Virtuosity vs Arrogance

MonkeyphoneAlex wrote: Structurally Pink Floyd may be simple, but harmonically they are pretty complex.

Actually, this statement is self-contradictory: rich harmonic structure implies structural complexity in general.  In any case, Pink Floyd are also harmonically simple.  For example, Gilmour's solos are famously modal.  Moreover, many of their songs are built on simple open-chord progressions.

Notice that I don't mean any of this as a criticism of the band--I enjoy much of their of music (well, at least from '71 through '79).  But facts are facts: the music is fairly simple, but arranged beautifully.

I listen to everything; Mainly Prog, Jazz, Classic Rock, Blues, and some Classical.

However, having said that, I find that if you are getting bored of prog, just spend some time listening to, or discovering a new "sub-Genre" of prog rock. If you are getting bored from the more mainstream "Symphonic Rock", consider taking a dip into Krautrock, or Jazz Fusion. That should stir things up a bit

WinterLight wrote: areazione wrote: As Bruford said about odd-time rhythms, no matter how complex your music is, what truly matters is how pleasant it becomes to your audience's ears. If that is correct, and I presume so to grand extent, I would say (begging pardon to these gentlemen's fans) that Petrucci or Malmsteen are more or less what can be defined as a snob and arrogant, musically speaking. Fripp or Zappa are examples of a bit more modest, if that is humanly possible, virtuosity.  Vai and Corea are examples of musicians highly gifted but tending towards useless pomposity.  Yes are perhaps a decent compromise, and not surprise they are listened by non-prog fanatics. There's an obvious fallacy here: it is clear that (intended) audiences of Petrucci or Malmsteen find their music "pleasant."  In any case, I disagree with Bruford: an artist need not (in fact, should not) make concessions to an imagined audience, for this is nothing but a compromise of the artform. By the way, there is yet another error in your post: the ubiquitous conflation of time-signature with rhythm.

I'm with Bruford all the way. Communication is central to art, in my view. Any communication should take the characteristics of the audience into account - and will, whether consciously or subconsciously on the part of the person communicating. My communication research suggests that even those striving to subvert established methods do so with an audience in mind. All art is compromise, which is one of the reasons it is so darn interesting, even if it doesn't speak to us personally.


Edited by russellk - July 13 2008 at 17:13

WinterLight wrote: areazione wrote: As Bruford said about odd-time rhythms, no matter how complex your music is, what truly matters is how pleasant it becomes to your audience's ears. If that is correct, and I presume so to grand extent, I would say (begging pardon to these gentlemen's fans) that Petrucci or Malmsteen are more or less what can be defined as a snob and arrogant, musically speaking. Fripp or Zappa are examples of a bit more modest, if that is humanly possible, virtuosity.  Vai and Corea are examples of musicians highly gifted but tending towards useless pomposity.  Yes are perhaps a decent compromise, and not surprise they are listened by non-prog fanatics. There's an obvious fallacy here: it is clear that (intended) audiences of Petrucci or Malmsteen find their music "pleasant."  In any case, I disagree with Bruford: an artist need not (in fact, should not) make concessions to an imagined audience, for this is nothing but a compromise of the artform. By the way, there is yet another error in your post: the ubiquitous conflation of time-signature with rhythm.

Intro (necessary to let you understand what I briefly consider art)

Wilde was lying to himself: art is the highest expression of unconscious  obligation (we feel obliged and compelled to express our feelings) commissioned to someone else to return us joy. This joy transforms itself  into self-appreciation, which he postulated being the only purpose to create our own art.
That is psychologically understandable: no human being desires to express himself merely for the ecstatic and egocentric purpose to delight himself.
There is certainly such a component, but it is not a necessary condition. Only sufficient. The necessary condition is clearly "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art. In that case, in fact, I would only think onto myself in a repetitive act, and this would be the end of the story".
We are social beings. We would hope to be lonely beings, but for various reason we must be surrounded by others, in order to see our individuality. Regarding Art, it is a medium to interact with an observer, being yourself or someone else. If art were pursued only for being statically laid onto a pedestal and left there as time goes by, without external intervention (i.e. observation), none could interact with it, thus, nobody could judge it (because judgment is a true and pure form of intervention).

1. Malmsteen or Petrucci's audience is self-contained and self-consistent. An audience has to be more general than the one which follows you as religious worshippers (music fan can be regarded as such sometimes. That's why we call ourselves "fans", i.e. fanatics) . It is so obvious that artists, creating a specific music, canonized in a very peculiar way, will be liked by their direct group of people. More difficult if, though not a fanatic of yours, someone can become interested in your art, no matter how far it is from your common tastes and ideas. I guess, but I could be wrong, this is Bruford's message. If that is not, well, at least this is mine. However I see you point, and honestly I might admit that I could agree to some extent to your statement above. What doesn't make me embrace your point 100% is the side effect of it: if I blindly trusted my natural audience's appreciation, then I would fall into a never.-ending spiral, whose way out would be highly unlikely to take place, because I would fear to leave a virtual place I forged where I feel secure, instead of going beyond the certainty.

2. now that I read back what I wrote there, I have to say that was exactly what I would have wanted to say. Most of the times I fail with English, because it is not my mother tongue.
Thanks for your precise correction.

Hope this sounds clear to you.


Edited by areazione - July 13 2008 at 19:43

WinterLight wrote: russellk wrote: I'm with Bruford all the way. Communication is central to art, in my view. But according to areazione, Bruford holds that "what truly matters is how pleasant it becomes to your audience's ears."  My disagreement with this view has nothing to do with the centrality of "communication" in art, but rather an artist kowtowing the hypothetical demands of its listeners.  It's a lazy man's art, I believe: people think that the art should come to them, that no effort, i.e., active engagement, is required.  Serious art demands close attention (see Greek drama or classical music, for two obvious examples); I would think that this would be transparent to those who this forum. Any communication should take the characteristics of the audience into account - and will, whether consciously or subconsciously on the part of the person communicating. Well, now you're speaking in the normative sense, if not dogmatically.  Of course, if one wants her communication to be effective, then she'll "take the characteristics of the audience into account."  But notice that she also chooses her audience, and not conversely.  Moreover, your final qualification may be true (or false), but you haven't argued why it is, rather you asserted by fiat. My communication research suggests that even those striving to subvert established methods do so with an audience in mind. Do you really need research to establish a truism?  Cui bono? All art is compromise, which is one of the reasons it is so darn interesting, even if it doesn't speak to us personally. Again, this might be true or false; but you don't argue for it, you just declare it.

You're right: I merely advance propositions in the above email; I don't provide evidence. But that's not quite the same as saying I'm not making an argument. My 'all art is compromise' conclusion is declared on the basis of what came before: the notion that artists do consider their audiences does, I think, imply compromise. All this depends on the theory of communication one wishes to employ, of course, which, while relevant, will probably pull this thread away from its purpose.

As for 'choosing' an audience, it should be noted that this isn't quite the same as taking the characteristics of an audience into account. My first novel reached quite a different (and wider) audience than either I or the publisher expected, which meant I felt I had at least to consider the wishes of a younger audience when writing the second and third books in the series. Only when I'd closed off that series could I then begin a new story with a darker subtext. I didn't choose my audience - they chose me. And, without being expressly driven to shape my work to their desires, I did feel an obligation to consider them.

My research into cartographic communication was done because the models currently in vogue did not consider the users of maps at all. So, while a truism in the broader communication field, the notion of cartographers being influenced by audiences was a novel one and flew in the face of those who argued that maps were scientific, objective, value-free documents.

This means I'm still comfortable with the notion that Bruford's comments are on the mark. I take your point that its unrealistic for an audience to expect to perceive all the meanings imbued in a particular piece of art without effort, but I do think there's an equal degree of laziness on the part of artists who don't make provision for their audiences. There's a skill, after all, in good communication - one which, as this overlong response shows, I'm still grappling with!

areazione wrote: Question: would person, born lonely on a desert island with no cognition of society and community of people, create art? I think so:  there's reason to believe that humans, as a consequence of their intelligence, are inherently creative.  It simply needs to come out, even if no one is present to appreciate it.  This is analogous to a house cat initiating play even if no other cats or humans are around. There is certainly such a component, but it is not a necessary condition. Only sufficient. The necessary condition is clearly "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art. Not so clear to me. Distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition or else? No.  I don't see why it is "clear" that artistic production implies a "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art." In that case, in fact, I would only think onto myself in a repetitive act, and this would be th end of the story". We are social beings. We would hope to be lonely beings, but for various reason we must be surrounded by others, in order to see our individuality. Regarding Art, it is a medium to interact with an observer, being yourself or someone else. If art were pursued only for being statically laid onto a pedestal and left there as time goes by, without external intervention (i.e. observation), none could interact with it, thus, nobody could judge it (because judgment is a true and pure form of intervention). This is opinion, not fact. Even yourself can be considered an observer (and in fact it is. Quantum mechanics is based upon this statement), and this is the reason why I cannot understand why you consider my point just an opinion and not a fact. I think that you mean "special relativity" rather than "quantum mechanics."  In any case, the reasoning is fallacious:  you can't arbitrarily use a model of a certain phenomenon in order to explain another distinct phenomenon. Malmsteen or Petrucci's audience is self-contained and self-consistent. An audience has to be more general than the one which follows you as religious worshippers (music fan can be regarded as such sometimes. That's why we call ourselves "fans", i.e. fanatics) . It is so obvious that artists, creating a specific music, canonized in a very peculiar way, will be liked by their direct group of people. More difficult if, though not a fanatic of yours, someone can become interested in your art, no matter how far it is from your common tastes and ideas. But even if their audiences are "self-contained" (which I don't believe they are), then according to your above claims, then artist satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions you imposed above. It doesn't satisfy the necessary condition, because in producing only for one restricted group, that group becomes a unit, a single listener, which is not so improbable to become a transposition of yourself. I don't think that this actually happens (maybe in pop music, but even there I'm not so sure).  Look, for example, the controversy over the new album by Opeth:  although many longtime fans don't like the album, many others do (including Akerfeldt). ...if I blindly trusted my natural audience's appreciation, then I would fall into a never.-ending spiral, whose way out would be highly unlikely to take place, because I would fear to leave a virtual place I forged where I feel secure, instead of going beyond the certainty. I think that the audience, natural or otherwise, is irrelevant.  When an artist ceases to please himself, he ceases to be an artist: he is no longer communicating his message, but is merely a messenger of another's communication Could be true, but I do believe that this attitude will never happen, due to an impossible abstraction of your existence with respect to the rest of the social space you occupy. Not sure what you mean here.