I have an important comment to make about the Pachebel's video we saw in class. I didn't get to say what I wanted to say after it ended because the group's presentation pretty much ended after it. I felt like it was too late for me to speak up (I take some time to get the courage to raise my hand...)...
I DISAGREE that all music has a formula. The video was supposed to give that message. More generally, the video was supposed to give the message that literature, dance, music, etc., all have some sort of copied formula.
I analyze music all of the time and will give my input:
When we write music, we are dealing with 12 notes (well, with the traditional music keyboard). 12 notes. I repeat: 12 notes. Of course there are going to be some similarities, some songs having more than others. However, there are also many different things that can be done with rhythm, chords progressions, different combinations of melodies with harmonies, etc.(I think Alex DID make this point, actually).
Basically, my point is that the ones that really are similar are POP songs, or even jazz songs for Christ's sake. One can find generic songs for any genre of music(they can be good/okay songs, but it's not what I would want to listen to. They are not spectacular). Anything that really fits clearly into a genre, and has the generic genre sound, was made from a formula(i.e. jazz: walking bassline, all the same characteristics as any other jazz song, no spectacular melody, does not add anything else). But I don't like this kind of music. I kind of like songs that takes influences from genres but is... just not that genre. It has few similarities with other songs since(few because similarities are inescapable with 12 notes), but is really not from a formula. Every song that the Pachebel's Canon video guy played were very recent, pop songs, none of which I like. Additionally, this is not to say that I don't like the occassional pop song, or jazz song, whatever, I do, but the songs I like go "above and beyond" and are songs that I believe are not completely from the formula. There are ALWAYS going to be some similarities, of course, but some wonderful songs ARE different, very different, and these are the songs that I tend to like.
I did not choose to like these songs. I came to this conclusion after I started analyzing why I like what I like. Even the music I compose I do not believe sounds like anything else. Sure, one could say "well it has elements of techno... da da da..." but I think it is new and different. I don't particularly like my music (yea...) but I at least can say it does not distinctly fit into one category. It is human nature to put things into categories, though, which is why all songs wind up in one. There are many less-formulated songs out there, though, and I think the same goes for literature, too.
I remember Meg saying that there are a certain amount of categories of plots that exist, but I want to find those categories and challenge it. I do believe what my past professor said that all writing is stolen, but I think that every once in a while things are added and changed around, which makes it completely different.
Back to dealing with music, I mean... when one writes music, they can only write with the skills they possess-- these skills come from previous heard music. Composition is about knowledge of music, and associations with different notes. If no one ever experiments, then there will never be anything different. The "experimenters" are the ones who want to write what they think sounds good and does not try to be "rock" or "pop" or anything, and these are the ones who make great music.
Oh, and I never liked Stars Wars and Harry Potter (or the new Twilight). The fact that they have a certain formula may explain it. Thanks group today who presented that brought this to my attention!
Sorry, this whole thing must not make sense. I'm typing really fast and thinking really fast (I'm not a fast thinker) because I have to study for a geology test.... but it makes sense in my brain :(
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not in the class, but I know a few people who are, and I read this, and felt that someone needed to respond...
ReplyDeleteThere are an innumerable quantity of things in here that make me shake my head. I'll try and hit them all, but I'll probably miss a few.
Music has to have a formula. Without a formula, music isn't music. If music is defined as organized sound in time, and you take away the organization, its just sound in time. That is not music.
Yes traditional western music is written in 12 notes, but thats not the same thing as 12 sounds. There are a huge number of different sounds used even in modern western pop music. Saying that there will be similarities because there is such a limited quantity of source material (notes)doesn't make any sense. Even is western music there are many quarter tones used in guitar in the form of note bends and tremolo. Its the same thing in pop vocals. There aren't just the standard 12 notes being used.
So you're saying that anything that fits into a genre is cliched? WHAT?!?!?! So only the first song in each genre is unique, and you only like those songs? You must like an extremely limited number of songs.
I would be very curious to hear the kind of music that you like. You said you only like stuff that is a fusion of different genres. Like... fusion? :D? But alas, that is a genre as well.
I have a HUGE problem with the way you are constructing music. Why does it have to be different, and how you do define different? Is it not musical genius when some of the greatest musicians of all time have taken musical formulas and changed them SLIGHTLY?
Looking at the beatles. They took musical forumulas and changed them drastically in some cases, and just a little bit in others. The famous song that skips the 12th measure before going into the second verse, and is considered one of the greatest songs of all times. In other cases when the beatles did things that modern music had never done before, like writing songs in modes.
But then again, the Beatles are really just Pop, and didn't do anything original, so what am I talking about.
I would argue that the essence of music can be as much in execution as in writing. If an artist decides to hold a note a beat longer to syncopate a rhythm, is that still being unoriginal because it still fits into a genre?
I think your view of music suffers from the same problem that many young composers does. You want to completely break the system, and do something 100% original and unique. And by doing that, you will simply create the same jumble of sounds that gets put into the "alternative" section of record stores. All of the most artistic production of music haven't been a reforumulation of the entire system, but rather a mild tweak of the system that turns something boring into something masterful.
If you only things you like have to be 100% original, then you're missing the most beautiful and refined pieces of music ever created.
There's no reason to even respond to what you're saying about plots and why you don't like star wars or harry potter.
Well obviously if you interpret what I said THAT way, then yes, I would seem like I am constructing music extremely inaccurately and am missing a lot of beautiful music. But you have changed what I said. I never said I needed music to be 100% original. I said that all music has some similarities. I did not touch on the different tones that instruments make, but that was not to say I didn't understand that. I do agree with most of what you said, and therefore am not even sure how to respond to this. I do not like all the "alternative" music out there. I probably do not like most of it. I don't know what you think I like or how much you know about music/what your music background is, but you have me all wrong. Also, there is a difference between consonance/dissonance and having an OVERDONE formula that all sounds the same. I did write my blog post when I just found out I might have cancer and was tired and had a huge geology test, so I was not well or I probably could have phrased my post better so I apologize. But, again, I really, truly think you have my ideas all wrong. Additionally, don't be so strict with my words. I was writing the post as theoretical... not "omg I ONLY LIKE THIS." I would be very curious to find out music that YOU like because I bet you have not heard any of my music. You make it sound like I know nothing about music, but this is not true. I am highly insulted.
ReplyDeleteMy friend is going to post something soon that explains my views on music probably better than I could have ever put it. But let me say a few more things before he posts:
ReplyDeleteA formula means: any fixed or conventional method for doing something
Organization means: to give organic structure or character to
I never said music did not have organization(DIFFERENT than overdone formula). You put these words in my mouth. I am an advocate of organized music. And there are MANY people out there who would actually argue with you and say music does not have to be even organized (I've learned this in my many music classes, as well). I am not going to argue that, but I will say that you cannot just say "it is not music" if it is not organized since there are people that will disagree with you and challenge what exactly music means. But let's not argue on this one because I am not an advocate of non-organized music.
I would also like to say that you have made too many assumptions and ACCUSATIONS about me when you don't even know me which is why your argument does not make sense and is NOT RELEVANT AT ALL! You have no basis to stand on. "I am trying to break the system"-- no. I am not. I like the Beatles. I am NOT missing out on music. I have heard things like the Beatles, etc., music you probably consider as the what I'm missing out on, since I was 3. My mother/father/brother have exposed me to so many varied songs/genres since I was little that I have had time to expand my horizons. I constantly check out new music every day so I can be the least subjective as I can, although I know it is not possible to be completely non-subjective. I guess what I mean is... I want to know, for MYSELF, that I have the best music for me.
And try not to make arguments without ACTUALLY READING what I have to say. You said "Yes traditional western music is written in 12 notes, but thats not the same thing as 12 sounds. There are a huge number of different sounds used even in modern western pop music."
^^^ APPARENTLY you didn't really read what I said. I said "However, there are also many different things that can be done with rhythm, chords progressions, different combinations of melodies with harmonies, etc."
Did you see my etc.? Hopefully now you actually read what I said instead of arguing something that did not need to be argued.
I will first say that music is not my strong point by any means. Because of this I will avoid addressing or using the musical terms directly. I find similarities between music and literature, so I'll try to use literature to make my points.
ReplyDeleteWhen she says that music doesn't have to have a formula, she isn't saying that one must do away with the organizations of the sounds. What she is saying is that not all music requires a template to be good. This can be likened to, say to a slideshow presentation. The vast majority of slideshows (aka PowerPoint) have a predictable template. There is a title page, with a nice background, the title of the presentation, the authors name, maybe the date and a picture thrown in as well. The following pages have their own similar format, a heading, followed by bullets. She is saying that after awhile, it's all become the same for her. She's looking for music that expands beyond the common structures of music, or songs that have melodies that are intricate, interesting, or with an unexpected (but good) twist.
In all of this, she is not saying that she wants to completely chuck the rules of music. To do so would probably banish one to the back aisle of the music store as you were saying. What she would like to do is bend or break some rules when it would work well. The same kind of thing that people who write good literature do. She doesn't think that song must be 100% original or completely different in order to be good music. In fact, I'm willing to bet she would argue strongly against this idea.
I think her point was that most really good music is hard to fit into any one category. The more a song typifies a genre, the more it fits the formula of that genre. Of course we could probably come up with a few counter examples (The Beatles perhaps, she does like several of their songs) but for the most part, it's the same formula with different lyrics, and different notes, but all sounding vaguely the same. We say there are but 12 notes, you say there are many different ways of playing those notes. Play the notes however you please but it still all reduces back down to the 12 basic notes. Perhaps we can liken this to movies. You have different characters, different scenes, different time periods, and different scenarios but you find there are some major similarities between certain movies. Boy meets girl, they like each other, an event(s) brews that creates between them, this is overcome, and there is an ending. You can probably think of several movies that remind you of this. (I know that pretty much every movie/book fits this general plot idea but bear with me) The basic plot structure is pretty much inexplicable, but isn't the movie far more interesting when something really unexpected happens? Or, isn't more exciting when you have seen a movie that seems like it is original, even though you know that it can be reduced down to copying from different sources with changes/twists made.? You know that the characters, scenes, etc are going to be different in every movie, but the movie gets boring when you can start predicting what is going to happen. So I think a good movie has a mix of different genres in it, it keeps the viewer guessing what will happen next. It make the movie experience new and exciting. The same very much applies to music. She actually agrees with you that tweaking a formula ever so slightly can produce wonders.
There are different critics out there, in the case here, she is a picky critic. I think it is a good thing, she doesn't settle for less than what she thinks is best. There is a certain purity to this type of critic. Some critics see the good in every work, this kind reserves praise for but a few works. I think this is a common thread that runs though much of life, whether it be food, movies, books, friends(many friends or only a few intimate ones?) or music.
So to wrap this up, a twist on originality is not all that makes a song good to her. To put it bluntly it just has to be “good”. The song has to stand on it's own, it's quality cannot be decided merely on whether it belongs to a well defined genre or not. It must be well constructed, having components(vocals, instruments, etc) that are almost divinely destined to go together. It must also have an awesome melody, one that does not get boring or (too) repetitive. What fun is a song that gives you everything but the ending by one minute into a three minute song? If the song repeats the lyrics, or the melody without changing it any, there is little gained in listening to the rest of it.
I apologize for my rambling argument, and the shortfalls in organization.
Perfect :)
ReplyDeleteI love you above poster. It's like you can read my mind. Thank you so much. Hopefully Chris understands my view better instead of using sarcasm and assumptions to hate me for no reason.
Maybe I should clarify my response to Chris' comment about music without organization:
Music is whatever we say it is. If someone feels like they are creating beauty or joy or expressing them self in some way through sound then it's music.
Doesn't mean I'll like it, I probably won't. Judging by what you said, you probably won't like it either. But music is art and art is what we say it is. There is no art without observers to call it such.