Re: Limitation (Page 8 of 12)

me too! i think his songs are totally awesome and would be great arranged for any instrument(s). Shiru's music has everything that makes for strong musical content (from my perspective): great melodies, dramatic harmonic movement, epic grooves, and a strong "original voice"; I could tell these tunes were Shiru's if they were played on a banjo.

@Melkor: From your response, I can't really tell if you are talking about the "musicality" of 1-bit music or what. Beyond simply disliking them, what are the qualities of these tunes don't you feel "measures up" to your musical benchmark? If you don't like 1-bit music, I suppose thats fine, but that doesn't mean that they are devoid of art any more than bach's music for solo cello would be is you just didn't like the cello.

/meh

*edit: ah funny, fluidvolt said basically the same thing while I was typing this!

Last edited by BR1GHT PR1MATE (Feb 15, 2011 12:43 am)

well, now that we're (predictably) 8 pages in...i only said that because here we can have this discussion!

Why the "meh"? Isn't this fun?! But at this point I think we've come to the dead end of pure subjectivity. But I will press boldly onward.

Firstly, the "qualities of these [1-bit] tunes" that I don't like are the completed things themselves, the sound. I don't initially listen to music to hear great compositions, but rather the presentation of a composition (a song). I only pay attention (at least specifically or intentionally) to the compositional aspects AFTER the sound, groove, etc.. catches my attention and thus garnishes my approval as "good".

Secondly, A question: didn't classical composers (or modern) notate which instruments would play which part? Such as, a violin concerto or bass section, etc? I don't think I would like Beethoven's Ninth played with guitars (and I like guitars), or at the very least I don't think I would enjoy it as much as the piece performed "as intended" by Ludwig.

Thirdly, if we really want to get into the idea of a composition, is it strictly notation on a page, or could it include which instrument plays which part? Would the "wrong" choice of instrument render the song or the composition "bad"?

Fourthly, I don't doubt that several people truly enjoy 1-bit music for what it is. And further that some of it (I gather Shiru is quite good) is the paradigm of compositional excellence. But, that said, I have a sneaking suspicion that MOST people who enjoy 1-bit tunes do so (at least initially) not for brilliant composition, but rather because of composition embedded in a specific limitation. I think that the whole idea of pointing to compositional value is really an argumentative maneuver, because of the fact that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to argue about preferences, used to point to something beyond limitation. For example, "Ha ha, I win, you can't tell me what I don't like, and I like composition. And I like 1-bit BECAUSE of its compositional value."

Fifthly, this is a minor aside but I personally don't consider music as belonging to art. I think it is wonderful and emotive and pretty, and etc. and has artistic elements but that it is not art. It seems more primal to me, something deeper within us as humans, more Dionysian maybe.

Finally, to the people who after reading this thread want to respond "can't we all just get along? We all like the music right?!?!?" I disagree. Conversations like this are the very definition of getting along. Peaceful, thoughtful conversation in the midst of disagreement. And also are the definition of liking music I think, at least in a personal way. Challenging your own ideas about the things you enjoy.

Last edited by melkor (Feb 15, 2011 12:48 pm)

I would never call music non-expressive, but I would also never call most sentences or propositions non-expressive. I wouldn't call "arrangers of sound" non-expressive either. I also don't think that music is (primarily) a form of catharsis (am I understanding you correctly as catharsis as an Aristotlean purge of emotion?). Which is why I don't think it is art, but rather something better. I may be misunderstanding the terms, but I don't think music is an emotional purge (by the artist) to create or enhance emotions in those that experience it. Like an emotional vehicle for the artist. But rather something much more mundane or common. I don't think a child's crayon drawings are art and neither do I think an interesting pattern in nature is art. But these things are definitely beautiful and interesting. But any qualitative definition of art gets into trouble very quickly I think. Is punk art? It doesn't seem like it, specifically because of the anti-establishment/cultural outcastedness aspect of it. But then if music is art, why are the Misfits not considered art, and Mozart is? The Misfits definitely fit into our conceptions of modern art to a certain degree, at least more than Mozart. Is art then defined by intention? or what you seemed to say: "art is what an artist creates." The former seems problematic and too simple and broad (I meant this blink and then yawn of mine to be art) and the latter seems far too circular (What is art? That which is created by an artist. What is an artist? One who creates art.) Are the Beatles records art? The Misfits? Southern slave songs (which are some of the most expressive and emotional things one could imagine)? Again I say no, because they belong to the commons (by this I mean, not intellectual property rights but rather a seemingly universal intuitive understanding of music) in a way that I think is more powerful than mere "art".

Last edited by melkor (Feb 15, 2011 2:02 pm)

Etymologically speaking, anything a person creates is art. For example, "Art" is the root word in "artificial." Don't carry a pretense that art has some greater purpose or divine meaning- when you drop a turd in the toilet, that is also art.

I made such a broad definition in part because in the past I tired of people telling me they don't like sport (implying athletics) when in fact, anything you do for fun is sport (which debunks the famous knock that hunting, fishing, bowling, or any hobby you hate are not sport.)

This conversation has reached the point where it will simply be a lot of people saying "no it isn't," and "yes it is," without having any concrete way to back their opinions with fact. It's okay to dislike beeper music, we have the phrase "difficult music" for a reason.

I think the question that wants to be asked is, do we spend too much time composing for ourselves or other chip musicians and not enough time composing in a way that non-musicians are more able to appreciate?

I think, for me, it's reached a point where music and it's implications become unquantifiable. I'll continue to do what I do because I love to do it, and the influences I may have on my surroundings inevitably will, or will not, alter my environment.