Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: MDV on September 14, 2009, 03:15:31 PM
-
Discuss
-
Ok, I'll bite...
Nope, disagree, unless you care to qualify your statement :D
:wink:
-
i don't understand the title :oops:
-
Discuss
leave it to you to make such dramatic statements :)
define sound........which part of sound? Are we simply talking tone? Does this include rhythm? harmony? lyrics? Because musically melody is more important than tone.
-
All the sound. Listening to it (any given music).
See, one can learn huge amounts of music theory, but its all derived after the fact from the development of a musical system (harmonically related sounds, which is physics), and then all the possible relationships between those sounds in layering and sequence have their own characteristics that have been retrospectively catalogued and people learn them by rote and call it theory.
I argue that that is not needed, that with sufficient attention and a good ear (and a musical instrument to experiment with) all you need to know is already in the music. The music is its own explanation.
-
Eh? Without the sound, music would be pretty shitee don'tcha think?
Although I guess the look is important. If you're a musician you need super skinny jeans and a poodle hairdo.
-
I think I know what he (or the statement at least) means... but I still disagree :lol:
And I think he wants us to define the scope of the statement for the purposes of this discussion... so I'm I'm not gonna :lol:
More input required sir before I waste valuable web surfing time before the missus gets home!!
EDIT: Ah he's posted.... It is what I thought you meant... still disagree
eg
- what if you want to play it rather than listen to it, there's not enough info in the sound, you need to know a lot more
- what if it arouses emotion a) in one person, but emotion b) in another, the first person will need to speak to the second to learn about emotion b)
- blah
- yaddy-yadda
:D
EDIT: You posted more while I was editing the 1st edit!! All I could see was your first line - still disagree, but I know exactly where you're coming from. It all depends what someone wants out of "Music" as to what "EVERYTHING they need" might be
-
What more do you need to know thats not in the sound? Whats the point in learning it or doing it a certain way if the effects arent not audiable? Hear sound + experiment = find way to match sound.
The matter of emotion cant and need not be learned, and the emotive intent/expression of the player is irrelevent to the emotive effect/involvment of the listener; you buy into the intended vibe, it leaves you cold, you like it, you hate it, whatever; thats the biggest subjective part and everything YOU need to know is in how YOU respond to the sound.
-
Remember I was typing before I'd seen everything you meant :D
However, I still think the statement is far too generic, like music itself, it is open to interpretation.
I read it as
"Absolutely EVERYTHING you (anyone) need to know about music (all music, music in general) is in the sound"
I certainly won't know about the potential emotional power of a piece if it doesn't actually move me, it doesn't mean the potential isn't there though, and I need to discuss with others to unlock it - I need to learn and know something externally before I can appreciate the music fully. But on the other hand, perhaps I don't "need" to appreciate it fully...
Also (bearing in mind how I read the statement), I might "need" to know who wrote it and when they wrote it, and how it was recorded, or if it is a live performance, what make of bow is 3rd violin playing with, etc, etc...
But taking your meaning of the statement, yeah, I can agree with most of your stuff.
Except the "Hear sound + experiment = find way to match sound" :lol:. Unless you're further restricting the statement to a piece of music where I "know" exactly what the instruments are already (ie I know of their existance and what they sound like) then the experimentation will involve, um, obtaining knowledge that is not inherent in the sound itself...
EDIT: Gonna have to go soon - but I do hope you appreciate that I think this actually a pretty good thread, and nice one for starting it in this open ended fashion :D
-
Well, if you want to get to bigger picture, how I'd argue with me is to look at the cultural backstory of the music. Is that part of what you need to know about it? Does it change your perception of the blues to learn about slavery?
Hmmmm
Does it change the emotional impact of it though? Maybe the blues would be really different for you if you knew the social climate and cultural heritage. Maybe you wouldnt give a $%&#. But if the music was changed, its impact and its meaning, then is that something you need to know OR is that ALSO in the sound
Hmmmmmmm
-
(http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/frank-zappa/116-1.jpg)
-
(http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/frank-zappa/116-1.jpg)
Zappas face there is utterly priceless!
But I dont know if the pic and caption agree with me, or contradict me. Both are possible, depending whether you understand my point or not.
-
Hmm, I can't say I understand every technique musically, but if there are two different ways that sound the same when recorded... I am SURE that you personally would strive to use the technique that is 'correct'. Sorry if my judge of your personality is wrong MDV :P
Now, does that actually apply to any technique :?
Do people that aren't 'tone chasers' neccesarily have shite sound?
Do those that are 'tone chasers' neccesarily play well?
-
Of course, but all techniques have a sound.
Are some good and some bad, objectively speaking? Thats another matter, but I say of course not. Thats just taste. But what youre talking about is mimicry, and while video tutorials are helpfull, its still all in the sound (and the experimenting to help you find what they did)
But, that said, this discussion is now going for tone and sonic characteristics in general, which I didnt intend or expect, but thats cool. But do try to remember when assailing the original point with ruminations on technique that it was about the raw music, the notes and beats. But I did say "EVERYTHING", didnt I :lol: Rock on, technique and production to!
-
I disagree. Then again, if I had a better ear I might not.
-
No. Culture and history are vital.
I don't have much interest in music that doesn't MEAN something, outwith noise and drone, which I like for, well, aesthetic reasons purely, I guess is an clear way to describe it. I like to hear a wee nice tune now and again, but I'll never actively listen to much pop music, since the majority is fairly devoid of anything to say. I don't need there to be words, like, just so long as something is presenting me with an emotion or a story or a journey.
Also, I'm instantly put off music which presents a message I dislike, for instance, if I could listen to him as purely music I'd love Burzum, I'd like Winterfylleth too and I'd like Hate Forest and Skrewdriver, but the fact these bands are nazi/national socialist/racist is something I can't get past.
Music to me is far more than simply sound.
Is this what you're getting at? :lol:
-
It's in his kiss....
That's where it is.... oh yeah
-
nfe, such considerations have occured to me.
See post above.
I dont think its a closed debate in that regard. Personally I find that knowing the background, if its cultural or part of the human condition or something in a persons life that inspired the song (note the distinction from the music) then I can be, and mostly am, completely apathetic about it, but sometimes it adds a dimension of understanding to the meaning of the lyrics.
But I pay very, very little attention to lyrics :lol: They're, when done well, the poetry that goes along with music. Its quite fascinating that the two different art forms (as they each are) can be conjoined so fluidly, but they are very different.
I also dont listen to anything that has a message or meaning that I'm opposed to. Most recent example is discovering that Skinless, who I previously disregarded the songs and childish gore-toilet humour of to listen to the (albeit mediocre) music get a female manakin on stage covered in fake blood for the audience to beat the shitee out of. I have no truck with such cr@p and immediately deleted my skinless albums.
So, we have an echo of the 'other' dimension of music that I disgregarded when I started the thread - the cultural background, which is in the music and the lyrics, IMO. If you count the lyrics as part of 'The Sound', then its in there still, if not, it isnt.
-
All the sound. Listening to it (any given music).
See, one can learn huge amounts of music theory, but its all derived after the fact from the development of a musical system (harmonically related sounds, which is physics), and then all the possible relationships between those sounds in layering and sequence have their own characteristics that have been retrospectively catalogued and people learn them by rote and call it theory.
I argue that that is not needed, that with sufficient attention and a good ear (and a musical instrument to experiment with) all you need to know is already in the music. The music is its own explanation.
well, sure. Music theory only came along in around the 16th century, it was a way of rationalising all the music which came before it, so it could be repeated and interpreted (and also improved) by other people. Right?
But I pay very, very little attention to lyrics :lol:
+1
even the best lyrics are normally a pale imitation of the best poetry. And it's still music if you don't have words, it's not really still music if you don't have, er, music. It's poetry.
-
Hmm... this thread hasn't got as far as I thought it would by this morning :D
I acknowledge the cultural stuff, but it wasn't what I was thinking of myself. And I wasn't actually thinking of guitar or pop rock music specifically either.
The only example I can think of to illustrate what I was driving at, and it's not a brilliant example, is this:
Let's say that I have a recording of Handel's Messiah, and I decide that I'd like to put on a performance of it for Christmas. The sound of that recording does not even remotely contain everything I need to know in order to stage such a performance!
Unless maybe, by trial and error, without taking advantage of the shortcuts of established musical theory, and the fact that the score is already readily available, I decide to spent the next x years listening to all of it, figuring out a way of transcribing all the parts (assuming I'm capable of identifying them, and I don't think anyone is capable of doing this from a single recording and arriving at the actual parts that Handel wrote, all the way through the entire suite - the information is just not present in enough detail in the sound of the recording) and then training all my musicians and singers to follow that method of transcription, etc, etc...
However, as a listener, that same recording of Handel's Messiah does indeed contain everything I need to know in order to listen to and enjoy it. The back story as to how he wrote it - pretty much straight to paper with very few later amendments, in a couple of weeks, and how some parts are "go and take a solo", so what we have transcribed nowadays is someone's solo from "early" performances - while extremely interesting to me, is not strictly necessary to my enjoyment of the expereince.
However, I personally have two recordings of Handel's Messiah, one is fab (to my ears), the other is absolutely mediocre in comparison - if I'd only ever heard the second, I possibly wouldn't know that the piece is so fab... what is "the music" in this case? a specific performance? or the "piece" itself?... (:lol:)
But, finally, I sang in Handel's Messiah, as a Treble in the chorus, when I was 11 or 12 years old, to a packed Colston Hall in Bristol, after months of rehearsals. If I hadn't got the thrill of watching the entire audience stand when the first bar of the Hallelulah Chorus started (it was a bit of a surprise to us 11 year olds), and then the utter utter rush of actually belting the thing out... then I wouldn't have known that those emotions are locked up inside that piece of music by just listening to it later down the line (recording or live performance)... And by the way, this particular Treble had never heard a recording of Handel's Messiah until after he'd performed it... I knew everything I needed to know about the music to do my job that night... but, er, I'd never actually heard it as a finished sound! :lol:
I maintain, m'lud :lol:, that the blanket statement under discussion, as it stands, cannot test as a true statement without caveats to define its scope. It depends entirely on who "you" is, and what that individual intends or wants to do.
As long as the scope is restricted as required in each case, I agree with what everyone else has said.
:D
-
I didn't read MDV's statement as having anything to do with performance.
I was reading it as being purely about everything you need to know about music as a listener is in the sound. Which I'd still disagree with, again for historical, social and cultural reasons. That was assumption anyway, I realise he did, from earlier posts :lol:
-
That is true nfe. Theres also the capability of the player/s to consider in the sound.
You have two recordings of one piece and one is full of life and energy and one is flat and boring. Thats a very important dimension of the music, but its also a consequence of how the person played the piece, and its clearly in the sound and you know its there/different because you heard it and sufficient experience/experiment with the appropriate instrument/s can allow you to mimic how the person played without seeing them play, or at least reproduce the sonic results.
I dont know what you mean about things in there that you never hear? Yes, you can listen to something sufficiently complex time and again and still hear new things in it after years, but they were always there, and maybe you needed better hifi gear to hear it or maybe you just paid more attention or maybe how you listen changed over time and you started noticing things that you simply didnt pay any attention to before, or maybe someone that had heard it brought it to your attention, but it was all still in the sound. These 'inaudiable techniques' are grossly overrated! "Man, that guys awesome, you cant even HEAR most of what he does!" :lol: ;)
If it were what dance moves acompany the music then thats not in the sound, but its not music either.
-
I still think it's a class thread :D
Btw, here's something I forgot last nite in the heat of finding reasons to disagree with you - there is one circumstance where I believe the statement is true and it should be printed on all of our foreheads:
Demos to prospective promoters/venues/recordcompanies/etc...
Anyone who thinks they can send their demo in with a covering letter that says any of the following:
"This isn't actually our best song, but I'm sure you can imagine how good that might be based on this"
"Please ignore the mistakes made by the drummer, he had a hangover"
"We sound a lot better live"
"There's meant to be a keyboard part but we haven't got a keyboard player"
"Please take into consideration the bad mix, the engineer at the studio messed it up"
"It would sound better if we had decent amplifiers"
etc.. :lol:
... is a complete numpty.
If you're sending a demo, everything the listener needs to know about the music must be in the sound you give them.
-
You have NO IDEA the number of those I get.
-
my bro sent a Deal With It cd to be reviewed in Kerrang.
he wrapped it in a sheet of scr@p paper and wrote "f*ck you" on it.
their review in terrorizer was better... haha
-
give me pots and pan with good acoustics... I could mess around bashing out rhythms for hours
and I hear random polyrhythms everywhere, if it syncs... it's a poly ;)
hell sometimes my brain does stuff like this guy, it's about 1 minute into the clip
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=9006661
-
good point about handel's messiah, andy.
-
This is an old debate about art.
To appreciate art do you need to have an intellectual understanding of art? Or do you just need to appreciate the aesthetics?
I like to know the background of my art. I like to understand about slavery when I listen to Pops Staples or Albert King. When I was a kid I loved reading along with U2 lyrics and understanding what what intended with the words, and the guitar sounds.
I like to listen to the Four Seasons and picture the scenery in my mind, to try to get a sense of what the composer was trying to achieve.
I like the intellectual side, not just the holistic contour. That's just sound.
:wink:
-
This is an old debate about art.
:lol: I think that's why I like it.
good point about handel's messiah, andy.
Thanks, Dave, not sure it was the best example, but it was the best I could come up with...
... and then MrBump saying it's the old art debate, made me realise that this is the angle I'm coming from.
I spose where I'm at is this:
1) To appreciate art (music, in this case), you don't need to know more than is offered in the object itself (sound in this case)... BUT for certain types of art/music/whatever, this means that you might have to dismiss it as "uh?!" if you do not have the knowledge/back-story that goes with it, and if this information is not included in the sound/picture.
So I cannot agree that "Absolutely EVERYTHING" required is available in the object itself for all instances of artistic appreciation.
I'd qualify this by saying most of what you need is available in most - but for some items, you have to have prior understanding or knowledge to be able appreciate it in a positive way.
If we're prepared to accept an "appreciation" of "I've seen/heard it, it's sh1t, don't bother with it" from someone, then obviously we have to accept that for them "Absolutely EVERYTHING" required was indeed present...
2) To create art (music, in this case) that is similar to the object that you are appreciating, and to the same "standard" (what ever that is, and how ever it is being measured), there is not enough information in the sound, or the picture, to tell you how recreate it without a great deal of experimentation and learning away from the object itself...
So again, I cannot agree that "Absolutely EVERYTHING" required was present in the object.
I'll admit that a simple sound - eg a song that features an unaccompanied "natural" voice - might be reproducable/coverable by trial and error... but anything with complex harmonies or that requires the learning of an instrument other than your own voice presents huge difficulties...
HOWEVER, even with your voice alone, what about cultural stuff? If you were brought up with Western harmony and speak only English? How are you going to reproduce something from Asia based purely on the sound?
I would cite "Bridget Jones - Edge of Reason" when Bridget is stuck in prison on a drugs charge, and her new Asian friends start singing Madonna songs - I know it's fiction, but it shows how everything you need in order to sing Madonna songs is obviously not in the sound of her hit recordings! :lol:
Nope, it's taken several days for me to reach this conclusion, but I can categorically state that I cannot agree with the statement, as presented, without serious modification or qualification :D
-
I think what is more important than the sound? the REACTION to the sound?, this could get into philosophy quite quicky but where is the thing that causes the reaction? is it the ear, the brain, the heart, the hair on your neck vibrating, your gut? despite many theories not one of them can be correct, this creates a dualist concept of sound, with sound and the reaction being of equal importance, are they dead without each other? can you have the reaction of sound with imagining that sound but without physically feeling it? :o
-
Good replies.
Got distracted by real life.
havent forgotten.
may post again. May let it stand. Didnt start the thread to 'be right' (hence arguing with myself!) - just thought it was an interesting discussion point.
-
I think what is more important than the sound? the REACTION to the sound?, this could get into philosophy quite quicky but where is the thing that causes the reaction? is it the ear, the brain, the heart, the hair on your neck vibrating, your gut? despite many theories not one of them can be correct, this creates a dualist concept of sound, with sound and the reaction being of equal importance, are they dead without each other? can you have the reaction of sound with imagining that sound but without physically feeling it? :o
LOVE IT! :D
I was wondering about this at first as well, but I couldn't express it, so I went off in another direction...
I especially like that last bit "can you have the reaction of sound with imagining that sound but without physically feeling it" ... I can hear stuff in my head, or I think I can, sometimes you end up humming it out loud, but often you just have a song you've heard going round in your head. So, what is going round when you're not making a noise?? Is your brain replaying the sound it heard, or your interpretation of it?? Am I hearing The Beatles singing "She Said She Said" (that's the one in my head at the moment if I switch it on), or am I "singing" it myself - CRAZY!!! :lol:
When I'm writing songs, I'm usually concentrating on my voice and the guitar I'm playing, but I can hear "arrangements", the whole shebang, in the background... that's what enables me to write through the thing - I can hear the bass, the organ, strings, drums, whatever... it helps me get the "reaction" to what the whole thing would sound like if it was recorded or being played live, so that it excites me enough to think I'm working on something worth working on...
But usually I can't turn this amazing backing band in my head into reality... :( It was actually even worse when I had a real band - they couldn't hear this "other" band, obviously, and unfortunately they had no intention of trying to play what those guys had been playing!! :lol:
-
Didnt start the thread to 'be right' (hence arguing with myself!) - just thought it was an interesting discussion point.
That's what I thought the minute you posted it - there are so many levels you can look at this one... and actually, starting it with a fairly "closed" statement that it's hard to agree with is a good way of getting things going.
Funnily enough, I thought I'd finished and had nothing else to say this morning, but JJ's post really got me thinking just now :lol: