PG Music Home
This thread is a spinoff from another one in which Aleck said:
Quote:
The issue of whether music is an intellectual or emotional or aesthetic experience could form a blockbuster discussion all by itself. But I wouldn't take part, for reasons that follow.

It is moot from my point of view, because everything personal - and I mean every single thing - your thoughts, dreams, regrets, hopes, guitar licks, tickles, itches, pains, plans, etc. - issues from the squishy gray lump sitting inside your skull. Music is brain output of a certain type. Poetry, philosophy, mathematics are brain output. Charles Darwin said that the brain "secretes [these things] like the liver secretes bile."

Both Albert Einstein and Wes Montgomery are called geniuses. Einstein lived in an obscure world of mental objects; Wes was no man of intellect, but he also lived in a world of mental objects - his melodic ideas, which, like a virus, went on to infect thousands of future musicians. I'm one of them.

Now, no one shouts out "yeah!" during a Physics lecture, but they do at a Jazz club. Are the people at the Jazz club agreeing with something when they shout, "yeah!"? Or is it just another word for "good!", in which case, what is it that was good at that particular moment?

I'm not much interested in the question whether music is an intellectual or emotional or aesthetic experience because, to me, all are brain output with complicated cross-talk between the three experiences. Songs make people cry. The equations of modern physics do not. Why? Beats me.


what's YOUR point of view?
I agree that EVERYTHING we do originates in the brain... but the it is also true that the brain addresses the same topic differently if it sees it as a logical question or an emotional one.

Studies show more left brain activity when solving analytical problems, and more right brain activity when involved in playful or emotional activities.

Creative decisions based primarily on a formula (such as musical scales) would probably stir the left brain... whereas creative decisons made "because it feels right whether it fits the formula or not" would probably be driven by the right hemisphere.

Whether this is a moot point or not becomes most important in the teacher-student relationship because research has also shown that people learn more easily from teachers whose teaching style matches the student's learning style
It is a mix/balance of all three - proportions dependent on what you are listening to and why. It's music.
Yes, by definition it becomes a mix of all.
OK, Obviously a complex process consists of a mixture of stimuli. But there is a hierarchy, and depending on which is being prioritized the results will be different.

For example, a college kid furnishing his dorm room might rationally prioritize cost above all else, and end up with books stacked in shipping crates he got for free.

Later in life when cash isn't his biggest constraint, he might furnish his home with a variety of completely different goals:
1) to please his wife
2) to impress his colleagues
3) to please his senses

the point I'm making is that the exact same task gets handled differently when we approach it as a primarily analytical process as opposed to a primarily emotive process

I'll go so far as to say that Hendrix was probably NOT writings songs with music theory as his primary consideration
50/50. You need the intellect to be able to cohesively and cogently present something that elicits emotion. If your music is not both intellectual and visceral, you have fallen short. People listening to your writings need to be given both something to think about and something to feel. When you touch both of those senses, your song is a success. Whether it is 6 minutes long or 3:34. wink
But if you can do it in 3 minutes instead of 6 minutes you are twice as successful! (ha, ha)

Intellectual or Emotional?? When it comes to art, then it is two sides of the same coin.
Intellectual or emotional?

It think can probably be both, either together or in isolation, but for me it has to be emotional above all.

I won't listen to anything which is purely intellectual but devoid of soul, but on the other hand, I'm quite happy with something which moves me emotionally without necessarily being technically clever.

If I was a philosopher, I could think that anything which has the power to move me must, therefore, be clever in some sense, but this starts to make my head spin.

ROG.
Rog
So far your reply is closest to what I'm looking for

Obviously music enters both realms, but I'm curious to hear how that works Itself out for each of us
Originally Posted By: ROG
Intellectual or emotional?

It think can probably be both, either together or in isolation, but for me it has to be emotional above all.

I won't listen to anything which is purely intellectual but devoid of soul, but on the other hand, I'm quite happy with something which moves me emotionally without necessarily being technically clever.

If I was a philosopher, I could think that anything which has the power to move me must, therefore, be clever in some sense, but this starts to make my head spin.

ROG.


I agree!

This reminded me of another thread that was about playing fast, running scales etc but with no melody; I can’t remember what thread it was. I personally don’t like music that is nothing but fast rifts and/or shredding instruments (guitar, sax, mandolin etc) with no melody, regardless of the genre. This does not move me however it may move someone else.

I prefer a good melody. A musician who can combine a good melody with some technically challenging parts can really move me. Musicians like Miles and Coltrane come to mind. But some may find this boring.

Thus the only correct answer to the question is the one you come up with.
I just try to keep them under 3 minutes. I leave the musical philosophy to the experts. grin
Originally Posted By: ROG
Intellectual or emotional?

It think can probably be both, either together or in isolation, but for me it has to be emotional above all.

I won't listen to anything which is purely intellectual but devoid of soul, but on the other hand, I'm quite happy with something which moves me emotionally without necessarily being technically clever.

If I was a philosopher, I could think that anything which has the power to move me must, therefore, be clever in some sense, but this starts to make my head spin.

ROG.


ROG saved me some typing since he hit the nail on the head.

It's got to have soul. I can't define that, ...but I know it when I hear it.
Music is all about emotions. In the creative process, emotions play the major part. Intellect comes in to make it all come together in a cohesive way to come up with a finished product.

My take, anyway.
I think emotions rule the music world. Pride hearing your child's first recital, ear candy technical wizardry giving you pleasure, amazement at the clever turn of lyrics. It's all about emotions. Nothing can change your mood as fast as three minutes it takes to play a song.
My POV is this.

Intellect is learning how to make music so you can share your emotions with others who will relate to the feeling in your music. That's why it's known as the universal language.
Originally Posted By: Kemmrich
But if you can do it in 3 minutes instead of 6 minutes you are twice as successful!


Well, my success level at this point is ZERO.....

I may not be twice as successful, but it I cut them in half I would have twice as many songs!!
Just one example of something which is a simple chord sequence, minimal instrumentation and yet, to me at least, strangely moving. If you've seen it before, it's possibly worth another go - if not I hope you enjoy it.

If you're put off by Bruce Springsteen, try to watch until the other singers take over.

Bob CF - I hope there's a bit of soul in this one for you my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1wg9jyvfN0

ROG.
Originally Posted By: ROG
Just one example of something which is a simple chord sequence, minimal instrumentation and yet, to me at least, strangely moving. If you've seen it before, it's possibly worth another go - if not I hope you enjoy it.

If you're put off by Bruce Springsteen, try to watch until the other singers take over.

Bob CF - I hope there's a bit of soul in this one for you my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1wg9jyvfN0

ROG.


good example Rog. I really liked that
Originally Posted By: ROG
Just one example of something which is a simple chord sequence, minimal instrumentation and yet, to me at least, strangely moving. If you've seen it before, it's possibly worth another go - if not I hope you enjoy it.

If you're put off by Bruce Springsteen, try to watch until the other singers take over.

Bob CF - I hope there's a bit of soul in this one for you my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1wg9jyvfN0

ROG.


Sorry ROG . . . I could not get past Bruce. I'll try again later, maybe fast forward.

Later,
Pat,

As usual, your ideas are fascinating.

Something I left out about the "gray lump of matter" is this: It has the power of understanding, not to say that other clever species are devoid of it, but our power is finite, just like theirs. There are things that I believe human minds will never understand. One of these is precisely how music can make people react emotionally. Songs - blasts of air - can make people cry.

The responses show that members recognize a mixture of intellect, emotion and aesthetics in music - with complex interactions between the three. What these interactions are and how they work, is what I'm saying is forever beyond human understanding. The mind lacks the horsepower to understand itself, to say nothing of the more fundamental question of how the soggy gray stuff conjures up the 3-D, technicolor "theatre of the real" that each of us lives in as conscious beings.

To conclude - and I ask readers who have not have this experience to take it on trust - I've heard musical passages (no lyrics) that made my knees buckle, made my heart ache, brought tears to my eyes. Or I might just shake my head, feeling a perfection that cannot be described in words.

Like poetry, music is supposed to express things that cannot be said with mere words. Do you think that one day how these processes work will be thoroughly understood at the neurophysiological level? Here's a simpler problem: Describe precisely - neurophysiologically - what happens just before a guitar lick in your head travels down two arms into the fingers onto the instrument and then out into the world.

Here's when I think any of these will receive answers: Not ever.

Aleck
Quote:
Sorry ROG . . . I could not get past Bruce. I'll try again later, maybe fast forward.


That raised a smile. Thanks, Danny.

At least I included the advance warning!

ROG.
I too must admit that as soon as I saw Springsteen's face, I had an uncontrollable impulse to kill it, ...... so I did! whistle
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
I too must admit that as soon as I saw Springsteen's face, I had an uncontrollable impulse to kill it, ...... so I did! whistle


it took every fiber of my resistance to tough it out until somebody else came to the mic. But in the end, I was glad I waited.

In the context of this thread, I thought the song was not only emotionally stirring, but also quite cleverly presented to the audience. It managed to suck ME in, at least.
Quote:
Something I left out about the "gray lump of matter" is this: It has the power of understanding, not to say that other clever species are devoid of it, but our power is finite, just like theirs. There are things that I believe human minds will never understand. One of these is precisely how music can make people react emotionally. Songs - blasts of air - can make people cry.


well... if you mean we may never understand it in chemical terms, I'll just shrug and admit an inability to see what the future might hold.

But if you mean we will never understand how to predictably elicit emotional responses based on a musical formula, I'd have to disagree wholeheartedly.


For example we already know that slow songs in minor keys tend to produce a melancholy mood... fast paced songs with an even beat tend to make us feel enthusiastic... and dissonant jazz tends to make us change channels.

Haha, had to throw that in there just to MESS with ya, Aleck!
wink


OK, look at the question this way:

If you were in a scientific experiment which consisted of brain monitors that show which hemisphere of the brain was most active at the moment...

in YOUR case... which hemisphere would likely be most active when you were WRITING a song....

And which hemisphere would be most active when you were listening to an existing song?

Note: it's generally agreed that the RIGHT hemisphere is active during creative/emotive endeavors while the left hemisphere is active during analytical endeavors
When I read wanton hatred for an entertainer extraordinaire and very talented writer and musician (as in Bruce Springsteen), it becomes hard to take any of you seriously on any topic. Have fun in your own small minded little worlds.
Originally Posted By: Kemmrich
When I read wanton hatred for an entertainer extraordinaire and very talented writer and musician (as in Bruce Springsteen), it becomes hard to take any of you seriously on any topic. Have fun in your own small minded little worlds.


Dang, Kevin... ya gotta allow people the liberty to have an opinion that's different than yours without labelling them as narrow-minded. Doing so implies that your opinion is the standard by which all other opinions are judged and validated (or dismissed. )

I'm pretty sure that ain't true.

Having said that, I accept that in your opinion I am small minded. I do NOT accept that your opinion defines me, except from your point of view. I absolutely do not accept the idea that any of our opinions here are synonymous with reality.

Except maybe Mac... he's gotta be close. wink
Originally Posted By: Pat Marr
Originally Posted By: Kemmrich
When I read wanton hatred for an entertainer extraordinaire and very talented writer and musician (as in Bruce Springsteen), it becomes hard to take any of you seriously on any topic. Have fun in your own small minded little worlds.


Dang, Kevin... ya gotta allow people the liberty to have an opinion that's different than yours without labelling them as narrow-minded. Doing so implies that your opinion is the standard by which all other opinions are judged and validated (or dismissed. )

I'm pretty sure that ain't true.

Having said that, I accept that in your opinion I am small minded. I do NOT accept that your opinion defines me, except from your point of view. I absolutely do not accept the idea that any of our opinions here are synonymous with reality.

Except maybe Mac... he's gotta be close. wink


Very well said Pat. It's always amused me when people label others as "open minded" when they agree with them and "close minded" when they don't.

FWIW, I don't hate Springsteen, ...I just don't want to hear him sing, play or hear anyone else do his songs. Hehe.

I figure that's my right, the same as it's other peoples right to tune out artists I am fond of. Exercising your right to an opinion doesn't mean you live in a "small minded little world."
Quote:
FWIW, I don't hate Springsteen,


Me neither. In fact I like his music quite a bit.

For me it was the intimacy of the song's beginning that creeped me out, and Springsteen was right there front stage center while I was experiencing the creeped-out feeling, so it all got transferred to him.

It took a while to warm up to what they were doing. In the end it worked for me, and I enjoyed the presentation a LOT.

One might say I had to step outside my small-minded little world for a minute

wink

Its all good
(eventually.)
Kevin,

That “small minded little world” comment got me thinking about the music that I deliberately listened to today. It included:

The Andrews Sisters, Elvis Presley, Gin Wigmore, Robert Palmer, Sierra Hull, Della Mae, Junior Brown, The Beach Boys, Peter Gabriel, Merle Haggard, Tristan Prettyman, T. Rex, Christina Aguilera, Pink, Mya, Tom Petty, Tony Rice, Sam Bush, Tommy Emmanuel, Hall & Oates, Dwight Yoakum, Gretchen Wilson, Brent Mason, Vince Gill, Rodney Crowell, The Beatles, Travis Tritt, Pam Tillis and about 30 or so minutes of Beethoven. (I didn’t get to ZZ Top or Mark O'Connor today).

I don’t know about the music in your world today, but in my “small minded little world”, …it was pretty good and extremely varied. It was emotional and intellectual. 

I had the US Open golf tournament playing on TV muted, while surfing some of my favorites on YouTube.
Hey Kevin,

Even though I am not a huge Bruce fan I would tend to agree with you that he is a very talented songwriter and performer. And ya just can't take the opinions you read here too seriously...remember we are all here using software with backing tracks to build a few songs while Springsteen is busy filling stadiums and touching the lives of millions and millions! laugh

-John
John,

Does that mean you're not allowed to have an opinion unless you can fill a stadium?
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
John,

Does that mean you're not allowed to have an opinion unless you can fill a stadium?


Not at all Bob! I just get tickled when regular folks (like you and me) are critical of guys like Springsteen who have achieved incredible success. It always comes off sounding like sour grapes.

And anyway, it is all just our opinions in here, right? laugh
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
John,

Does that mean you're not allowed to have an opinion unless you can fill a stadium?


Not at all Bob! I just get tickled when regular folks (like you and me) are critical of guys like Springsteen who have achieved incredible success. It always comes off sounding like sour grapes.

And anyway, it is all just our opinions in here, right? laugh


It's all just opinions, ... that's true. I just get flustered when someone says I live in a "small minded little world" just because I don't like Bruce Springsteen. I think his songs are pedestrian, his vocals are mediocre at best and his guitar playing is worthy of a garage band. Just because he's popular doesn't mean he's good.

And I don't have fame envy. I've never tried to be "famous", and I never will be famous. I just think Springsteen sucks. Hehe.

Oh well, ...
Hi Pat.

This is a very interesting topic to read through. When I read the part about brain hemishperes, I thought you and others might like to have a look at the following presentation. It's very powerful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

After watching Jill's presentation, I had an additional, valuable insight into how a mind works. This helped to clarify why some people feel that the music they create comes from the 'cosmos' while others painstakingly apply patterns and methodology. (To my way of thinking, these approaches to music creation are also aspects of the "emotion versus intellect" arguments.)

Quote:
  • BACKGROUND
    Dr Jill Bolte Taylor is a brain scientist who had a stroke. During the course of the event, she started using the stroke to analyse how the different hemispheres of her brain worked because one of her brain's hemispheres alternated between on and off as a consequence of the stroke's progression.

The presentation is very interesting, very insightful and well worthwhile watching!

Regards,
Noel
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
John,

Does that mean you're not allowed to have an opinion unless you can fill a stadium?


Not at all Bob! I just get tickled when regular folks (like you and me) are critical of guys like Springsteen who have achieved incredible success. It always comes off sounding like sour grapes.

And anyway, it is all just our opinions in here, right? laugh


It's all just opinions, ... that's true. I just get flustered when someone says I live in a "small minded little world" just because I don't like Bruce Springsteen. I think his songs are pedestrian, his vocals are mediocre at best and his guitar playing is worthy of a garage band. Just because he's popular doesn't mean he's good.

And I don't have fame envy. I've never tried to be "famous", and I never will be famous. I just think Springsteen sucks.

Oh well, ...


As I said earlier I am not a huge Bruce fan but he has sold 120 million records, won 20 Grammys, won 2 Golden Globes, won an Academy Award and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Rolling Stone ranked him as the 23rd Greatest Artist of all time, the 96th Greatest Guitarist of all time on their latest list and the 36th Greatest Singer of all time in 2008 (source: Wikipedia).

So, by any objective standard we might choose the guy has pretty clearly established that he is "good"! laugh
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
Kevin,

That “small minded little world” comment got me thinking about the music that I deliberately listened to today. It included:

The Andrews Sisters, Elvis Presley, Gin Wigmore, Robert Palmer, Sierra Hull, Della Mae, Junior Brown, The Beach Boys, Peter Gabriel, Merle Haggard, Tristan Prettyman, T. Rex, Christina Aguilera, Pink, Mya, Tom Petty, Tony Rice, Sam Bush, Tommy Emmanuel, Hall & Oates, Dwight Yoakum, Gretchen Wilson, Brent Mason, Vince Gill, Rodney Crowell, The Beatles, Travis Tritt, Pam Tillis and about 30 or so minutes of Beethoven. (I didn’t get to ZZ Top or Mark O'Connor today).

I don’t know about the music in your world today, but in my “small minded little world”, …it was pretty good and extremely varied. It was emotional and intellectual. 

I had the US Open golf tournament playing on TV muted, while surfing some of my favorites on YouTube.


And BTW I am beyond impressed that you have Merle AND T.Rex in your playlist along with Z.Z.Top, Elvis, Peter Gabriel, Tom Petty and the others. Me too! My friends cannot figure me out because my interests are so varied!
Quote:
So, by any objective standard we might choose the guy has pretty clearly established that he is "good"!


Sorry John. The general public doesn’t have a CLUE as to what’s “good” in music.

They only dictate what is popular.

It’s up to the musicians of the world to suggest
what’s “good”.
Quote:
And BTW I am beyond impressed that you have Merle AND T.Rex in your playlist along with Z.Z.Top, Elvis, Peter Gabriel, Tom Petty and the others. Me too! My friends cannot figure me out because my interests are so varied!


Some folks recognize good music when they hear it. Others never try to listen to anything outside of their comfort zone to see if they like something else. I'll give a chance to a HUGE variety of music.

And I'm not bashful about saying so if something sucks!

That doesn't make it a fact, ... just my honest opinion. (Yes, ... I know I could have just typed JMHO. smile

Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker


FWIW, I don't hate Springsteen, ...I just don't want to hear him sing, play or hear anyone else do his songs. Hehe.



OK, that made me laugh!
(And I think that was your intention.)
But it is a sweeping statement (and of course your perogative).

In case you really meant it,

Have you ever heard "Fire" by the Pointer Sisters?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2eccWtlC08


I bought the 45 single (a rarity for me) of that one. It's not my favorite record, or anything. But I do really like it, still.

(I like the Pointer Sisters, especially "Fairytale", "Fire" and "I'm So Excited"!)



On the thread topic, this may be one of those things that is different for different people.

For me, it's a laughable question.

Music means more to me than money.

That's not an intellectual choice.
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
Quote:
So, by any objective standard we might choose the guy has pretty clearly established that he is "good"!


Sorry John. The general public doesn’t have a CLUE as to what’s “good” in music.

They only dictate what is popular.

It’s up to the musicians of the world to suggest
what’s “good”.


Sorry Bob, but the Grammys and Oscars and other achievements referenced are not decided by the general public. And plenty of musicians love Springsteen. You're entitled to your opinion but not your facts! laugh
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
Quote:
And BTW I am beyond impressed that you have Merle AND T.Rex in your playlist along with Z.Z.Top, Elvis, Peter Gabriel, Tom Petty and the others. Me too! My friends cannot figure me out because my interests are so varied!


Some folks recognize good music when they hear it. Others never try to listen to anything outside of their comfort zone to see if they like something else. I'll give a chance to a HUGE variety of music.

And I'm not bashful about saying so if something sucks!

That doesn't make it a fact, ... just my honest opinion. (Yes, ... I know I could have just typed JMHO. smile


I thought I had you figured until I saw T.Rex in your list! laugh I am still listening to The Slider 41 years later!
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
Quote:
So, by any objective standard we might choose the guy has pretty clearly established that he is "good"!


Sorry John. The general public doesn’t have a CLUE as to what’s “good” in music.

They only dictate what is popular.

It’s up to the musicians of the world to suggest
what’s “good”.


Sorry Bob, but the Grammys and Oscars and other achievements referenced are not decided by the general public. And plenty of musicians love Springsteen. You're entitled to your opinion but not your facts! laugh


I've never met a musician who like's Springsteen!

I mean REALLY! JMHO, but ..... never mind!
Once again, one of my posts has turned a thread into a free for all! I know Springsteen is someone who people tend to have strong opinions about, which is why I put the warning on, but it wasn't my intention to stir up trouble.

I have no problems with BobCF and Danny's comments - as I said, it raised a smile. Looking at Bob's playlist, there's lots that we do have in common.

The lyrics to that track interest me. My interpretation is that it's a metaphorical look at dying and who goes first in a relationship, but nowhere can I find any reference to this being Springsteen's intention. I also like the different feel that each of the singers brings to the song and the sax break I find very atmospheric.

Each to his own, but tolerance above all.

ROG.
It doesn't bother me if someone dislikes Bruce and his music -- it is just an opinion. However whenever I see the words "hate", "kill" about someone you have probably never met, it comes across as sort of unbalanced.

Plus when I read this: "I've never met a musician who like's (sic) Springsteen!", I just think ... hmmm, can't write that here.

Springsteen's songs are not the enemies of your songs. It just irks me that a few folks here go out of their way to tear things down.
For what it is worth, and maybe not much, but the whole business of who likes and who doesn't like Springsteen is only emphasising the original point of the topic, we all have different views and opinions on which music can be classified as intellectual, or emotional, or both.

Having played some of the music written as contest pieces for brass band, believe me, most will not turn an emotional hair, though the technical detail will if your in to the technical side of music. You soon recognise these pieces are written to test the players of a band, and the band in general, not to amuse an audience.
The band I was in won four first prizes consecutively in four different contests, not many brass bands have done that, especially not at the sectional level the band was at at that time. Did I enjoy that though is the question on an emotional level?
Playing that music, not by much, except it was a good feeling to get a technically difficult part correct. The rest of the music left me unstirred. It was at the announcement when we found we had won the contest that the emotions came fore, which are for an entirely different reason than what any music can provide.
However, when rehearsing and then playing for a concert rather than playing to win a contest, a different thing comes into play, though mainly due to the music in general has been written for an audience to enjoy, then it becomes more enjoyable to play it too.

OK, then a few have dissected the Springsteen piece and in the main I agree that the Springsteen part at the beginning wasn't much for me either, it was very much later that some feeling came out and my addition is that the sax break was brilliant on its own, though I feel a take over after that by a trumpet would have been icing on the cake, but then again I am an instrumental lover, not that keen on the human voice. However toward the end, Patti stirred something just by her own emotional input.

All the above is just my opinion on aspects of music and Springsteen. You can like it, not like it, or totally ignore me. I am getting to old to be that bothered, but anyone who likes it can be my friend any day.
There are only two types of music in the world, songs that I like and songs that I don’t like; note is said songs and not genres.

The key word there was I. I could give a rodent’s rump what anyone else thinks about it!
Quote:
This is a very interesting topic to read through. When I read the part about brain hemishperes, I thought you and others might like to have a look at the following presentation. It's very powerful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html


excellent article, Noel! And yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to zero in on with this thread. Thanks for posting!
Quote:
For what it is worth, and maybe not much, but the whole business of who likes and who doesn't like Springsteen is only emphasising the original point of the topic, we all have different views and opinions on which music can be classified as intellectual, or emotional, or both.


excellent tie-in, and I think you're absolutely right!
I also appreciate your other observations about competitive music as opposed to music meant to entertain an audience. Interesting insights for sure.

On advantage of group discussion is that a much wider set of experiences comes into play, and we get the benefit of other peoples' learning curves.

Thanks for posting!
Quote:
It doesn't bother me if someone dislikes Bruce and his music -- it is just an opinion. However whenever I see the words "hate", "kill" about someone you have probably never met, it comes across as sort of unbalanced.


Ah! Now I see why the reaction was so strong!

But as a point of clarification, I don't think Bob used the word KILL in the way you appear to have taken it. I think he used it as a colloquialism for stopping the video.

If he had chosen the words "I don't particularly like Springsteen, so I decided to stop the video before it was finished" you probably would not have thought twice about it... but in essence, that's exactly what he said.
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
Quote:
So, by any objective standard we might choose the guy has pretty clearly established that he is "good"!


Sorry John. The general public doesn’t have a CLUE as to what’s “good” in music.

They only dictate what is popular.

It’s up to the musicians of the world to suggest
what’s “good”.


with all due respects, Bob.. and in the context of what has gone down in the thread so far... your observation about the public's knowledge of music comes dangerously close to declaring your musical sensibilities to be the standard by which all music is appraised.

This turn in the conversation really has ended up reinforcing the original point of the thread. Whereas I agree that the musicians of the world might be better qualified to declare what music is performed with technical proficiency (left brain) it is the marketplace of ALL listeners who declare what music pleases them. (right brain)

Since people tend to vote with their wallets, financial success *IS* a pretty good indicator of which artists have zeroed in on the mood of their audience.

(Which is a completely different thing than declaring which musicians are technically proficient on their instruments)

And the fact that in many discussions you have repeatedly taken a similar stance, I would conclude that your own approach to playing (and appreciating) music is very left-brained and technical. Not that you lack an emotional appreciation for music.. we all do... but your PRIMARY musical hemisphere is the left one

THAT is what I'm fishing for in this thread.
Pat,

Quote:

Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker



Quote:

So, by any objective standard we might choose the guy has pretty clearly established that he is "good"!


Sorry John. The general public doesn’t have a CLUE as to what’s “good” in music.

They only dictate what is popular.

It’s up to the musicians of the world to suggest
what’s “good”.


with all due respects, Bob.. and in the context of what has gone down in the thread so far... your observation about the public's knowledge of music comes dangerously close to declaring your musical sensibilities to be the standard by which all music is appraised.


Hey, my musical sensibilities are the standards by which I judge all music! LOL.
IMO....in direct answer to the subject question and not reading every response...

Music is an emotional pursuit coming from one's very personal creative propensity.

On the subject of what's 'good' previously touched upon that's something determined by each individual listener whether they are musicians or not.
Of course, what one may think is good might be mediocre or have little musical appeal or merit to another.

That's my brief take on it.

Carry on....
Quote:
Since people tend to vote with their wallets, financial success *IS* a pretty good indicator of which artists have zeroed in on the mood of their audience.

(Which is a completely different thing than declaring which musicians are technically proficient on their instruments)

And the fact that in many discussions you have repeatedly taken a similar stance, I would conclude that your own approach to playing (and appreciating) music is very left-brained and technical. Not that you lack an emotional appreciation for music.. we all do... but your PRIMARY musical hemisphere is the left one


I do tend to gravitate to skilled musicians, but it’s not always the technically proficient that float my boat.

Billy Gibbons and BB King come to mind as two guys I really like that I wouldn’t place very high in a technical sense, but I love hearing them use a handful of notes to speak volumes in a song. Their “soul” comes shining through in everything they play.
Quote:
Billy Gibbons and BB King come to mind as two guys I really like that I wouldn’t place very high in a technical sense, but I love hearing them use a handful of notes to speak volumes in a song. Their “soul” comes shining through in everything they play.


my thoughts exactly on these same two guys!
Originally Posted By: chulaivet1966
IMO....in direct answer to the subject question and not reading every response...

Music is an emotional pursuit coming from one's very personal creative propensity.

On the subject of what's 'good' previously touched upon that's something determined by each individual listener whether they are musicians or not.
Of course, what one may think is good might be mediocre or have little musical appeal or merit to another.

That's my brief take on it.

Carry on....


Exactly my view point. Thanks.
MikeK....FYI.

Just so you know the link in your sig (My Music) doesn't seem to work after two attempts so had to go to your profile page.
Good axe work on Moody and In The Mood.

Back to topic....
This compilation has the potential to be highly useful, the only question is *which* jazz theory book was it meant for? There are about 300 of them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmhP1RgbrrY


...a couple of strong "belts" and I began to understand...after playing in a Dixieland Band for a couple of years, I "tuned into" this guy and all the other NYC and California "progressive cats"

....
from "swing" to "bingo"...and I've been in search of that perfect chord, and a "riff" to go with it...
Heavy-duty Potato-Solid adventure, in my 79 year "adventure" into jazz....


At the other end of the jazz spectrum, the very swingin' Bill Evans doing a tour de force..."April in Paris"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uywNdD_M_4


Originally Posted By: Pat Marr

<snip>
This turn in the conversation really has ended up reinforcing the original point of the thread. Whereas I agree that the musicians of the world might be better qualified to declare what music is performed with technical proficiency (left brain) it is the marketplace of ALL listeners who declare what music pleases them. (right brain)

Since people tend to vote with their wallets, financial success *IS* a pretty good indicator of which artists have zeroed in on the mood of their audience.
<snip>

Hi Pat,
I would argue that while this would seem to be correct, it is because of an artificial, imposed preference.

It is my OPINION that the recording companies have, to a very large extent, dictated the tastes of the buying public by simply not making available anything other than what they want to sell. E.G. where do commercial radio get their source material..?

Ultimately we all like what we like (duh), in general people hate change, so once indoctrinated they tend not to change. It seems to me that, for the most part, the people who enjoy music other than that which has been prescribed by the recording companies are those who are reasonably talented musicians themselves. Yet even then there seems to be a large degree of indoctrination still working.

Of course, my own narrow minded preferences are in play here too. wink

Oh yeah, I personally believe there are basically two kinds of musician described in your question but there is, of course, lots of grey:

a) Musicians who love to create are, IMHO, more emotionally oriented in their musical endeavours.

b) Musicians who are motivated by the "business of music" approach it from a more intellectual perspective: "What does it take to sell songs?" and they work from there.

As always, this is just my opinion. wink
Quote:
Oh yeah, I personally believe there are basically two kinds of musician described in your question but there is, of course, lots of grey:

a) Musicians who love to create are, IMHO, more emotionally oriented in their musical endeavours.

b) Musicians who are motivated by the "business of music" approach it from a more intellectual perspective: "What does it take to sell songs?" and they work from there.


Wise words Lawrie. Music that's created for the sole purpose of selling records is going to be dumbed down to some formulaic concept in order to achieve the goal of selling records.

That's probably one of the reasons I love acoustic music so much. Acoustic artists know they're not going to get rich playing acoustic music so they just write and play the best music they can with no consideration for commercial appeal and hope the small number of acoustic fans notice their dedication to creating good music.

It works for me as a fan of good music.
Originally Posted By: Lawrie


Hi Pat,
I would argue that while this would seem to be correct, it is because of an artificial, imposed preference.

It is my OPINION that the recording companies have, to a very large extent, dictated the tastes of the buying public by simply not making available anything other than what they want to sell. E.G. where do commercial radio get their source material..?




good point.
I agree completely. Thanks for making that distinction, it makes the discussion more accurate.
there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a formulaic approach to writing songs to target them at the marketplace if that is what you want to do. calling those songs "dumbed down" is elitist and unnecessary (sorry Bob!)

likewise there is nothing wrong with being a virtuoso creating music so complex that only you "get" it! calling those songs "dumbed up" ("smarted up"?) would be equally wrong.

we should all create whatever we want without feeling all superior or being made to feel inferior.

so, back to the original question, for me the act of creating music and performing it is mostly an emotional pursuit. if you can connect with folks (or just yourself if that is your goal) and make them smile or cry or feel something then IMHO you have succeeded whether you did it with 3 simple chords or you wore out the neck of your guitar with your amazing jazz hands!
Originally Posted By: Pat Marr
Originally Posted By: Lawrie


Hi Pat,
I would argue that while this would seem to be correct, it is because of an artificial, imposed preference.

It is my OPINION that the recording companies have, to a very large extent, dictated the tastes of the buying public by simply not making available anything other than what they want to sell. E.G. where do commercial radio get their source material..?




good point.
I agree completely. Thanks for making that distinction, it makes the discussion more accurate.



I think it is far more likely that what they have always been doing is producing records, watching what the public responds to and then producing more of that until something new comes along. In that scenario is IS the public who is deciding what we get to listen to!
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn


I think it is far more likely that what they have always been doing is producing records, watching what the public responds to and then producing more of that until something new comes along. In that scenario is IS the public who is deciding what we get to listen to!

Hey John,
I'm not sure if you have a point or not...

On the one hand, in the very early days of commercial recording I would think the recording companies probably concentrated on those performers that were drawing crowds.

BUT, when the "talent scouts" started looking for groups that were cheap to record then they most certainly started dictating taste...

As a f'rinstance, I play in several groups. One is a pretty good Big Band. Many of our audiences include kids who rarely, if ever, get exposed to the music we play. They get blown away by our sound, which is in many cases completely foreign to them.

Big Bands cost to record and to hire - a quartet is wa-ay cheaper than a 17+ piece big band...

Which leads me to my pet peeve: A rhythm section does not a band make - for ME, ya gotta have a front line too wink
or perhaps..the ever-present solo pianist...especially if he's Bill Evans! i.e. "April in Paris"...a few posts back....
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a formulaic approach to writing songs to target them at the marketplace if that is what you want to do. calling those songs "dumbed down" is elitist and unnecessary (sorry Bob!)

likewise there is nothing wrong with being a virtuoso creating music so complex that only you "get" it! calling those songs "dumbed up" ("smarted up"?) would be equally wrong.

we should all create whatever we want without feeling all superior or being made to feel inferior.

so, back to the original question, for me the act of creating music and performing it is mostly an emotional pursuit. if you can connect with folks (or just yourself if that is your goal) and make them smile or cry or feel something then IMHO you have succeeded whether you did it with 3 simple chords or you wore out the neck of your guitar with your amazing jazz hands!


I should probably stop "talking for others", explaining what they meant... but in this case I will at least say what *I* thought the person meant.

When people talk about "dumbed down" music, they aren't necessarily talking about ALL commercial music, because nearly everything we all like is exactly that.

*I* think the term is used to describe what happens when the music becomes a MUCH lower priority than the money.

I can't verify it, but I've heard of a famous experiment in which a chimpanzee was left in a room with art supplies. He found them amusing and would entertain himself for hours making intricate marks on the paper. So they decided to see what would happen if they positively reinforced his efforts with food. Once he realized there was a link between the scribbles and the food, he'd spend barely enough time to make a scribble before presenting it for food.

IMO, the same thing happens with people. You get different results when art is your passion and when money is your passion. But some people who are good businessmen are also good musicians, so its not true across the board.
regarding the studios dictating what the public hears:

There are LOTS of bands whose music could appeal to a large enough audience to make money if their work was internationally distributed and promoted by the fat cats.

I've often suspected that the ones who DO get promoted are those who are willing to sign a really disadvantageous contract. Then the company milks them for the length of the contract, and dumps them if they try to negotiate a better contract

Hopefully the internet is making it possible for artists to promote themselves.
"Commercial" is not a dirty word.

Commercial does not equal BAD. I'm not saying that there is not bad commercial music - of course there is, there is plenty of it. But to dismiss it all is certainly narrow-minded by definition.

There is QUALITY commercial music. And to produce it requires a set of skills that not every musician has.

So, one might actually say that musicians/songwriters who do not produce "commercial" music are actually "lacking some skills".
Originally Posted By: floyd jane
"Commercial" is not a dirty word.

Commercial does not equal BAD. I'm not saying that there is not bad commercial music - of course there is, there is plenty of it. But to dismiss it all is certainly narrow-minded by definition.

There is QUALITY commercial music. And to produce it requires a set of skills that not every musician has.

So, one might actually say that musicians/songwriters who do not produce "commercial" music are actually "lacking some skills".








Duck and cover! Duck and cover!!!!!! shocked shocked shocked
Originally Posted By: 90 dB
Originally Posted By: floyd jane
So, one might actually say that musicians/songwriters who do not produce "commercial" music are actually "lacking some skills".


Duck and cover! Duck and cover!!!!!! shocked shocked shocked


<ScoobyDoo>
   RUH-ROH...ROOKOUT BEROW!
</ScoobyDoo>
Originally Posted By: Lawrie
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn


I think it is far more likely that what they have always been doing is producing records, watching what the public responds to and then producing more of that until something new comes along. In that scenario is IS the public who is deciding what we get to listen to!

Hey John,
I'm not sure if you have a point or not...

On the one hand, in the very early days of commercial recording I would think the recording companies probably concentrated on those performers that were drawing crowds.

BUT, when the "talent scouts" started looking for groups that were cheap to record then they most certainly started dictating taste...

As a f'rinstance, I play in several groups. One is a pretty good Big Band. Many of our audiences include kids who rarely, if ever, get exposed to the music we play. They get blown away by our sound, which is in many cases completely foreign to them.

Big Bands cost to record and to hire - a quartet is wa-ay cheaper than a 17+ piece big band...

Which leads me to my pet peeve: A rhythm section does not a band make - for ME, ya gotta have a front line too wink


Of course I had a point! laugh Let's see if I can state it real simple for ya...

1) Record companies produce music.
2) People buy the music (or don't)
3) Record companies rinse & repeat based on #2

There is of course no doubt that record companies (like all big business) wanna make the most money possible so they will milk an artist or genre as long as we buy it. But as soon as we stop buying it they move on to the next one. But they do not have a crystal ball or inherent knowledge of what will sell in advance. Nor do they have special mind powers to control what we buy! It is all about watching the trends and filling those needs. Of course it certainly helps them when much of the consuming public are lazy and willing to buy whatever is on the end cap! smile

And with all due respect I personally don't believe the lack of popularity of Big Band music is the fault of the record companies! I think tastes have changed over the years.
Originally Posted By: floyd jane
"Commercial" is not a dirty word.

Commercial does not equal BAD. I'm not saying that there is not bad commercial music - of course there is, there is plenty of it. But to dismiss it all is certainly narrow-minded by definition.

There is QUALITY commercial music. And to produce it requires a set of skills that not every musician has.

So, one might actually say that musicians/songwriters who do not produce "commercial" music are actually "lacking some skills".


I agree 100% Floyd! It has always bugged me when friends say this artist of that artist "sold out" for commercial success as if there was some imaginary land of righteous music production and to try another genre or target the pop charts was somehow less noble! I always call bulls%#t. So Clapton tried some reggae/pop and produced a nice little hit song. And Fleetwood Mac changed their lineup, abandoned their roots and produced a couple of chart-busting albums. Good for them I say!
my favorite version of this song
Hi John,
I guess I'm falling into the same trap as most others do in trying to oversimplify things - there is no one simple explanation for the situation.

Nevertheless:
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn

And with all due respect I personally don't believe the lack of popularity of Big Band music is the fault of the record companies! I think tastes have changed over the years.

tastes HAVE changed - and I happen to believe more than a little of the change has been driven by the big labels. YMMV wink

I do think it's telling that younger people who hear us for the first time generally enjoy the genre and start coming back for more.
Hi Lawrie,

Yeah, me too! smile I'm always hoping for one single theory of music and music business to unite them all!!

It is really nice to hear that young folks come to hear you and enjoy the music. Of course, if they are anything like the young folks in the USA, regardless of the genre, they don't seem to be willing to actually pay for any of it these days! laugh
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
<snip>
Of course, if they are anything like the young folks in the USA, regardless of the genre, they don't seem to be willing to actually pay for any of it these days! laugh


Ain't that the truth! cry wink
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn

It is really nice to hear that young folks come to hear you and enjoy the music. Of course, if they are anything like the young folks in the USA, regardless of the genre, they don't seem to be willing to actually pay for any of it these days! laugh


I was in a bigband, local, we played an outdoor parks concert near the beach, there was this large crowd of young people dressed like punk rockers there, by the end of our set they were partying to the music something wild.

Looked out there during one of the encore numbers and saw this large group of kids who were pogo dancing and some were even slam dancing to -- "In the Mood"

Stick together guys, we can all sneak out the back way...


--Mac
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Hi Lawrie,

Yeah, me too! smile I'm always hoping for one single theory of music and music business to unite them all!!

the closest thing I've found to a "unified theory" of music is Peter Gannon's tag line...

Quote:
It is really nice to hear that young folks come to hear you and enjoy the music. Of course, if they are anything like the young folks in the USA, regardless of the genre, they don't seem to be willing to actually pay for any of it these days! laugh


<broken record>

which is part of thereason why I'm specifically gearing up to play music for baby boomers. It isn't just recorded music the young 'uns won't pay for. They are conspicuously absent from most of the live music venues I've attended recently. My son says its because people his age would rather stay home and stream netflix.

Boomers, on the other hand, not only pay for their recorded music, they also go out to hear it. (at least, that's been my observation)

</broken record>
© PG Music Forums