User Pass

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

Page:

Last Online: Jan 7, 2020 03:36:46
Link
Originally posted by Djinnt
Which is almost all music.


^ I wonder about that. What percentage of music do you think is not trying to be experimental on some level?
Originally posted by Catullus 16
had my first kid at 80, saw my first grandchild at 160.
Edited by RIP Al Davis on May 10, 2015 14:02:09

Last Online: Dec 7, 2021 14:46:57
Coyote
Link
Originally posted by RIP Al Davis
^ I wonder about that. What percentage of music do you think is not trying to be experimental on some level?


Hmmm... You could say ALL music is experimental (except the occasional cover done just as the original was p'much) if you consider that each band/artist has their own idea on what they're trying to create (or, even re-create). But you could also make a case that, given we've had decades and decades and decades and decades of music creation... various sounds and twists... fusions and such... that we've kinda drank the 'Truly New & Different Music' well pretty dry. Neither argument would survive serious scrutiny in the courts of public opinion. Such is the 'attack' mindset of many. I can say from my own experience that what I create (or try to), sound wise and song-wise, anyone with a rich musical history could tie to some past influence. I have many. At the same time, I've assembled those sounds I've enjoyed through the years in my mind and am comfortable with reaching into that pile of sound inside of me to create something. Does it sound like something done before... probably. Is it a copy? No. Is it creativity? I say yes because I'm the creator.
To disparagingly analyze it further, when creating a child two people combine the DNA of past relatives that they've got inside of them to create something new. And yet, it's just a re-hash of stuff already created before... so isn't it just a copy variant? The child would say it's unique unto itself. I think of music in the same way. Despite something sounding like something I've heard before, it's still unique unto itself. (Unless a true 'copy'.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_KY2CGGzkw
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
wipety-wipe-wipe


Last Online: Jan 7, 2020 03:36:46
Link
Of course I think you don't need to create a new genre to be original or even make your influences difficult to figure out, but as someone who thinks music has an incredibly vast potential it does become disappointing to hear something that sounds too close to something else. And then there are times when musicians make things that really do sound like a new genre, that's not impossible.
Originally posted by Catullus 16
had my first kid at 80, saw my first grandchild at 160.

Last Online: Dec 7, 2021 14:46:57
Coyote
Link
Nah. I accept the fact that, when it comes to beats and chord progressions, the number is not infinite. I also accept that fact that most musicians become musicians because they were influenced by previous musicians (and/or music)... so you gotta expect such influences to manifest themselves in their own creations. Led Zeppelin was a fantastically successful band... but you can hear many influences throughout their songs. They even SING of some of them (Hat's Off To Roy Harper). I still enjoy everything they did even knowing all about it. In fact, many times, knowing WHO influenced a song I like causes me to go research the person of influence myself (one major reason I have well over 1,500 CD's and tapes and records and still growing).
While I can appreciate groups like Pink Floyd and Yes and Primus (to name but a few of many groups)... that have quite a distinct and unique sound while still playing music 'based' in some form or another (blues, jazz, rock...) I can also appreciate Tom Petty despite his music being much more 'generic'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_KY2CGGzkw
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
wipety-wipe-wipe


Last Online: Jan 7, 2020 03:36:46
Link
As far as the musicians that range from generic to totally ripped off other people go, it's not that I hate them or can't appreciate them at all. But to the extent that I can hear that in their music I just consider it a self-evident flaw in its lack of creativity. That's not to say they can't acknowledge it, even in the music itself. But if it doesn't try to differentiate itself at all, then I can't see what would make it interesting. That's just for me though, if other people like the same thing rehashed over and over then I won't try to stop them from liking it.
Originally posted by Catullus 16
had my first kid at 80, saw my first grandchild at 160.
Page:

Post Reply

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