Where do we go from here?

<!–QuoteBegin>

QUOTE
1st friend has me jamming with his band, nothing serious just supposed to have fun. Started out like that but now we have set lists, cd’s of songs to learn, and a friggin gig coming up in Sept. THE FUN HAS LEFT THIS!
2nd friend has us recording original music together again. He plays bass and sings really great. He writes really good tunes that have the preverbial hooks in them. But it’s left up to me to arrange and complete instrumentation. THE FUN HAS LEFT THIS ALSO!

These seem like good projects to me. Have you considered drugs again?

Signed,

Midnight Toker :laugh:

Personally, I used to blame myself for all the ills of the world, now I can blame Yaz - global warming, epidemics, falling bridges, falling arches - geez, Yaz, what’s up with that? :)

But there is a serious aesthetic-theoretical issue here. I know a lot of folks who have spent lives exposed to music in lots of ways, where music is more than just functional, who are completely bored by the whole thing - after years of study, playing, passion, new horizons, there just aren’t any new horizons. Get to that point, and the art is dead, no matter how much pleasure it might give some people. People who have plumbed the depths and explored the peaks…what’s left? there is nothing surprising anymore…

Bach, Brahms, and Hendrix excepted, of course…but soon too those pleasures and insights will have been exhausted…

Eyup!

Well, personally speaking, I have not heard every piece of music that has ever been created, so I still have a fair way to go before all of the new horizons have been exhausted Tom.
But surely, it is better not to have to experience everything to gain pleasure, but to gain pleasure from everything you experience. Why does there have to be a point? can’t the familiar also be pleasurable? do we close our eyes to the sunrise because we saw it yesterday? does a beautiful poem lose its meaning if we copy it in our own hand?

I’m off to trim my ear hair now.

Steve

OMG Steve has the answer, ear hair!

Off to trim mine also! (That’s what I’ve been tripping over)


(YazMiester @ Jul. 03 2007,23:08)
QUOTE
OMG Steve has the answer, ear hair!

Off to trim mine also! (That's what I've been tripping over)

I used to work with a bunch of guys in Scotland who, when they were feeling bored in the canteen, used to hold an Anal hair pulling contest.
Basically, the one who could extract the largest clump of hair from his derriere ,without causing any tears in his eyes, was the winner.
Of course this is not a cure-all for every occasion, but.......

Thank you for sharing that Bruffie. :)

Anyway, going back to where we were :D

Yaz, you’re right, we’ve only got 12 notes to play with, (well, in the standard western tuning system anyway, and ignoring microtones).

But that’s 144 possible combinations of two notes.

And for a simple 8 note phrase, it’s nearly half a billion possible combinations.

And that’s ignoring excursions into other octaves, or more importantly, the duration and relative duration of those notes…

and rests…

and the tonality of the instrument…

And the relative volume and attack, etc., of those individual notes…

And then, if we start harmonising, adding polyrhythmic percussion…

Sh1t, we haven’t even started exploring music yet! LOL

So how do we find that new music?

Buggered if I know, but Bob Fripp said that using altered tunings on his guitars opened up whole new avenues for him. He said he was forced to explore new scales and new modes, so perhaps that’s something to think about?

Or do what I do when I’m accused of sounding like Pink Floyd…

just reply…“No, they sound like me, the plagiaristic fuckers!” :D

The fallacy here is that one needs to experience every note/harmony/rhythm combination to have a sense of the extent of the possibilities, I think.

1. It is not only impratical to experience all of the variations, if we assumed that a composition could go on indefinitely, there are an infinite number of possible composition that will never be finished. I suppose there are aesthetics there that I have not and will not experience, and they might be radically different than the short compositions we all know and love (you know, short things like most of Bruckner), but I doubt it.

2. Beyond that, what rhythmic possibilities in a finite composition have not been at least outlined by now? What harmonic ones? What melodic ones? I’d argue that the outline is enough to judge the whole sufficiently to justify the conclusion that the art is dead - at least in the sense of innovation within the technological limits in place right now. New technologies, new possibilities, but I can’t see what new tech might do the trick, short, as I mentioned before, of some more direct access to the brain. Artificially induced synesthesia might be one path. We might get to that level of technology this century. Hope I’m still alive to enjoy it! But all that’s left within current tech limitations, it seems to me, is a process of “filling in the gaps” - of synthesizing and making complete past innovations, not generating new ones. Not that this is at all bad - Bach fits this description pretty well, and produced some of the greatest art ever - but the art is dead, boys, the art is dead. To be the maggot on the body that is human culture and intellectual history, I take the liberty to paraphrase and perfomratively demonstrate my proposition:

<!–QuoteBegin>

QUOTE
The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. “Where has Art gone?” he called out. "I mean to tell you! We have killed it, you and I! We are all its murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying art? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even arts putrify! Art is dead! Art remains dead! And we have killed it!


Found this by accident; a shoot 'em up game where you can destroy great works of art - truly Dada:

http://realguide.real.com/games/?s=artisdead



I’m not sure about this guys! I wish I had the musical education and knowledge of some of you, but I don’t, so in a laymans attempt to explain.

You see, over the years people have attempted to be “different” with music. Stockhausen, Schonberg, John Cage, Tangerine Dream, and indeed Robert Fripp. But in the end they all descend into a cult status because there is only a very limited range of harmonic and tempo changes etc… that people find pleasing to the ear.
I defer to the more scholarly people here who know 100 times more about the technicalities of music than I do, but it still boils down to "Do you like it?"
I bought Tangerine Dreams 1st album because all of my peer group were raving about it. But,for me, honesty prevailed when I suddenly thought “I don’t like this crap” and reverted to Deep Purple.
I read an interview with Bob Dylan recently who said that modern music “ain’t worth nothing at all” he went on to rant about modern production methods being all sound and no substance etc… Now personally I think it’s a crying shame that the great man has become a boring old fart.
Every year that goes bye, I find something in music that excites me, and I hope I always will.
A friend recently said to me “There ain’t any rock bands around like Sabbath” Damn right! Most of them are better!
Listen to the lyrics of Jethro Tulls’ “Too old to rock and roll”… says it all for me.
I’m too old but loving it!! Think I’d better go for a lie down now :)

<!–QuoteBegin>

QUOTE
The fallacy here is that one needs to experience every note/harmony/rhythm combination to have a sense of the extent of the possibilities


I can’t see your proof anywhere of that statement Tom, perhaps you could provide it?

<!–QuoteBegin>
QUOTE
Beyond that, what rhythmic possibilities in a finite composition have not been at least outlined by now?


I don’t know the answer to that, so if nothing else, that ignorance tells me that there are still areas of exploration. But some things do suggest themselves: Midi has taught us that the rock steady percussionist is boring. We also know that micro variations in the beat affect the feel. We also know that a a progressive change in the beat also effects the feel. Yes, these possibilities have been tentatively explored, but explored in depth and exhausted? I don’t think so. So, can we start really exploring the possible avenues? Can we start creating complex tempo maps, and creatively integrate those maps with harmony and melody? Again, I don’t know the answers, but for me, the questions exist.

<!–QuoteBegin>
QUOTE
What harmonic ones?


Well again, with a given 12 note scale, we have over a possible billion “chords” and their inversions. I’m not sure how many chords you’ve used Tom, but I use nowhere near that figure.

Referring to Ian’s “pleasant sounding” suggestion…I disagree, “pleasant sounding” is even more boring than a steady beat. Tension and release are the keywords here, and those unpleasant chords are one of the keys to tension, and it’s those unpleasant chords that make the resolution to an otherwise boring CMaj into a thing of beauty.

<!–QuoteBegin>
QUOTE
What melodic ones


Well, if you allow me multi-layered melodies, then the same answer as above, but multiplied by n factorial (where n is the number of notes in the composition).

<!–QuoteBegin>
QUOTE
I’d argue that the outline is enough to judge the whole sufficiently to justify the conclusion that the art is dead


Ok, again, I’d be interested to see your proof of that argument Tom. I agree that all these areas have been explored, but, have they been explored creatively with musical genius? Many experimental composers have tried all sort of weird and wonderful things, but to me much of it sounds like crap; it’s all intellect, and no feeling.

Not that intellectual music is a bad thing, but it’s just one of the realms of music. There’s much more to music than just “Bach talking to God in mathematics”.

I fear you are suffering from old age Tom :p, the “been there, done that” syndrome. Trying living with an Amazon tribe for a few years , indulge in their rituals and their particular variety of soma, then follow the flight of your soul as the drums carry you to new horizons…or summat like at anyway. :D

In other words, instead of searching for new music, how about searching for a new Tom, or at least, a new perspective anyway. :)

Well, Spam, as far as evidence for my first claim (I wouldn’t aspire to much mroe than that) I’d think about analogous cases - e.g., think of a problem that involves a large data set, where it’s so large there is no practical way to search through it, and where the desired bits of data come in big, contiguous groups (unlike a case in which you are looking for isolated data points scattered here and there) - in such a case a “spotty” search is likely (but not certain) to pick up most of the groups, which can then be fleshed out. Sort of like that game Battleship some of us may have played as kids. My sense is that music is a lot like that. Serial music and aleatoric music represent to me vast stretches of data points that are pretty much desert like aesthetically. But note that even if that is not true, and I am just a tin ear when it comes to that stuff, it still has been staked out, and hence that particular battleship has been identified, if not sunk yet. So…not proof, but I think it’s a reasonable position. What reasons do we have to think that there is some aural territory that hasn’t at least had a discoverer and a few colonizers?

As to your second point, we are treading very close to what logicians call the fallacy of appeal to ignorance; lack of evidence here suggests my position I think, rather than yours. As a side note, I think midi actually taught us about four on the floor dance music, which has a certain aesthetic value - although I’m with you, I’d rather listen to real musicians playing who groove.

As to yoru next points, what I said above applies to harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic aspects, so if the argument works, I think it works for all three.

I dunno if I am suffering from old age; personally, I think I am suffering from the beginning of wisdom that comes with a few - not too many yet! - years of experience. Youth is far over-rated, IMHO. I suppose I could take drugs (soma - thought that plant was extinct, and from India…) and alter my brain chemistry and fool myself into thinking that some crap music is really transcendent - like Tangerine Dream - but I am unwilling to give up on Sophia just yet.

:D

Well, you may well be right Tom, but I’m not sure how valid it is to treat art like we do mathematics. How exactly do we assign the membership set identity of one balding Elizabethan actor/playwright to those infinite monkeys on their infinite typewriters?

But to support my point of view, I’d have to define what art is; and no way am I going there! :D

Tom, if you have indeed found the beginnings of wisdom, then good luck to you. I personally still can’t even figure out which way up the map is supposed to be held. :)

North goes on the top Spambot! :D

Mathematics/Music. Oh yes, most definately!

<!–QuoteBegin>

QUOTE
North goes on the top Spambot!


Sh1t! That then is possibly the reason that the last time I went to Sweden to party with the gorgeous blondes, I finished up screwing a penguin! :(

Spambot, one must keep in mind that the beginning of wisdom is recognizing one’s own ignorance, if you buy that old Socratic claptrap, so if I claim to be wiser than someone, I am claiming to be more ignorant…Socrates: Buddhist. :D

I dunno what it is (yet) but that there is a one-to-one mapping function between all possible musical pieces and, say, the positive integers could be demonstrated by showing that the number of combinations of melodies, harmonies, and rhythms is denumerably infinite. I’m not making any deep claim that we could identify a mapping function that would, say, allow us to identify a certain area as aesthetically fecund, or anything like that, although I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t at least be possible (if not practical - e.g., perhaps there is a mapping function that matches all aesthetically superior pieces to the primes, so all we’d have to do is identify primes and then find the piece mapped onto them - wouldn’t that be cool! But that seems pretty unlikely, although, as I said, I see no logical objection to the possibility).

In any case, one we specify that the pieces we are going to consider are all shorter than, say, the Ring cycle, and we will not allow divisions of pitch less than semitones (or 1/4 tones, or whatever, as long as we set a lower limit) and we will not allow note durations shorter than, say, 128th notes (or, again, some lowest limit) then we are in the realm of the finite, and the set of possible musical pieces can be explored more-or-less completely using the search method I suggested - spot searches and then zeroing in on areas of interest. Not guaranteed to get all areas of innovation, but the more time we spend on it, the more probable it becomes that we have discovered them. And I say that’s where we are right now. And interesting time in which to live - both privileged, and sad…

Wow… Yesterday, I thought I felt an inspiration for a truly original song. Turned out to be gas from eating too many raw Jerusalem artichokes. The feeling soon passed. Err… so to speak.

T


(TomS @ Jul. 05 2007,09:25)
QUOTE
map all aesthetically superior pieces to the primes

Achh… you would attempt to map that which cannot be defined to that which can be rigorously defined. Sounds like a wobbly wicket to me.

T

Tom may not have a great sounding snare drum, but he can talk more ‘Bovine Droppings’ than anyone I know! :D

<!–QuoteBegin>

QUOTE
dunno what it is (yet) but that there is a one-to-one mapping function between all possible musical pieces and, say, the positive integers could be demonstrated by showing that the number of combinations of melodies, harmonies, and rhythms is denumerably infinite.


No, there isn’t Tom.

And before you gird yourself to enter a mathematical discussion, please make damn sure you’re adequately girdled! :D

But anyway…

So, what is music?

To me, music is not 2 bars of a score…that’s just the beginning.

The performer, and the listener, are equally important.

One day I can listen to a piece of music, and it brings tears to my eyes; the next day, it means nothing. And in another listener it probably generates a completely different reaction altogether.

And the same piece played by Jimi, or the hobo standing on the corner of the street, is also different musically.

That is not true about mathematics or science; if I evaluate G or list the first 10 primes, it matters not whether I’m depressed or happy, it matters not where or when I do it, it matters not who performs the evaluation.

And that is so not true about art in general, and music specifically.

But Ok, if your definition of music is those little squashed black bugs on a score sheet, then fair enough, one can define sets and groups, (although, I claim that both those sets and groups are not infinite, but transfinite), but, if we’re using the word “art” here, then I (sadly) see a fundamental difference between me playing a given set of notes, and Peter Green playing the same set.

T, a slippy wicket definitely!

As for you Yaz, it was you who started this, so stop stirring the sh1t! :D

Is there a way of editing ones own posts? ???

Anyway, a thought just occured to me Tom.

John Keats self written epitaph reads:

“Here lies one whose name was writ in water”.

The superficical meaning of that is obvious, but to me, and I’m sure to Keats, the meanings are far more complex,

And whatever “art” is, those words probably explain it as well as anything can.