User Pass

Forum > General Discussion > Music > Objectivity vs Subjectivity in music

Page:

Last Online: Jan 20, 2022 04:57:33
Admin
Link
Originally posted by Gart888
one combination of those 1s and 0s would sound exactly like those cavemen singing...


One of those combinations is also those cavemen singing backwards.
Six inches of pure deliciousness...on a stick!

Last Online: Jan 7, 2020 03:36:46
Link
Originally posted by Corndog
One of those combinations is also those cavemen singing backwards.


One of those combinations is also Elliott Smith doing a cover of Let the Eagle Soar.
Originally posted by Catullus 16
had my first kid at 80, saw my first grandchild at 160.

Last Online: Jan 2, 2022 18:05:05
Link
Music is like water. It's fluid.
Trump didn't just lose. He lost big.

Last Online: Jan 19, 2022 23:16:46
Coyote
Link
Originally posted by RIP Al Davis
I think a key point is the fact Hendrix wasn't trying to sound anything like Dylan. That wasn't something he was trying to do in the slightest. His cover is effectively a new song in itself as far as I can see.


Ah... but unlike a 'new song', Hendrix had to get either the original artists' permission to use and make money off the song, and/or pay royalties for using the song whereas a true 'new song' would not have this restriction (hence all the lawsuits and stuff over 'sound-alike-songs' when one artist believes his 'work' was plagiarized.) The only time this doesn't apply is if the copyright has expired. A similar song situation (like the one I just mentioned above), but falling under this 'expiration category' would be the song 'Johnny B. Goode'. This song is a staple of MANY artists and, also, has been done many different ways. John Denver did this song... as did Judas Priest (in perfect Judas Priest style, I might add)... and Frank Marino & Mahogany Rush (the live album and one of my personal favorite versions) as well. An 'old song' done many 'new ways'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUeptFM6xpE
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
wipety-wipe-wipe

Edited by Theo Wizzago on Apr 25, 2015 22:29:34

Last Online: Jan 20, 2022 04:57:33
Admin
Link
Originally posted by RIP Al Davis
One of those combinations is also Elliott Smith doing a cover of Let the Eagle Soar.


And one of those is Gart covering that cover of that song in pig latin.
Six inches of pure deliciousness...on a stick!
Edited by Corndog on Apr 26, 2015 09:33:10

Last Online: Jan 20, 2022 04:57:33
Admin
Link
And in reverse
Six inches of pure deliciousness...on a stick!

Last Online: Feb 26, 2019 05:57:57
Link
Originally posted by RIP Al Davis
One can objectively come closer to the original, but that's usually not the goal anyway. And on a side note the way in which that's better doesn't seem like much to brag about to me. That's the equivalent of a painter being a wannabe camera.


Music is just as much science as it is art. Not all players are virtuoso and the difference between players is not only their level of creativity. Some players are also technically better than others, and not only is that at least half of the skill, it's the half that has to be settled before the other can be best expressed.

Whether or not it's worth bragging about to you, that's subjective.
"my confirmation bias, so therefore"
-Lurchy

Last Online: May 6, 2021 08:09:51
things!
Link
Originally posted by Corndog
And one of those is Gart covering that cover of that song in pig latin.


start cranking out that combo please

Last Online: Jan 7, 2020 03:36:46
Link
Originally posted by Djinnt
Music is just as much science as it is art. Not all players are virtuoso and the difference between players is not only their level of creativity. Some players are also technically better than others, and not only is that at least half of the skill, it's the half that has to be settled before the other can be best expressed.

Whether or not it's worth bragging about to you, that's subjective.


So you consider any music being played that fluctuates to a slightly abnormal key or tempo to be an absolute corruption of the music. I can't prove you're wrong, I just strongly disagree. Would you also say that you need to be able to paint a perfect replica of The Leaning Tower of Pisa before you can paint the highest level of an expressionist painting?
Originally posted by Catullus 16
had my first kid at 80, saw my first grandchild at 160.

Last Online: Feb 26, 2019 05:57:57
Link
Originally posted by RIP Al Davis
So you consider any music being played that fluctuates to a slightly abnormal key or tempo to be an absolute corruption of the music.

No, not at all. A change can still work with the root note/key, and can still sound great.
But if one player plays perfectly and the other is accidentally hitting the wrong notes? The first player is objectively better.


Originally posted by RIP Al Davis
Would you also say that you need to be able to paint a perfect replica of The Leaning Tower of Pisa before you can paint the highest level of an expressionist painting?


Expressionism is subjective by definition, so no, but if two artists are simply demonstrating brush techniques, one can be objectively better at the movements and the science part of the skill. One might also know much more about painting (the styles historically, different techniques, etc), this would be an objective edge as well.

At the highest level of skill, I agree with you completely, how well you technically play matters less and less at the top. When you're near the best it's mostly about how creative you are and how you put it all together.
When you're not the best though, like 99.9999% of us, the science of music matters a lot more and is about equal to the art of music. The only reason it doesn't matter at the top is because it's already settled.
"my confirmation bias, so therefore"
-Lurchy

Last Online: Dec 11, 2020 20:43:45
Lead Mod
Link
Originally posted by Corndog
And one of those is Gart covering that cover of that song in pig latin.


band imo
I like turtles.

Last Online: Jan 7, 2020 03:36:46
Link
Originally posted by Djinnt
Expressionism is subjective by definition, so no, but if two artists are simply demonstrating brush techniques, one can be objectively better at the movements and the science part of the skill. One might also know much more about painting (the styles historically, different techniques, etc), this would be an objective edge as well.

At the highest level of skill, I agree with you completely, how well you technically play matters less and less at the top. When you're near the best it's mostly about how creative you are and how you put it all together.
When you're not the best though, like 99.9999% of us, the science of music matters a lot more and is about equal to the art of music. The only reason it doesn't matter at the top is because it's already settled.


It's fine for you to think that, but I just disagree. For example, Bob Dylan's voice shakes and quivers and goes out of tune in ways that he can't help. But that's what I love about it and I don't consider Bruno Mars objectively better at singing just because he can avoid all of those singing mistakes.
Originally posted by Catullus 16
had my first kid at 80, saw my first grandchild at 160.

Last Online: Jan 20, 2022 04:57:33
Admin
Link
Originally posted by Djinnt
Expressionism is subjective by definition, so no, but if two artists are simply demonstrating brush techniques, one can be objectively better at the movements and the science part of the skill. One might also know much more about painting (the styles historically, different techniques, etc), this would be an objective edge as well.

At the highest level of skill, I agree with you completely, how well you technically play matters less and less at the top. When you're near the best it's mostly about how creative you are and how you put it all together.
When you're not the best though, like 99.9999% of us, the science of music matters a lot more and is about equal to the art of music. The only reason it doesn't matter at the top is because it's already settled.


Technical skill itself is imitation of conventional art, and as such, only matters when making conventional art.
Six inches of pure deliciousness...on a stick!
Edited by Corndog on May 1, 2015 03:23:16

Last Online: Feb 26, 2019 05:57:57
Link
Originally posted by Corndog
Technical skill itself is imitation of conventional art, and as such, only matters when making conventional art.


Which is almost all music.
"my confirmation bias, so therefore"
-Lurchy

Last Online: Jan 19, 2022 23:16:46
Coyote
Link
Originally posted by Djinnt
Which is almost all music.


Almost. Problem is a machine can now make music. Just program in the code and let her go. So is the machine, which will always be technically perfect, the musician or the writer of the code? I would give credit to the code writer since his soul is in what he/she is creating and the 'machine' simply becomes a musical instrument. Now if the machine wrote the code... then is it even music since there is no soul in it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUeptFM6xpE
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
wipety-wipe-wipe

Page:

Post Reply

You are not logged in. Please login if you want to post a reply.