dmnhieu@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Duy-Minh NHIEU) (02/01/90)
Now a days you can hear lots of electro-acoustic music outthere. (I don't mean the ones that was written traditionally but have a new arrangement that you play on a synthesizer, I mean those that are composed newly) What makes it a masterpiece or a piece of junk? What is the criteria? (I think music is an art, it is hard to give rules that judge what is a good piece of music, but nevertherless, you can say something about it.
maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) (02/02/90)
In article <20400@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, dmnhieu@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Duy-Minh NHIEU) writes: > Now a days you can hear lots of electro-acoustic music outthere. (I don't > mean the ones that was written traditionally but have a new arrangement that > you play on a synthesizer, I mean those that are composed newly) What makes > it a masterpiece or a piece of junk? What is the criteria? (I think music > is an art, it is hard to give rules that judge what is a good piece of music, > but nevertherless, you can say something about it. I would say that it is impossible to talk about what makes *any* piece of music good. Of course, we do talk this way; we remark on qualities, whether timbre, structure, melody, whatever; but I think what we really mean is, "I liked it, and I was enjoying listening to the timbre, structure, melody, etc." Two people who feel a piece similarly enough can exchange comments of this nature, and each can make the other aware of ways to enjoy a given piece, but neither is really "saying what makes it a masterpiece." I see no way to get rid of the mystery, except to discard it and talk about the tone-rows, or the message of the lyrics, or any such substitute for the actual music. If discussion of music weren't inherently circular, we wouldn't make music.
d88-sli@nada.kth.se (Stefan Lindmark) (02/02/90)
In article <20400@watdragon.waterloo.edu> dmnhieu@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Duy-Minh NHIEU) writes: >Now a days you can hear lots of electro-acoustic music outthere. (I don't >mean the ones that was written traditionally but have a new arrangement that >you play on a synthesizer, I mean those that are composed newly) What makes >it a masterpiece or a piece of junk? What is the criteria? (I think music >is an art, it is hard to give rules that judge what is a good piece of music, >but nevertherless, you can say something about it. Many composers are fascinated by synthesizers and electronic instruments. The problem is that quite a few of them are writing the same music for those instruments as they would have using "old" instruments. Therefore I think that the quality of electro-acoustic music is depending on whether the music is performed on electronic instruments using all their potential capabilities, or if it's performed using only the features inherited from acoustic instruments. A dilemma is that much music is written "the other way", i.e. the composer have been looking on what the specific synthesizer can do, and then composed his music, trying to include those features. This leads to a great lack of feeling in the piece (not saying that those pieces don't have a special kind of charm). A masterpiece can be recognized when you can hear that the composer have had the ambition to put a specific feeling into his work, and then looked for the means of doing it and found that the best way was through synthesizers, since acoustic intruments would limit the spirit of his work. Of course, these are my personal thoughts, and this topic can be discussed for as long as we live. But isn't that the whole point of music? That no song will make the same impression on two different people, no matter if it's a master- piece or not. -- Stefan Lindmark Email: d88-sli@nada.kth.se Snail-mail: Don't even bother... Unsubscribed to newsgroup eunet.jokes.
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (02/03/90)
In article <21656@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes: >I would say that it is impossible to talk about what makes *any* piece >of music good. Of course, we do talk this way; we remark on qualities, >whether timbre, structure, melody, whatever; [...] > I see no way to get rid of the mystery [...] > If discussion of music weren't inherently circular, we wouldn't make music. Reminds me of: "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." -- Laurie Anderson. But I don't agree that such things are unknowable, merely that they are complex and currently not very well known. It would probably help if we understood the nature of the mind and emotion better, for instance. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (02/03/90)
In article <2825@draken.nada.kth.se> d88-sli@nada.kth.se (Stefan Lindmark) writes: >Many composers are fascinated by synthesizers and electronic instruments. The >problem is that quite a few of them are writing the same music for those >instruments as they would have using "old" instruments. >[...] >A dilemma is that much music is written "the other way", i.e. the composer >have been looking on what the specific synthesizer can do, and then composed >his music, trying to include those features. This leads to a great lack of >feeling in the piece (not saying that those pieces don't have a special kind >of charm). You touched upon a recurring dilemma for me. I have an "unofficial" rule that any thing I write has to sound good just being played on a piano. However, sometimes I come across a synth patch that I can't resist and write with that patch in mind. It's a balancing act. I normally don't care much for electronic music that sounds like a features demo. -- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM (505) 345-5232 unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott
maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) (02/05/90)
In article <647@xdos.UUCP>, doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: > > But I don't agree that such things [what makes music good] are unknowable, merely > that they are complex and currently not very well known. It would probably help if > we understood the nature of the mind and emotion better, for instance. OK, suppose we understand emotion and the mind well enough to say why Beethoven's Fifth is a masterpiece. What does it mean that I dislike it? Am I sick?
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (02/05/90)
In article <21749@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes: > >OK, suppose we understand emotion and the mind well enough to say why >Beethoven's Fifth is a masterpiece. What does it mean that I dislike >it? Am I sick? Gee, I didn't mean to hit a nerve...different people like different things, each to his own, live and let live, etc. But you point out one of the reasons why we would not understand such things very well currently, even supposing the correct conceptual tools were already available: there is no one who can be neutral on such subjects. After all, although there are people who may dislike the Fifth for good reasons, based on perhaps a deep understanding of musical theory etc and long experience, there clearly are also other people who may decide they dislike it without having any background in music appreciation, or even ever hearing it. And many other possibilities as well. As things stand in the world today, to even try to sort out all of those possibilities is to risk (A) the appearance of egotism ("who are *you* to decide?"), (B) the uncertainty of analysis of subjective states, and (C) the very likely possibility that the analyst himself will probably not be objective enough to cover the subjects neutrally. And even if he were sufficiently neutral, few people would be neutral enough themselves to believe that he was (i.e. prejudice against one or more of the conclusions). Back to your question: disliking something is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to warrant any kind of conclusion at all without further information, and I wouldn't think that mental sickness is well reflected in musical tastes, anyway. (All jokes aside.) My grandmother, for instance, although a very fine person in many, many ways, disliked *all* music. Apparently she was tone deaf. In any case, that's not the same question as whether you could figure out why some people *do* like it (in a precise analytical sense, that is). Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
d88-sli@nada.kth.se (Stefan Lindmark) (02/07/90)
In article <597@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes: > >You touched upon a recurring dilemma for me. I have an "unofficial" rule >that any thing I write has to sound good just being played on a piano. >However, sometimes I come across a synth patch that I can't resist and >write with that patch in mind. It's a balancing act. I normally don't >care much for electronic music that sounds like a features demo. > Several electronic music groups do the same thing. For an example that is available on record, try Depeche Mode: _Love In Itself_ and the "acoustic" mix, available on the back of some 12". The second version uses only voice, guitar, piano and a *very* simple drum machine, while the former presents the tune using full impact syntesizer usage. As information should be said that Depeche Mode composes all their music using acoustic guitar, and then transforms it onto syntesizers. Oh, for the references to be correct, the acoustic version is called _Love In Itself 4_. -- Stefan Lindmark Email: d88-sli@nada.kth.se Snail-mail: Don't even bother... Unsubscribed to newsgroup eunet.jokes.
pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) (02/07/90)
In article <650@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: >In article <21749@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes: >After all, although there are people who may dislike the Fifth for >good reasons, based on perhaps a deep understanding of musical theory >etc and long experience, there clearly are also other people who may >decide they dislike it without having any background in music appreciation, >or even ever hearing it. And many other possibilities as well. This is perhaps a point worthy of closing this discussion. People are heterogenous with respect to musical experience and perception. It is foolish to impose a label on a piece of music and think that the label is appropriate in any absolute sense. I am also offended by the use of such a comparitive cliche (Beethoven's Fifth Symphony). I could strive to mention pieces of music that are aesthetically interesting to me: I consider Gordon Mumma's Dresden Interleaf or Nurse With Wound's Brained By Falling Masonry to be electro-acoustic masterpieces. However, these pieces are probably obscure to most composers of electro-acoustic music--this fact serves to indicate the impossibility of maintaining a unilateral label for a piece of music. Christopher Penrose penrose@do.ucsd.edu acoustic examples as they employ clear