TheSnowStorm Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It's fun and it's a somewhat a good idea to get some inspiration from other music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You are completely out of your mind. While we're at it, let's find out why people like sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleck Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 on a related note, why do we read books that other people have written why do we look at art painted by hands other than our own why do we live in houses we didn't built from scratch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Because it's fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well I've had this idea in my head for some time, so I'll spill it for you all. A decent performer performs other music either because they love music but can't write their own, needs the practice or just wants to enjoy themselves. An incredible performer, however... With the best in the world, they perform music in order to allow their vision of what the piece should sound like come alive. Using a combination of theory and feel, they take the score of something and use it as a blueprint for their own ideas. Van Cliburn, for example, took Chopin's Revolution etude and changed it from a fast pace action piece into a dirge in a live performance that he did some time ago. It was amazing, not because of what he played, but because of his interpretation of it. I heard Schick talk about this very subject. He spoke of performing as another form of composing, but instead of writing original music down, the performer brings out dormant ideas from music that is already written. Hope this gives some of you performers some ideas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobaltstarfire Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 With the best in the world, they perform music in order to allow their vision of what the piece should sound like come alive. Using a combination of theory and feel, they take the score of something and use it as a blueprint for their own ideas. Van Cliburn, for example, took Chopin's Revolution etude and changed it from a fast pace action piece into a dirge in a live performance that he did some time ago. It was amazing, not because of what he played, but because of his interpretation of it. The OP believes that performing other peoples music and interpreting it is evil, horrible and wrong, if I remember the last thread they made correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The OP believes that performing other peoples music and interpreting it is evil, horrible and wrong, if I remember the last thread they made correctly. You do remember correctly. He also believes that interpretation of a person's music is wrong as well and that the only person who is allowed to play a song is the person who wrote it. Further, he believes that the only real composers are ones that perform their own music, no matter how many parts there are. Note that there have been several good responses to his question and that he only responded to a handful that were mostly about the semantics of what his thesis-esque posts actually mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't know what the OP stands for, but I've heard that opinion before, as well... It comes from an older idea the the Composer is sacred, and that no one should/could ever hear anything as good or better than the original writer. That's a romantic ideal, at best... It's completely unrealistic, at worst, IMHO. I've heard a lot about this subject from some of the greatest performers in the world, so take it or leave it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon Odyssey Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't know what the OP stands for, but I've heard that opinion before, as well... OP = original poster It comes from an older idea the the Composer is sacred Damn right we're sacred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuketheXjesse Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 composing takes a LOOONG time Yeah a lot of time and effort was put into this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 OP = original poster I think he meant "what the OP stands for" like saying "I dont know what the OP's stance on this subject is, but..." Not, "What does OP mean?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Thanks, Xenon, for clearing up my noobish question The OP believes that performing other peoples music and interpreting it is evil, horrible and wrong, if I remember the last thread they made correctly.Wait, your saying the original poster said those things? Where? I can't find those comments anywhere... Is that sarcasm?? OMG!lol... And yes, I personally believe we're sacred, but telling performers that is... well... ...that's how my nose got broken for the first time... EDIT: No, no, I really did mean 'What does OP mean?'. Seriously. I'm that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Wait, your saying the original poster said those things? Where? I can't find those comments anywhere... Is that sarcasm?? OMG! To be fair, he hasn't said any of that in this thread yet. He said those thing in a previous thread that started very similarly to this one. EDIT: No, no, I really did mean 'What does OP mean?'. Seriously. I'm that bad. I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobaltstarfire Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sorry I wasn't too clear, mostly my brain went "oh no you gotta warn this guy that the op is insa-ne!" And then about midway through posting I realized I wanted to eat lunch, so I forgot the whole "look out!" part or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. lol... Ok, I didn't get into the whole blogging thing until a short while ago, so I'm pretty 'stupid' as far as that is concerned... Thanks for the 'Benefit of the doubt'! And, after reading that, I see what you mean about his antiperformer-ism. I agree with some of what he says there (performers that only can mimick other styles or have no style shouldn't be given that much respect...), but if a performer can truely change a piece of music into something that is their own, then they should really be given some respect, there. In fact, any performer that I've met with that amount of talent also have the ability to compose music as well... they merely choose not to. Think about that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xRisingForce Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 i need to weed out this useless, unproductive conversation before i can respond to the good points raised by others. You do remember correctly. He also believes that interpretation of a person's music is wrong as well and that the only person who is allowed to play a song is the person who wrote it. Further, he believes that the only real composers are ones that perform their own music, no matter how many parts there are. The OP believes that performing other peoples music and interpreting it is evil, horrible and wrong, if I remember the last thread they made correctly. you two share a remarkable propensity for skewing viewpoints. my stance is that a composer possesses the most valid interpretations as natural entailment, and interpretations by others aren't inevitably bad, but lesser by nature. what i think is "wrong" is this absurdly arrogant mindset that permeates ocremix which believes in distorting, morphing, or altering others' works and championing them, with inflated chests, as equal or even superior versions. that's what i think is "wrong", not interpretation itself. in considering all art, only music is home to a scene in which this kind of attitude is so popular. do poets alter existing poems? do authors rewrite published books? do artists repaint famous works, changing colors and shapes along the way? and have careers ever stemmed from this, as have with classical performers? it is a ridiculous notion to be sure, but for some reason, musicians exclusively among artists of other disciplines feel as if they have the creative license to do so. having said that, i don't want to dwell on this any longer. the intrinsic worth of classical musicians really has nothing to do with this particular subject matter. ----- 1) Pieces written by small numbers of people (a single composer, a couple band members collaborating) are written to be played by more. It wouldn't work to only play your own music. orchestral pieces perhaps? in such situations where a composer enlists performance (not compositional) help, aren't such roles comparable to that of a tool? with the advent of sampling technology, that's pretty evident now than ever before. i heard klaus bedalt produced the pirates of the caribbean soundtrack purely with samples. 2) Many people can't write music but can play and even improvise well. Should they not play? There are very few people who are gifted compositionally. right, it would seem that their innate capacity allows them to only perform. however, i don't think i've ever heard of a musician excellent at improvising never write a piece or two. 5) Compositions make no money if no one plays them. lol, so yngwie malmsteen makes money off of people who cover his music? i think this is only true for classical composers, but they're so long gone they're not benefiting anyway on a related note, why do we read books that other people have written you're attempting to analyze the purpose of appreciation, something i, personally, do to experience art. this thread isn't really concerned with that though; i want to know why different people realize others' works In fact, any performer that I've met with that amount of talent also have the ability to compose music as well... they merely choose not to. Think about that one. yeah that's exactly what i'm talking about. what drives that kind of decision? what makes them elevate performance over composition, especially performance of pieces that aren't even theirs? you'd think it'd make for a much more personal, and arguably artistic, experience to perform your own pieces. Also, composing takes a LOOONG time... just like writing a book, writing a script, choreographing a dance, etc-it's a type of menial activity that not everybody's cut out to do. in light of what Gario says, it seems like a pretty good reason is that they choose not to, as opposed to not being able to. it's a somewhat a good idea to get some inspiration from other music. it in every way is, but this doesn't necessitate realization, only appreciation. While we're at it, let's find out why people like sex. hasn't this been done? like a million times? possibly by german psycholgists? Well when I actually played music, generally the music I wanted to play was because it was music I enjoyed listening too, and was also fun music to play. yeah, this looks to be the most common impetus. see, i'm not sure that art is about "wanting".. expression is way more than that. it's a need, i think. if performance is driven by just surface desire, in my mind that disqualifies it as art. i don't think that's the case though. But I still want to know, why wouldn't people play other peoples music? the "type" of person i am requires a rational impetus before action, and in other cases, a rational impetus to continue an action. decisions aren't really decisions if they aren't outcomes of shaping factors. i feel like performance could be a natural function of the musical experience itself, something we are inherently driven to do, so it's interesting to wonder what drives it. fun is good, i'm just looking for a different kind of answer. More than anything else though, playing music is instant gratification--whether it's written by you or not. In fact, playing music not written by you can be more exciting, since the process of writing the piece makes you painfully familiar with the music. I guess the only real middle ground here is improvisation? i didn't want to mention improvisation, but under these categories, i think the essence of improvisation is realization, conceptualization, AND appreciation all at once. to think of it that way is pretty weird, but at the same time, it's pretty insane too. and yeah, i think i definitely agree with you; realization itself seems to be a function of appreciation, like a a higher order or something. appreciation that goes beyond listening. ----- He said those thing in a previous thread that started very similarly to this one. you've got to be kidding yourself; a thread that starts with a triple post with huge, emboldened letters, and an overt argument against a thread that starts with a genuine question are similar to you? the only thing similar in both threads is your provocative language. This thread looks like it's very similar to, and probably going to go in the same direction as, this thread. the "thesis" isn't making an argument at all, otherwise i'd be presenting some sort of stance. the thesis is clearly a genuine question... Note that there have been several good responses to his question and that he only responded to a handful that were mostly about the semantics of what his thesis-esque posts actually mean. ...which i'm asking so i can attempt to understand various spheres of thought. don't assume stupid stuff- it makes complete sense to clarify myself so those who don't quite grasp it yet, can give valid responses. i love how, right off the bat, you make these off-hand and insulting statements, rather than contributing a useful answer or two. oh well, it's not like i really care for your opinion at this point anyway. thanks to everyone for the great responses, keep them coming! oh, and DHSU JOIN THIS THREAD SO WE CAN TALK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 hasn't this been done? like a million times? possibly by german psycholgists? You are slowly approaching my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xRisingForce Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 You are slowly approaching my point. you want a german girlfriend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 in considering all art, only music is home to a scene in which this kind of attitude is so popular. do poets alter existing poems? do authors rewrite published books? do artists repaint famous works, changing colors and shapes along the way? and have careers ever stemmed from this, as have with classical performers? it is a ridiculous notion to be sure, but for some reason, musicians exclusively among artists of other disciplines feel as if they have the creative license to do so. having said that, i don't want to dwell on this any longer. the intrinsic worth of classical musicians really has nothing to do with this particular subject matter. Though thought-provoking, I think the analogy is flawed. There do exist millions of independent readings of poetry, enactments of plays, and performances of ballets, each of which will be slightly different from the creator's vision and be either better or worse (or even neither) for it. To connect this to the current thread, the difference here of course (that you yourself pointed out in fact) is that music is a performance art, i.e. in your words it can be "manifested," while the same does not hold for painting or sculpture. Great ballet dancers and actors are regarded with celebrity just as classical performers are. oh, and DHSU JOIN THIS THREAD SO WE CAN TALK sup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Lux Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 my stance is that a composer possesses the most valid interpretations as natural entailment, and interpretations by others aren't inevitably bad, but lesser by nature. what i think is wrong is this absurdly arrogant mindset that permeates ocremix which believes in distorting, morphing, or altering others' works and championing them, with inflated chests, as equal or even superior versions. that's what i think is "wrong", not interpretation itself Equal or superior in what sense? In the actual game? That comment is made rarely, and people are entitled to their opinions. For enjoyment purposes? People enjoy what they want to enjoy. Elaborate on this point. I'm interested to read exactly how you feel about this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 well sure, but realization isn't a theoretically necessary compositional tool; it just speeds up the process for those of us afflicted with relative pitch. why do you realize others' pieces, with realization as something distinct with its own artist end What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixto Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Porque me gusta la musica y no tengo pantalones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobaltstarfire Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 and to answer your question explicitly, the "type" of person i am requires a rational impetus before action, and in other cases, a rational impetus to continue an action. decisions aren't really decisions if they aren't outcomes of shaping factors. Yes, "because it sounds like a fun" is totally irrationally. First of all I think the stupidest thing anyone can do is try to apply arbitrary rules on what is and isn't art. I consider everything to be art if there is artistic intent, even if it's some crackpot person that smears menstrual blood on a canvas and calls it art. Second of all, since you fail to understand "I enjoy playing music" let me try again since you apparently only work in blocks of killer text. I just got pleasure from playing music when I still did it. I enjoyed the act of pushing the valves all in the right order, being in tune with the rest of my section, popping the third valve slide out when I had to, and hearing the dynamic quality change throughout a piece. I like the feel of buzzing and controlling the sound I enjoy hearing the mix of my trumpet with the rest of the band/orchestra, it moves me and makes me feel energized, or peaceful to play music I like the sound of. I like the texture created by many instruments playing together, and being part of all of that. I liked the "deep blue velvety" sound I could produce on my instrument. I did not play my trumpet for others to enjoy, I played it for me, and only me. You can say that isn't art, and it's disrespectful to the original composer and I don't care, because what you think of it doesn't matter. And most composers I have dealt with love to have their music played by others, they love to hear how it is interpreted, and what improvements, YES improvements that the director or band may make upon their original idea. in considering all art, only music is home to a scene in which this kind of attitude is so popular. do poets alter existing poems? do authors rewrite published books? do artists repaint famous works, changing colors and shapes along the way? and have careers ever stemmed from this, as have with classical performers? Yes, actually they have quite a lot actually, but you don't seem to have been exposed to very much of any kind of art, be it musical, visual, or literary. And if you have you could have fooled me. Or perhaps I have seen more, having grown up with all kinds of music my whole life, and majoring in art itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tensei Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I've given this a lot of thought, and thus I hope my opinion will at least be heard by those it's primarily directed at. Notwithstanding of course, I do expect my opinion on this matter might be perceived as somewhat rude, in the sense that it might be considered offensive by the addressees, of whom I wouldn't expect anything less than polite and well-argumented deconstruction of my undoubtedly flawed opinion. For truly, is man's greatest achievement not the ability to politely discuss, with appropriately used eloquence, though of course not at the cost of necessary brevity, while altogether forgoing the use of unnecessary subordinate clauses which would serve no purpose other than making the uttered sentences rather convoluted for the sole sake of keeping up an appearance of a better education than one might in fact have, any topic, no matter how controversial or already, perhaps futilely discussed many times before? Matters of unnecessary semantics and bolding of arbitrary words in a futile attempt to emphasize them aside, upon reading through this thread, one can't help but start debating within himself what could be an appropriate response to the subject matter at hand? Long have I pondered about what I would write in response, but truly, is it not preferable to properly plan one's essay, as opposed to randomly adding a string of thoughts filled with vapid fluff from the dark nooks of the internet's thesauri? Of course, I like to think I am capable of formulating my opinion in an extremely brief way, so I am proud to announce that this post will really not contain any unnecessary words or ideas at all; This is truly as brief as my capabilities permit me to formulate my opinion, and I'm sure that the majority of you fine readers will agree with me on this. So, without further ado, after this brief but necessary introduction, I am proud to bring you to the main point of my well considered opinion. Here goes: I think viagra spam threads are a better read than this shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catharsis Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I believe we are designed to be satisfied by something NOT ourselves, and something that takes our eyes off of ourselves. Others' music tends to do that. In fact, this being one of my first posts, I think it appropriate to point to my signature picture. It is a way of communicating what I just wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.