ott talkin mad shit

Or, shit mad talking Ott!!!

Ott, are you going to have a forum on your new website so we can continue to madly talk about the shit?

Shroomy - 06 November 2009 11:55 PM

I agree that it’s hard to criticise music (or any other art form) in an objective way (and is there really a point?). The way I see it music is about evoking emotions in the listener and therefore it will always be a very subjective matter. People can say what they want about a piece of music, but at the end of the day music is a matter of personal taste and musical preference. There is no such thing as good music or bad music, there’s only music and you either like it or you don’t.

I believe that the purpose of music is to reflect the listener’s inner reality. This creates mental and emotional resonance. That the inner reality changes rather slowly and gradually over the years, so it’s quite inconvenient if the artists’ style changes so abruptly.
But still I think that the music can be understood in terms of rhythm, melody, ambient background, and so on, these qualities are objective. Good melody is not a style, it’s an objective quality that should be present every time. A melody can be expressed as a sequence of notes, it’s not something immaterial, IMHO. There are laws of harmony which allow to create a timeless art.
I think that in some cases it’s the remix that allows the track to use all of it’s potential, for which the original artist didn’t have the balls. (or subtle hearing, in case of ambient remixes) For example, Androcell’s remix of Aes Dana’s Natti Natti track.
But I’m beginning to understand why are the professional art critics loved as much as lawyers and distrainers.

DiMuTech - 07 November 2009 12:14 AM

Personally I like constructive criticiscm on the technical and production side. The tune, sounds I choose are my choice so fuck it if you don’t like that. I want to learn more on how to get better quality in my producing. Tips and tricks are always welcomed in that department.
If I make a tune. It’s usually on how my emotions are at that time. Isn’t that what making music is about at the core? An expression of the artist. Here I agree with Shroomy’s point.

This reminds me of Mike Oldfield and one of his newer albums, Tr3s Lunas. I bought the CD many years ago, the music was nice, but the percussion all sounded like the worst MS Windows MIDI effects.

paranoidmoonduck - 07 November 2009 05:00 PM

Luminon - 06 November 2009 07:57 PM

In many arts and works the criticism is an important part of feedback. People need to know what others like on their work so they can keep it, and what they don’t like, so they can change it.

Really? Which forms of art work like that?

Computer games, for example. That’s what I’ve been doing for some past years. I mean freeware or indie scene. There are really some good methods of doing things that make the true artistic content most accessible and enjoyable to the fans.
But I can also imagine that a musician may get inspired by the work of other musicians. I don’t mean stealing a rhythm or melody, but keeping up with their quality, but in my own way.

I believe that the purpose of music is to reflect the listener

Luminon - 09 November 2009 04:04 PM

paranoidmoonduck - 07 November 2009 05:00 PM

Luminon - 06 November 2009 07:57 PM

In many arts and works the criticism is an important part of feedback. People need to know what others like on their work so they can keep it, and what they don’t like, so they can change it.

Really? Which forms of art work like that?

Computer games, for example. That’s what I’ve been doing for some past years. I mean freeware or indie scene. There are really some good methods of doing things that make the true artistic content most accessible and enjoyable to the fans.
But I can also imagine that a musician may get inspired by the work of other musicians. I don’t mean stealing a rhythm or melody, but keeping up with their quality, but in my own way.

But the part of computer games that needs that feedback from the consumer isn’t the artistic side of the creation, it’s the commercial aspect of it. As it is with any art which has a fundamentally functional purpose. For example, Architecture is partially art, but it also has a serious functional use that cannot be forgotten. The functionality of a building design is up for objective review, but the aesthetic form of the building is the artistic endeavor of the designer and if that designer considers himself an artist, he won’t put much stock in criticisms about it.

That’s the difference between music and computer games. Computer games are designed to be interacted with by an unknown user (and, more specifically, they are designed to be sold to said user). They are excercises in interactive ergonomics. And there are artistic aspects in the creation, but they are driven by the idea that the product has to be consumable. Music, on the other hand, is largely an enterprise entered into because of the joy of creation. This is not universally the case, of course. There is the awful cycle of created “artists” among major record labels; performers who don’t play intruments or write their own songs (and those who do play the instruments or write the songs are entering that situation for the payday).

I compose music because the act of doing so is immense fun. The end result is a piece of music, but that is merely the by product of that act of creation. I don’t create it to be consumed. Most musicians I know work much in the same way, and those who’s finished pieces are widely enjoyed enough manage to make some money by selling those pieces. But the impetus for making the music doesn’t really change much for them. It’s still an act of expression, first and foremost done for themselves.

Now, I’m not going to suggest that critical discussion of music isn’t something that can’t be constructive. Musicians are always growing and learning and open discussion about a given piece of work can be hugely benefiting. Another ear is always welcome. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the musicians needs to alter their work once they’ve heard some criticism, but I see no point to hide from people’s opinions. But, ultimately, there isn’t really much of an objective musical standard of quality (there is only things you are used to hearing and things you aren’t used to hearing), and so all criticism is, at most, suggestive and will be taken with a grain of salt if the artist has any self-confidence whatsoever.

Ott - 07 November 2009 02:34 PM

I think all art criticism is a vain and pointless pursuit. Those that criticise art do so out of frustration that they are unable to express themselves adequately.

Completely disagree, even though art criticisms and debates may be brought down ultimately to something like “Oh I like it, oh I hate it”, music remains also a social things, something that ties links between people, and the experiences they induce among them are meant to be shared.

By the reactions I see, that perhaps the best form of constructive criticism in music (very synoptic one) is making a remix. Unfortunately, majority of remixes is not better than the original track, but a good remix could do the job, making artist to think “why didn’t I make this and this piece like that?”
But there is even better form of that. Surprisingly, collaborations of musicians have very good results. The psychedelic music scene is almost like a swingers party, everyone play with everyone And so they can learn from each other a lot.
Now it’s just a problem of locking them up in a cell for a few months with correct people