Nevertheless, to my ear anyway, it has a purity, beauty, naturalness and spontenaiety which you just don't find on carefully structured, perfectly recorded stuff. If you ever do record a final version of this, please don't engineer it into the sort of smooth, homogenised, error-free stuff which too often passes for music these days, from which all naiivety, youthful idealism and quirkyness have been excised.
I am weird... Please listen to my craziness. Let me know how you feel afterwards.
- Thread starter Lantern111
- Start date
Lantern111
New member
I try to keep things honest. I tend to approach music at an organismic level. I call it the dead zone. It's really therapeutic for me. The world is dying in many ways. Pure expression is being overrun by auto tuners. Perfection is disgusting and unnatural. I choose to reject ideas that burden my center, my core, and the natural purity that exists in everyone. People have too many layers, their ego has taken over and stole the real from them. It's a sad place to be. "We are the honey bees of the universe".
Honest is what music has to be if it is to be anything at all (I suppose you could write "dishonest" music in the sense that you could play games with the listener's expectations, disappoint them of what they are expecting, give them something horrible when they are hoping for something beautiful, etc) but that would be a silly game. I agree with you about the way music is becoming nothing more than an expertly manufactured commercial product. Making music for me is flying high up into the sky, far above the tedious and materialistic concerns of the world.. Although I am a fairly intellectual person, (in the sense that I tend to analyse everything and take a very "left-brain" approach to most things), I try to keep intellect out of music completely. Good music just creates itself. Of course unconsciouss mental processes are working busily away deciding what would sound best, but as far as consciouss awareness is concerned, it all happens by itself! And when it comes to actualy recording it, when a little left-brain thought is required to get it organised, I try to cling to the original inspiration above all things, because without that the final creation would be worthless. Yes we are the honey bees of the universe.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
No it doesn't. People create music. And intellect is one aspect of humanity so it follows that sometimes there will be intellect in music. Sometimes, the songs we think are so wonderfully natural and spontaneous are in fact well thought out and calculated. Sometimes, what seem like deep emotinal content is just stylized waffle to the creator. And other times, what appears to be simple, trite, predictable processed shit is in actuality raw depth that has been dormant and is now unlocked. The point is, the listener rarely knows for certain what was or is in the creator's mind at any given time, not even taking into account the fact that songs may change at any or many given points from initial thought to recorded product.
I think the OP is boxing clever here, trying to get people to listen to the song. It's like when Grace Slick flew to London to meet Mick Jagger to discuss what turned out to be the free gig at Altamont. She was expecting an everyday drug fuelled satanic orgy scene.........and what she got was a polite Englishman that offered her tea and spoke like a young businessman.
That's the thing. It's a good performance, a nice song and quite musical. It reminds me of Emmet Taylor from circa '71.
But maybe the OP thinks it's weird because they feel the whole music scene is represented by what generally makes the mainstream these days and this is a departure from that. But the mainstream, in reality, is minority music. There's tons of music out there and more niches and genres than there's ever been. Something for almost everyone.
Lantern111
New member
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Over and above a piece that you may have sweated over and thought lots about ?
Nah. Life is not that cut and dried. Alot of terribly bland boring rubbish is created with no conscious thought. Alot of great stuff is contrived and preplanned. And the vice is also versa.
Nah. Life is not that cut and dried. Alot of terribly bland boring rubbish is created with no conscious thought. Alot of great stuff is contrived and preplanned. And the vice is also versa.
MrWrenchey
New member
Someone give this guy a medal, because he's a bloody winner.
Very true. And my vice has been irredeemably versa for a long time. But why is it that sometimes improvised music can be just as good or even better than the music you have sweated over and thought lots about? Most of what happens in the brain is unconsciouss, and possibly because it is free from the interference of consciouss "agendas" it can proceed rapidly and efficiently, following innate and maybe instinctive laws of musical theory, to produce something of value, without any consciouss effort being expended at all.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
there are no innate instinctive laws of music. If that were true then one way of doing it would predominate all others.
Fact is there's many, many ways of approaching it because it IS all in the mind and different minds work differently.
There are many examples of excellent music done in all the ways mentioned so far and countless others that haven't been.
I'm an improvisational player by nature ....... I never do the same thing twice and my playing is a result of that and the music I record reflects that.
i know other excellent musicians that are very structured and planned out in their approaches and still others who like things completely anarchic ..... and historically you can find tons of examples all over the place as far as how much they planned things out or just let the spirit guide them.
Both methods have resulted in transcendent music. For example, since in this conversation carefully plotted music is being said to result in tripe, what about classical music, virtually all of which is carefully thought about and planned and plotted? Very little imrpovisational aspects in any of it except some of the avant garde stuff. Certainbly there's very much beautiful spiritual music conceived that way.
There are no rules and anyone that states one way results in this and another way results in that is kidding themselves into thinking they have a good handle on the only real way to do it.
It may the only real way for them and that's fine ..... whatever works for you ..... but to make blanket statements about what method makes good music and what doesn't is simply a way to definitely be wrong.
Fact is there's many, many ways of approaching it because it IS all in the mind and different minds work differently.
There are many examples of excellent music done in all the ways mentioned so far and countless others that haven't been.
I'm an improvisational player by nature ....... I never do the same thing twice and my playing is a result of that and the music I record reflects that.
i know other excellent musicians that are very structured and planned out in their approaches and still others who like things completely anarchic ..... and historically you can find tons of examples all over the place as far as how much they planned things out or just let the spirit guide them.
Both methods have resulted in transcendent music. For example, since in this conversation carefully plotted music is being said to result in tripe, what about classical music, virtually all of which is carefully thought about and planned and plotted? Very little imrpovisational aspects in any of it except some of the avant garde stuff. Certainbly there's very much beautiful spiritual music conceived that way.
There are no rules and anyone that states one way results in this and another way results in that is kidding themselves into thinking they have a good handle on the only real way to do it.
It may the only real way for them and that's fine ..... whatever works for you ..... but to make blanket statements about what method makes good music and what doesn't is simply a way to definitely be wrong.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
The key word here is a word that is, unfortunately seldom used, which, if it were, would possibly cause people to see that there is usually more ways to skin a cat than is generally presented. That word is "sometimes".
If you follow the logic of what Lt Bob was saying, then it stands to reason that sometimes, improvised music will be better. I've witnessed this {heck, sometimes I've been involved in the playing of it ! } many, many times.
It also stands to reason, by the same logic, that sometimes the music produced won't be better. It might be dull. It might be average. It might be uninspired.
That may or may not be true. I don't think the brain is like that. Alot of information, learning, consolidation, processing and reinforcing goes into and on in our minds on a daily basis over a lifetime and comes out in different ways, some of which may not be 'conscious' as you put it. But even if your quote were entirely the case {and some bits of it, I do accept}, the more 'instinctive' creation wouldn't be guaranteed to be any 'better' than a thought out creation than would a trip to the beach that you thought of there and then and acted upon as opposed to one you'd been planning for a week.
I often look at the explosion of pop and rock bands in the UK and USA during the 60s as being unique in the sense that you had this coming together of so many different types within any one band. Look for example at the Who. You had Roger Daltrey, the tough working class "I'll talk with my fists" sheet metal worker, Pete Townshend, the slightly disturbed arty farty guitarist from the dysfunctional family whose parents were theatrical/musical, John Entwistle, the French horn playing theorist who loved rock but found it to be too simplistic for his abilities and Keith Moon, the anarchic Peter Pan for whom order seemed to be anathema. Each one had a completely individual and different approach to making music.......but ended up in the same band. Their's is a story that could be replicated hundreds if not thousands of times but shows how different people with different approaches and mindsets can be equally valid within the same situation.
We were mentioning in a David Gilmour thread the other day how we both dug the Monkees and the Mahavishnu orchestra. Both seemingly the antithesis of one another, even within the Monkees there is sometimes a great improvisational thread while sometimes, the Orchestra were very 'composed'. But generally speaking, the Monkees stuff is well crafted while the Orchestra improvised alot {the original orchestra fell out and broke up partly because of that - Jerry Goodman and Jan Hammer felt that what they brought to the improvisational passages should have netted them composer credits. John McLaughlin thought otherwise} but both bands made utterly beautiful music. And some of it truly transcendent.
I was thinking of classical music when Timtimtim first made the point he did about great music making itself. I reckon Brahms, DeBussy and all those other Schuberty, Mozarty composers of yesteryear would bust our noses if we said that to them, especially given that many of their pieces were commissioned by royalty in the days when the wrong word from a prince could have you clapped in irons, sharing your cell with hungry, undiscriminating rats.
In a nutshell.
I completely agree with most that Lt Bob and Grim have said above, but Mozart is a unique case. He was pretty mad in a way, and I think it's quite likely he had the rare ability to "hear" music spontaneously in his head. Apparantly sometimes he would take a coach trip, and during the journey would hear a whole, long piece of music. And when he arrived home he would simply write down what he had heard. I sometimes hear what seems to be incredible, complex, original music when I am asleep and dreaming. Maybe Mozart could do that while awake?
Incidentaly, most of the music I record is, while the inspiration may come spontaneously, carefully planned before recording starts, so I am certainly not rubbishing "theoreticaly" created music.
Lt Bob is probably right in saying there are no instinctive rules for making music. However there are certain basic patterns to follow for creating music (without which you just make a horrible noise), and those patterns, at least for me, seem to exist at a mostly unconsciouss level, and operate effortlessly when required for making music. The excitement of writing and recording music is often in the interplay between that unconsciouss guidance, and one's consciouss ideas and aspirations, and in the ironical or tongue-in-cheek dialogue between the two? Am I getting pretentiouss here? This is a fascinating subject.
P.S. I think it was Shostokovich, but it may not have been him, who had a bit of shell fragment lodged in his skull, and if he moved his head too fast, the shell fragment would rub on his brain, and he would hear original inspiring music, which he would sometimes later use for his symphonies! This is mentioned in one of Oliver Sacks books, all of which are fascinating and well worth reading.
Incidentaly, most of the music I record is, while the inspiration may come spontaneously, carefully planned before recording starts, so I am certainly not rubbishing "theoreticaly" created music.
Lt Bob is probably right in saying there are no instinctive rules for making music. However there are certain basic patterns to follow for creating music (without which you just make a horrible noise), and those patterns, at least for me, seem to exist at a mostly unconsciouss level, and operate effortlessly when required for making music. The excitement of writing and recording music is often in the interplay between that unconsciouss guidance, and one's consciouss ideas and aspirations, and in the ironical or tongue-in-cheek dialogue between the two? Am I getting pretentiouss here? This is a fascinating subject.
P.S. I think it was Shostokovich, but it may not have been him, who had a bit of shell fragment lodged in his skull, and if he moved his head too fast, the shell fragment would rub on his brain, and he would hear original inspiring music, which he would sometimes later use for his symphonies! This is mentioned in one of Oliver Sacks books, all of which are fascinating and well worth reading.
MrWrenchey
New member
Wait... What?
Crap, I've been living my whole life as a lie!
Well, at least musically speaking, that is...
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
well, just in case someone might have misunderstood ..... there might be personal innate laws of music in that you are gonna have your methodology that you've developed and most of us can't really think differently than we think. That's innate to each of us.
I just meant there isn't some across the board thing that works for everyone because it varies a lot from individual to individual.
I just meant there isn't some across the board thing that works for everyone because it varies a lot from individual to individual.
Pauly Ominus
New member
not bad man.
I like your song, it's rather nice. Could it be a better song? I think so.
Others have suggested the dynamic of a key change, that might do it. But there are also others to consider such as tempo or time sig changes, building in intensity. Gradually adding in some other instruments while building in intensity might do wonders, but maybe all you've got is the one acoustic guitar and your voice.
It's a nice sound but I'd like to see it move on into something else. But that's my taste.
Others have suggested the dynamic of a key change, that might do it. But there are also others to consider such as tempo or time sig changes, building in intensity. Gradually adding in some other instruments while building in intensity might do wonders, but maybe all you've got is the one acoustic guitar and your voice.
It's a nice sound but I'd like to see it move on into something else. But that's my taste.