emotions of characters or musicians in a story or song teaches us to "align our loves and hates correctly," as Aristotle would put it.  This isn't a temporary effect; it's a lasting one, and the whole idea of catharsis was meant to codify the way in which music affected human character.  
If that is the definition of catharsis you are working with here then I don't think it applies to most music, regardless of whether it is high or low art. I question whether a purification of emotions is even possible, especially through something as transitory as music - I suspect that the release experienced is temporary but the memory of that release is longer-lasting, perhaps even permanent in one or two rare (once in a lifetime) events. I doubt that the same peice of music will invoke the same reaction twice - but it can trigger the memory of the original "cathartic" experience. However, even if this were possible there is nothing inherrent in "art music" that would create catharsis that is not present in "entertainment music".
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Bieber is not "non-art" because the intent was to produce entertainment; he's mere entertainment because the compositions have almost no artistic value.  That could have been because the songwriters' intent was to mass-produce some light fluff that the masses would latch onto (in his case, I imagine that was probably part of it).  It could also have been just because the songwriters were bad (artistically), regardless of their intent.  It's very possible for someone to intend to create a great work of art, and for his music to have almost no artistic value because he is a terrible composer.  It is also possible for someone to intend merely to create something entertaining, and for the result to be a great work of art because he is a good composer. 
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere - you judge art as something that is good and everything that is bad as having no artistic value, therefore is not art. Therefore Bieber's music can never be "art" because it is (in your subjective judgement) both bad and has no artistic value, whereas Coldplay can be both entertainment and "art" because  (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value and Bach is art (sans quotes) because (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value.
 
I don't hold with that idea - I believe that music is an art-form and creating any music is an art and all music is art. This goes back to my first post in this thread - if creating a pop song was as easy as everyone thinks it is then we'd all be doing it. It is not easy, there is art in the craft of creating a hit pop song just as there is art in the craft of creating so-called "art music". Being bad artistically in the world of pop music means the same as it does in any field.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

I believe that music has higher and lower purposes because certain effects of the music are more profitable to the listener than others.  It's more profitable for a listener to listen to music that improves his character and teaches him to deal with his emotions than to listen to music that merely distracts him for the moment.  Therefore, I think that catharsis is a higher purpose than mere entertainment (as I defined them).
Good for you. I think you are seeing patterns where there are none. If you beleive that a series of harmonic tones can have a positive affect on a persons character and can teach them to deal with emotions then I will call that what it is - new-age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft. (no offense intended)
What?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2012 at 00:10
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
I'm not saying that a piece of entertainment is limited by the definition; as I said before, something can be entertaining - a pleasant amusement and diversion of the mind - while still posessing qualities beyond that, which are often the artisitic qualities that I discussed earlier.  I'm saying that the "entertainment" aspect of any piece of music involves only what entertainment itself is.  Catharsis, the communication of emotion, etc. are not excluded by the definition of entertainment, but they are not part of entertainment, either.
Entertainment is the release and/or communication of emotion - how else can you describe it if not through feelings - how it makes you feel emotionally - love/hate, happy/sad. Earlier you said entertainment was fleeting - for the moment, while "art" will change you - that is the emotional release is longer lasting, permanent even. Catharsis has no time limit - it can be fleeting or it can be long-lasting - it is simply the release of emotion. Therefore any piece of music can trigger that, whether it is what you call "music as mere entertainment" or "music as art" - I do not believe there is any distinction between the two - it is possible to be completely unmoved by a peice of classical music yet reduced to tears by a simple pop song.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
As for the intent distinctions thing; don't worry, we just misunderstood each other.  I can give more examples; Coldplay, One Republic, Journey; in the end, neither of us can really know every purpose these musicans have for making music, so it's impossible, in the end, for me to make these distinctions based upon intent.  I do believe that the intent of a musician is going to effect his work, but not for a moment do I think that a piece of music becomes something less if the intent was "lesser."
You are right we are misunderstanding each other and I cannot find the words to express it in completely unambiguous terms. I am saying that it does not matter whether the artist's intent was to create entertainment or art because the results can be either or neither depending on who the listener is. For you Bieber can never be "art" because the intent was to produce "entertainment" - Bach is "art" because his intent was to produce "art" and you don't know what Chris Martin's intent was but Coldplay can be "art" because it is better than Bieber, therefore it is more than just "entertainment". Or perhaps I still haven't understood you or explained myself.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
If you don't see music as having higher and lower purposes, do you see it as having a real purpose at all?  Or is there only one purpose for it, or is the purpose determined by the intent of the artist or the desires of the listener?  I can't really respond to that unless I know where you're coming from on the issue.
The purpose of music is not carried in the notes - there is no secret language buried in the score though the choice of scale can reflect emotion if used well, so something written in the Ionian mode can be quite happy and something written in Aeolian mode can be quite sad, something written in the Lorcan mode can be a bit scary and something written in the Lydian mode can sound happy but be just a little bit unnerving (listen closely to the Simpson's theme - sounds like a happy little tune but there is something not quite right about it - that's Danny Elfman using the Lydian mode to it's best effect), but it is perfectly possible to write a sad song in the Ionian mode and a happy one in the Lorcan. Whatever the artist desires of the listener is beyond his control, Dvorįk never intended his New World Symphony to sell Hovis bread, Bach never intended The Well-Tempered Clavier to be "art" (this is one "intent" we do know for certain - it was written as a teaching aid). Once the composer has written the piece it is in the caprice of the listener how it is recieved. Whether music has a higher or lower purpose is purely down to how the listener interprets it.

Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.

Catharsis isn't merely a temporary release of emotion; if we go back to the original sources and look at the writings of Aristotle, who first defined catharsis, we see that the concept of catharsis implies a purification of emotion; that is, the release of emotion and identification with the emotions of characters or musicians in a story or song teaches us to "align our loves and hates correctly," as Aristotle would put it.  This isn't a temporary effect; it's a lasting one, and the whole idea of catharsis was meant to codify the way in which music affected human character.  

Bieber is not "non-art" because the intent was to produce entertainment; he's mere entertainment because the compositions have almost no artistic value.  That could have been because the songwriters' intent was to mass-produce some light fluff that the masses would latch onto (in his case, I imagine that was probably part of it).  It could also have been just because the songwriters were bad (artistically), regardless of their intent.  It's very possible for someone to intend to create a great work of art, and for his music to have almost no artistic value because he is a terrible composer.  It is also possible for someone to intend merely to create something entertaining, and for the result to be a great work of art because he is a good composer. 

I believe that music has higher and lower purposes because certain effects of the music are more profitable to the listener than others.  It's more profitable for a listener to listen to music that improves his character and teaches him to deal with his emotions than to listen to music that merely distracts him for the moment.  Therefore, I think that catharsis is a higher purpose than mere entertainment (as I defined them).
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 20:15
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer.

If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group.
I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise.
It's really quite lame.

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.


Er, and that would not apply to, say, Tarja Turunen because she's supposedly prog or metal?  Really, I do not see much difference between Nightwish or bad pop.  When she hits the high notes on Stargazer live, her voice wobbles annoyingly so I doubt she is as good a singer as she is frequently made out to be.  She writes songs every now and then but is not a songwriter or musician of great repute, at any rate.  It is pretty simple, make it sound operatic or serious and you can make 'elite' fans believe there is a lot of talent going on.  Make it danceable and hip, and the masses will like it.  I don't know that there's a difference.   
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 20:10
Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

OP was interesting with the clip and how they can fix bad off tune singing in the studio - it really is talentless manufactured pop these days. When Elvis became a superstar it was because the man could actually sing, the same as The Beatles. If Lady GaGa was really fat and ugly she would not stand a chance, same as Bieber and Beyonce.


Are you certain that you are not perhaps confusing Beyonce and Britney Spears?  It is pretty lofty to claim that Beyonce cannot sing at all, much as I dislike her singing or the music she sings to.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 19:54
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
I'm not saying that a piece of entertainment is limited by the definition; as I said before, something can be entertaining - a pleasant amusement and diversion of the mind - while still posessing qualities beyond that, which are often the artisitic qualities that I discussed earlier.  I'm saying that the "entertainment" aspect of any piece of music involves only what entertainment itself is.  Catharsis, the communication of emotion, etc. are not excluded by the definition of entertainment, but they are not part of entertainment, either.
Entertainment is the release and/or communication of emotion - how else can you describe it if not through feelings - how it makes you feel emotionally - love/hate, happy/sad. Earlier you said entertainment was fleeting - for the moment, while "art" will change you - that is the emotional release is longer lasting, permanent even. Catharsis has no time limit - it can be fleeting or it can be long-lasting - it is simply the release of emotion. Therefore any piece of music can trigger that, whether it is what you call "music as mere entertainment" or "music as art" - I do not believe there is any distinction between the two - it is possible to be completely unmoved by a peice of classical music yet reduced to tears by a simple pop song.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
As for the intent distinctions thing; don't worry, we just misunderstood each other.  I can give more examples; Coldplay, One Republic, Journey; in the end, neither of us can really know every purpose these musicans have for making music, so it's impossible, in the end, for me to make these distinctions based upon intent.  I do believe that the intent of a musician is going to effect his work, but not for a moment do I think that a piece of music becomes something less if the intent was "lesser."
You are right we are misunderstanding each other and I cannot find the words to express it in completely unambiguous terms. I am saying that it does not matter whether the artist's intent was to create entertainment or art because the results can be either or neither depending on who the listener is. For you Bieber can never be "art" because the intent was to produce "entertainment" - Bach is "art" because his intent was to produce "art" and you don't know what Chris Martin's intent was but Coldplay can be "art" because it is better than Bieber, therefore it is more than just "entertainment". Or perhaps I still haven't understood you or explained myself.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
If you don't see music as having higher and lower purposes, do you see it as having a real purpose at all?  Or is there only one purpose for it, or is the purpose determined by the intent of the artist or the desires of the listener?  I can't really respond to that unless I know where you're coming from on the issue.
The purpose of music is not carried in the notes - there is no secret language buried in the score though the choice of scale can reflect emotion if used well, so something written in the Ionian mode can be quite happy and something written in Aeolian mode can be quite sad, something written in the Lorcan mode can be a bit scary and something written in the Lydian mode can sound happy but be just a little bit unnerving (listen closely to the Simpson's theme - sounds like a happy little tune but there is something not quite right about it - that's Danny Elfman using the Lydian mode to it's best effect), but it is perfectly possible to write a sad song in the Ionian mode and a happy one in the Lorcan. Whatever the artist desires of the listener is beyond his control, Dvorįk never intended his New World Symphony to sell Hovis bread, Bach never intended The Well-Tempered Clavier to be "art" (this is one "intent" we do know for certain - it was written as a teaching aid). Once the composer has written the piece it is in the caprice of the listener how it is recieved. Whether music has a higher or lower purpose is purely down to how the listener interprets it.


Edited by Dean - June 07 2012 at 19:55
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 01:35
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

No one has ever had their mind changed by an internet debate

I did.

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


I understand what you're saying about home recording and trying to work around your weaknesses using technology.  I would contend that it takes some of the soul out of the music when much of it is artificial, but I think that in my previous post I forgot to take into account the most important thing (how intelligent of me): the quality of the composition.  You're right, in that it's true that you can create some really good music even if much of the performance has been "fixed" as long as the composition is of good quality.  
If I were to be overly picky about that, I'd say you changed your mind during the debate over a point no one had considered before and were not swayed by what Stonie said in the debate itself.
 
But hey, I like seeing an exception that proves the rule, it encourages us all to keep chipping away at that damn.
What?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 23:31
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

No one has ever had their mind changed by an internet debate

I did.

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


I understand what you're saying about home recording and trying to work around your weaknesses using technology.  I would contend that it takes some of the soul out of the music when much of it is artificial, but I think that in my previous post I forgot to take into account the most important thing (how intelligent of me): the quality of the composition.  You're right, in that it's true that you can create some really good music even if much of the performance has been "fixed" as long as the composition is of good quality.  
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 23:27
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dictionary Dictionary wrote:

Entertainment:  1.  The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many.  2.  Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment.  

You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language.  These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music.  Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for.
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
 
 
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value.  In fact, I said just the opposite.  I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment.  I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers.  I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way.  I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;"  I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent.  I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is.
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
 
 
I never said that those synonyms replaced the word "entertain;" they explain it.  Entertainment is something that holds your attention with amusement or diversion; this definition suggests nothing of any real effect on the mind, any lasting change or any catharsis; it merely implies a pleasant distraction.  Does this exclude the possiblility that a piece of music may be entertaining but also truly move the soul and make one experience true beauty and catharsis?  No, it does not, but it does not include these in entertainment, either.  The dictionary definition of the word "entertainment" implies no lasting value but a momentary diversion
I see no statute of limitations within any definition of "entertainment" - I do not believe there is any time duration implicit in entertainment.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
How can you tell me I'm "still making distinctions based on intent," when I've just given examples of music meant for entertainment that I consider to be great art, also?  If you want another example, how about Coldplay?  I think that their music is great modern art, some of the most beautiful stuff produced in the 20th century.  What do you think they see their music as, other than entertainment?  If you're a good artist, you can create good art even if you don't necessarily see your music as something beyond entertainment.  I've already given examples, so please do not imply that I'm lying. 
Sorry - did it appear that I was implying you were lying? Please forgive, that was not my intention - I do not beleive that any of the examples you have given intend to produce mere entertainment.
 
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
I see your point in saying that "all art is entertainment;" I don't deny that something can have a lower purpose (entertainment, the diversion/distraction) as well as a higher purpose (the life-changing power of art), and I think you're right in saying that the higher purpose carries with it the lower purpose.   
I don't see music as having a lower purpose period or  a higher one - it's just music.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

I know that the determination of artistic value is heavily reliant on personal judgement, because no one experiences art in the same way.  But I do believe that there is objective value and beauty, and I believe that we can recognize that value even if a piece of art does not profoundly effect us personally.  There are no clear dividing lines; no one can objectively say whether Mozart or Beethoven is better, or whether Rush is better than Yes, or anything of that sort, but I do think that we can make distinctions between art that is good, art that is mediocre, and stuff that has so little artistic value that it can barely be considered art at all.
But you appear to be saying that Mozart is better than Rush - and I don't accept that objective valuation.
 
I'm not saying that a piece of entertainment is limited by the definition; as I said before, something can be entertaining - a pleasant amusement and diversion of the mind - while still posessing qualities beyond that, which are often the artisitic qualities that I discussed earlier.  I'm saying that the "entertainment" aspect of any piece of music involves only what entertainment itself is.  Catharsis, the communication of emotion, etc. are not excluded by the definition of entertainment, but they are not part of entertainment, either.
 
As for the intent distinctions thing; don't worry, we just misunderstood each other.  I can give more examples; Coldplay, One Republic, Journey; in the end, neither of us can really know every purpose these musicans have for making music, so it's impossible, in the end, for me to make these distinctions based upon intent.  I do believe that the intent of a musician is going to effect his work, but not for a moment do I think that a piece of music becomes something less if the intent was "lesser."
 
If you don't see music as having higher and lower purposes, do you see it as having a real purpose at all?  Or is there only one purpose for it, or is the purpose determined by the intent of the artist or the desires of the listener?  I can't really respond to that unless I know where you're coming from on the issue.
 
I never said that Mozart was better than Rush.  I just picked a pair of classical artists and a pair of prog artists, not intending to elevate one over the other.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
TheGazzardian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8667
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 20:34
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


It isn't a problem.  It's commerce.  People want to be entertained, not necessarily "appreciate" anything.

So until you start a record label and make it commercially successful by signing on true talent and making the masses appreciate it, you'll continue to be upset over this.

Or you'll just realize that this is how it is and get over it and enjoy whatever it is you do.  Smile

Now wait just a minute - you're telling me that there's nothing in your belief system that goes against the "hey, everything's cool"/"anything goes"/"it's all relative, man" attitude?  Isn't there something in your personal belief system that says...oh...I dunno...that there are things that are wrong with the world, maybe?

I don't know about Rob (though I suspect his answer would be similar to mine), but there are things in the world that bother me and that I think are wrong. And approximately none of them have to do with what other people are listening to for their own enjoyment.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 20:27
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.

Why is this a problem?

Dean, you are a very intelligent, knowledgeable man. But I believe that talent and hard work should be rewarded, and when this is not the case, but rather "special people" get rewarded while hard working people are passed over, I think something is wrong, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say to convince me otherwise.
I have no intention of ever trying to convince you of anything - no one has ever had their mind changed by an internet debate. If hard-work is not rewarded then the person is doing something that people don't want enough for them to be rewarded. That may sound harsh but it is a reality and complaining about it won't change a thing. The utopia you dream of actually does exist, it exists in parallel with the world you don't like, the difference is the market place for the so-called wizard of oz stuff you don't like is just so much bigger, and that's never going to change. Back in the "Golden Prog Era" of the 70s when Prog Rock was selling well, manufactured pop in the form of Teenie-bopper pin-up bands, Bubble-gum pop, Motown Soul, Philly Disco and British Glam Rock sold more, a lot more.
 
I could make the most exquisite audio amplifier the world has ever seen, and take hundreds of hours crafting each part to make it absolutely perfect in every way, then fine-tune it to produce a sound so transparent and crystal clear it would make the angels weep and then I could spend another few hundred hours hand-tooling a case made from titanium and solid silver with custom made knobs using the rarest hardwoods that only grow on a remote island in the Indian Ocean and use military grade switches that would not look out of place on a million dollar yacht moored in Monte Carlo bay and wire it all up using the purest oxygen free gold wire that can only be made in the zero-gravity environment of the International Space Station. To recoup my costs I would obviously have to charge a kings ransom for it, but even that exorbitant price tag would work to my advantage because the people who would buy it are as impressed by a gold-plated price ticket as they are by workmanship that went  into it and the audio clarity that comes out of it. I would probably sell less than a hundred of those in my lifetime but I could never sell thousands because the market for such an audiophile piece of equipment is so small. Yet even though I may never sell very many, the selling price will make me rich.
 
Alternatively I could take the same circuit design and get it manufactured in China for $20 using cheaper components and a mass-produced case with knobs made from domestic grown wood etc., - it would still look and sound the same and the choir invisible would still be crying rivers of tears whenever they heard it but my audiophile fans would hate it with a passion even though I could prove scientifically that the two amps are identical in every way. However, I could now sell it in Best Buy for less than a hundred bucks each and sell thousands of them, perhaps a million over my lifetime throughout the world so they would still make me rich.
 
Now the problem with music is that regardless of the amount of hard-work that goes into making it, every CD retails for the same price; regardless of how artistically perfect it is; regardless of the workmanship and talent involved; each and every CD sells for (let's say) $15 no matter who made it or how long it took to produce. This does not fit into the two business plans of the audio amp I've just described because I cannot hike-up the selling price for the album that cost more to make and I cannot charge more for the album with the higher artistic integrity value (whatever that is). What I have to do is sell more of them, a lot more, and to do that I need to promote them so that more people will hear it and therefore buy it... yet I can also do that to the album that was cheaper to produce and I would make even more money. But that still does not explain why manufactured pop records sell more than hand-crafted "art" records because if I sold the two versions of my audio amp at the same retail price the hand-crafted ones would fly off the shelves while the mass-produced ones would sit in the warehouse still in their shipping crates. The difference is very simple - the people who buy music neither know nor care how much hard-work has gone into making it, they don't care about talent (no one has to convince them that an artist has talent, just watch one of those reality make-me-a-star tv programmes to see that) - they only care how it sounds - if they like it they buy it, if they don't they don't. And this is true of the manufactured pop as it is for the hand-crafted "art" music. The bottom line is the people who buy manufactured pop simply don't like hand-crafted "art" music.
 
 


Edited by Dean - June 06 2012 at 20:28
What?
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 19:39
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer.

If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group.
I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise.
It's really quite lame.

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.

It's not really a secret. The only people who are fooled by this are the teeny boppers, and no one cares what a 12 year old thinks about things because their opinions are full of crap.

It's not like your teen cousin is going to start listening to Periphery just because Justin Beiber turned 18 and starts doing mature RnB with some shameful has-been. There will always be a market for toss away pop music. And there is also good pop music, but kids can't be arsed to find it. Then they go into high school and like indie pop, then they go into college, and become hipsters. Then I want to have sex with them. It's a life cycle that we must respect and cherish. 
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:40
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


It isn't a problem.  It's commerce.  People want to be entertained, not necessarily "appreciate" anything.

So until you start a record label and make it commercially successful by signing on true talent and making the masses appreciate it, you'll continue to be upset over this.

Or you'll just realize that this is how it is and get over it and enjoy whatever it is you do.  Smile

Now wait just a minute - you're telling me that there's nothing in your belief system that goes against the "hey, everything's cool"/"anything goes"/"it's all relative, man" attitude?  Isn't there something in your personal belief system that says...oh...I dunno...that there are things that are wrong with the world, maybe?

I'm not saying there's anything you or I can do about it.  But I'm saying that I see something wrong here, and it bothers me, and it SHOULD.  In the end: YES, I have to let it go and move on and live my life trusting that things come out the way they are meant to be even if I don't understand them.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:33
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.

Why is this a problem?

Dean, you are a very intelligent, knowledgeable man. But I believe that talent and hard work should be rewarded, and when this is not the case, but rather "special people" get rewarded while hard working people are passed over, I think something is wrong, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say to convince me otherwise.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:28
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.
Why is this a problem?
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:17
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer.

If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group.
I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise.
It's really quite lame.

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.


It isn't a problem.  It's commerce.  People want to be entertained, not necessarily "appreciate" anything.

So until you start a record label and make it commercially successful by signing on true talent and making the masses appreciate it, you'll continue to be upset over this.

Or you'll just realize that this is how it is and get over it and enjoy whatever it is you do.  Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.