Why do you percive as wrong in music?

edit it should mean "What do you perceive as wrong in music?"

Do you thing beauty is in the eye of the beholder or are there things you see clearly as something wrong in a composition

I am thinking for a long time about this now and I am not getting to a point

I am pretty advanced in music theory. The more you learn, the more you understand that you can pretty much play any note at any time, so long as you resolve it. Sometimes you don't even have to resolve it.

There are three parts to music:

Enthusiasm,

Discipline,

Natural Skill.

Sometimes, enough of one can get you through quite a bit. Most punk bands lack natural skill and discipline, but their enthusiasm makes them fun to listen to. Plenty of Jazz players lack enthusiasm and natural skill, but their discipline makes them very respectable and intellectually challenging.

The best and "lasting" musicians almost always have quite a bit of at least two if not three qualities. Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Plenty of his stuff was relatively simple. But he had the enthusiasm of a monster and that X - factor that made him extremely unique. Thus, he has been made classic.

It is hard to explain, but the more you know, and the more you listen to, the easier it is to tell if an artist is stale or is significantly lacking in one of the above qualities. At the same time however, there are musicians that I can appreciate, but don't really like at all. Removing personal taste is essential for a well informed decision.

this music stuff is too loud and you kids should turn it down.

I have some friends that make very atonal music and ones that swear by tonal music. I'm a fan of both, I don't think anything is "wrong"

  Rook said:

I am pretty advanced in music theory. The more you learn, the more you understand that you can pretty much play any note at any time, so long as you resolve it. Sometimes you don't even have to resolve it.

 

There are three parts to music:

 

Enthusiasm,

Discipline,

Natural Skill.

 

Sometimes, enough of one can get you through quite a bit. Most punk bands lack natural skill and discipline, but their enthusiasm makes them fun to listen to. Plenty of Jazz players lack enthusiasm and natural skill, but their discipline makes them very respectable and intellectually challenging.

 

The best and "lasting" musicians almost always have quite a bit of at least two if not three qualities. Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Plenty of his stuff was relatively simple. But he had the enthusiasm of a monster and that X - factor that made him extremely unique. Thus, he has been made classic.

 

It is hard to explain, but the more you know, and the more you listen to, the easier it is to tell if an artist is stale or is significantly lacking in one of the above qualities. At the same time however, there are musicians that I can appreciate, but don't really like at all. Removing personal taste is essential for a well informed decision.

curious as to how the autechre fellows rank in your 3 categories!

as to the original question (which i think rook kiiinda didn't address, cause the question is about music and not musicians, as i read it), it's hard to qualify because it's all extremely subjective. i think though that certain pieces can have specific positive and negative attributes, on average. that means that there are of course exceptions within the full audience, and certain sub-audiences will rate the attributes differently, and will also weigh the attributes differently. some attributes off the top of my head:

emotional appeal

kinetic appeal

architectural appeal

narrative appeal

power appeal

philosophical appeal

spiritual appeal

etc

for example, emotional appeal and architectural appeal are 2 attributes that i weigh heavily, and i rate confield very high on both, so i love the album. your average radio listener is probably more interested in kinetic/power/emotion, and even if they give much weight to emotional appeal, they may rate confield low on that scale. on average though, confield is probably moderately emotional, highly architectural, moderately kinetic, so on. within the watmm audience though (on average) it's probably high in all 3, and all 3 are probably weighted heavily.

so from that, i would say that something that rates extremely low architecturally for me is architecturally "wrong" to me. if something rates low architecturally on average, then it's architecturally "wrong" in general.

that's about as far as i can go though. i find it all far too subjective to say something like "these 2 notes together is wrong."

  vodor said:

  Rook said:

I am pretty advanced in music theory. The more you learn, the more you understand that you can pretty much play any note at any time, so long as you resolve it. Sometimes you don't even have to resolve it.

 

There are three parts to music:

 

Enthusiasm,

Discipline,

Natural Skill.

 

Sometimes, enough of one can get you through quite a bit. Most punk bands lack natural skill and discipline, but their enthusiasm makes them fun to listen to. Plenty of Jazz players lack enthusiasm and natural skill, but their discipline makes them very respectable and intellectually challenging.

 

The best and "lasting" musicians almost always have quite a bit of at least two if not three qualities. Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Plenty of his stuff was relatively simple. But he had the enthusiasm of a monster and that X - factor that made him extremely unique. Thus, he has been made classic.

 

It is hard to explain, but the more you know, and the more you listen to, the easier it is to tell if an artist is stale or is significantly lacking in one of the above qualities. At the same time however, there are musicians that I can appreciate, but don't really like at all. Removing personal taste is essential for a well informed decision.

 

curious as to how the autechre fellows rank in your 3 categories!

 

Electronic music presents a particular problem when analyzing enthusiasm. Since the music is made in studios, and the machines programmed not played, we don't know if they are enthusiastic or not. Though, considering just the quantity of the music they have release, I would say they are quite enthusiastic. The same for Aphex.

It is quite obvious that they are disciplined. AE's music is so incredibly detailed, the sounds are so incredibly original. They have made music that no one has any idea how they did. Their skill with their instruments is obviously very high.

Similarly, their "X-Factor" is one of the highest among electronic musicians I think with their only rival being Aphex and possibly BOC. AE have admitted to having zero training in music theory and zero knowledge of it. Yet they produce emotional, attractive music. They could not have created what they have without a large amount of natural talent.

nothing in music is wrong

except maybe this

  o00o said:

edit it should mean "What do you perceive as wrong in music?"

this is a good question. i made it to myself when i listened RUSTIE's stuff for the first time.

there i thought : there must be something wrong.

In the Rustie's thread,to justify that,someone talked about the fact that it is some kinda new avantgarde approach to melody,others talked about people's mind narrowness ..

i really love Yasunao Tone ..well,Rustie still sounds fucking wrong in my mind. why?

i've studied music for many years,as well as i listened many of the best expressions of it. of course you can talk about the technical aspects and stuff,but finally,dunno,for me it's something that you just "feel".

  LUDD said:

nothing in music is wrong

 

except maybe this

 

i would fuck that. i think that Black Eyed Peas males fucked that,repetitively.

Go take a listen to Whitehouse.

That's pretty fucking wrong.

  Jimbob said:

Go take a listen to Whitehouse.

That's pretty fucking wrong.

It does not sound wrong to me

there is no such thing as wrong. free our minds and realise there is just perception.

i know this sounds like hippy shit but its true.

as for peoples weighting factors when gauging music. what are you on about. "well i think this man has a high enthusiasm factor but is low on skill but the enthusiasm factor is high enough to outweigh the lack of skill etc..." what you mean you like it??

basically people like stuff or they dont or they dont mind, people can have many reasons but its essentially trying to intelectualise somehting more than it needs to be. Do you think aphex thinks about these different factors, or autechre etc...? i would hazard a guess they just make music that they like, and what they like is different to what someone else likes or similar.

I have heard both artists talking about feeling and basically listening and working on feeling until it feels good. feeling is a very subjective personal thing that differs between people.

like i said there is no wrong. its just perception

  burnibus said:

there is no such thing as wrong. free our minds and realise there is just perception.

 

i know this sounds like hippy shit but its true.

 

as for peoples weighting factors when gauging music. what are you on about. "well i think this man has a high enthusiasm factor but is low on skill but the enthusiasm factor is high enough to outweigh the lack of skill etc..." what you mean you like it??

 

basically people like stuff or they dont or they dont mind, people can have many reasons but its essentially trying to intelectualise somehting more than it needs to be. Do you think aphex thinks about these different factors, or autechre etc...? i would hazard a guess they just make music that they like, and what they like is different to what someone else likes or similar.

 

I have heard both artists talking about feeling and basically listening and working on feeling until it feels good. feeling is a very subjective personal thing that differs between people.

 

like i said there is no wrong. its just perception

Way to be wrong, sucka.

  Rook said:

I am pretty advanced in music theory. The more you learn, the more you understand that you can pretty much play any note at any time, so long as you resolve it. Sometimes you don't even have to resolve it.

 

There are three parts to music:

 

Enthusiasm,

Discipline,

Natural Skill.

 

Sometimes, enough of one can get you through quite a bit. Most punk bands lack natural skill and discipline, but their enthusiasm makes them fun to listen to. Plenty of Jazz players lack enthusiasm and natural skill, but their discipline makes them very respectable and intellectually challenging.

 

The best and "lasting" musicians almost always have quite a bit of at least two if not three qualities. Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Plenty of his stuff was relatively simple. But he had the enthusiasm of a monster and that X - factor that made him extremely unique. Thus, he has been made classic.

 

It is hard to explain, but the more you know, and the more you listen to, the easier it is to tell if an artist is stale or is significantly lacking in one of the above qualities. At the same time however, there are musicians that I can appreciate, but don't really like at all. Removing personal taste is essential for a well informed decision.

So where can I hear your music?

  Jonas said:

I think this thread needs some John Cage quotes, can't be bothered to google though.

"I certainly had no feeling for harmony, and Schoenberg thought that that would make it impossible for me to write music. He said, 'You'll come to a wall you won't be able to get through.' So I said, 'I'll beat my head against that wall.' "

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all."

"Which is more musical: a truck passing by a factory or a truck passing by a music school?"

"The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason."

perhaps best fitting the thread so far:

"If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience."

  Rook said:

  burnibus said:

there is no such thing as wrong. free our minds and realise there is just perception.

 

i know this sounds like hippy shit but its true.

 

as for peoples weighting factors when gauging music. what are you on about. "well i think this man has a high enthusiasm factor but is low on skill but the enthusiasm factor is high enough to outweigh the lack of skill etc..." what you mean you like it??

 

basically people like stuff or they dont or they dont mind, people can have many reasons but its essentially trying to intelectualise somehting more than it needs to be. Do you think aphex thinks about these different factors, or autechre etc...? i would hazard a guess they just make music that they like, and what they like is different to what someone else likes or similar.

 

I have heard both artists talking about feeling and basically listening and working on feeling until it feels good. feeling is a very subjective personal thing that differs between people.

 

like i said there is no wrong. its just perception

 

Way to be wrong, sucka.

or right depending on your perception

I think most music these days is recorded too loud. Everything is sort of forced to 0dB. I guess to keep people in cars from having to turn the knob/adjust sound...

I like music that doesn't get to 0dB. Also when you have to turn it up a good bit and some things are quiet, and some are loud.

i'm far too fascinated by music as a physical phenomenon to genuinely dislike any form of it enough to call it wrong.. Everyone's got their own taste and persona.. As long as a human made it someone'll like it. Then again I guess robot music would be very interesting.

There are a few things that tick me off, like the loudness war and the public appeal for pretty bland music, but shit, it doesn't make it wrong, it's just different

  burnibus said:

there is no such thing as wrong. free our minds and realise there is just perception.

 

i know this sounds like hippy shit but its true.

 

as for peoples weighting factors when gauging music. what are you on about. "well i think this man has a high enthusiasm factor but is low on skill but the enthusiasm factor is high enough to outweigh the lack of skill etc..." what you mean you like it??

 

basically people like stuff or they dont or they dont mind, people can have many reasons but its essentially trying to intelectualise somehting more than it needs to be. Do you think aphex thinks about these different factors, or autechre etc...? i would hazard a guess they just make music that they like, and what they like is different to what someone else likes or similar.

 

I have heard both artists talking about feeling and basically listening and working on feeling until it feels good. feeling is a very subjective personal thing that differs between people.

 

like i said there is no wrong. its just perception

Rook is right, but he's talking about writing music, not music itself.

I was lying in bed, thinking about this (should I be embarrassed that forum debates keep me up at night?), and realized that I have a lot of ENTHUSIASM and a fair amount of NATURAL TALENT, but I LACK DISCIPLINE. Insert duplicitous John Kimble reference. I have a lot of bits of songs lying around that show a lot of promise, but I tend to start new things instead of finishing them. If I had discipline instead of talent, I'd have a lot of finished, but boring tracks. If I had discipline instead of enthusiasm, I'd get a real job.

Anyways, Mr. Burnibus, I think you're correct as well, just in a different context. Music is about feeling, which everyone has, but not everyone pays attention to. You can fly a plane anywhere, but you have to do it with the control stick (yoke?). You can write music that's angry or sad or bored or stoney, but you have to follow your nose, play it back and SEE HOW IT MAKES YOU FEEL, how you react to it, and decide where to go from there... where you want to fly, what you want to emphasize, draw out, and focus on. Here are some feelings I find myself going for in music: Adrenaline, Nostalgia, Trance (As in meditation, not Ibiza), Gritty determination, Chaotic mania, The mood I was in circa Summer 2005. Adrenaline music makes me want to get up and do some kung-fu. Nostalgia is kind of bittersweet. The mood I was in circa Summer 2005 is not really something I can convey via writing. Not easily, anyways.

In a global sense, RIGHT and WRONG have no place in music. However, if you have no rules, you'll go in every direction at once, and get nowhere in sum. If you try to be everything you'll wind up being nothing. What makes us unique is what we choose to cut away. You need some limits... but of course you set them yourself. RIGHT and WRONG take on a local meaning for you, which will likely be very different from another musician's RIGHT and WRONG. This is why there's so much arguing. In terms of personal musical development, actually getting things done - having some rules, RIGHT and WRONG, is very important. But everyone's rules are different. It doesn't matter what they are, you just have to have some. They're individual, personal, and so when we get into arguing about whose RIGHT is RIGHT, it's really just us being territorial and alpha, saying "I'm better than you are." You insult a musician's rules and methods, you're insulting the man himself, as the rules and methods he chose are really the only difference between him and other musicians - like you.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it - just that it shouldn't be territorial or personal. It's important to look at other people's RIGHT and WRONG, the rules Derrick May or John Cage set, to help you decide who you are and what you're about. As long as you don't mindlessly copy... i.e. "I'm fucking with pianos because John Cage did."

right is when it sounds amazing to you.

wrong is when it doesnt sound amazing.

?

pick one of (m)any: amazing, interesting, grating, makes you want to dance, makes you nostalgic, reminds hahtahthathath of a random thing from three years ago, etc

you have to want something in order to do something. what everyone wants is different. if you're not sure what you want, it helps to look at what other people you respect were after.

only thing I don't like about music is how autotuning and time correcting methods have gotten so much easier to do on a grand scale, that people are being marketed solely on their looks and their ability is compensated for with smoke and mirrors.

One thing really wrong in music is when the artist doesn't enjoy making or performing it.

  hahathhat said:

I was lying in bed, thinking about this (should I be embarrassed that forum debates keep me up at night?), and realized that I have a lot of ENTHUSIASM and a fair amount of NATURAL TALENT, but I LACK DISCIPLINE. Insert duplicitous John Kimble reference. I have a lot of bits of songs lying around that show a lot of promise, but I tend to start new things instead of finishing them. If I had discipline instead of talent, I'd have a lot of finished, but boring tracks. If I had discipline instead of enthusiasm, I'd get a real job.

i agree . apart from the bit about bed and the john kimble bit

copycatting is wrong, to me

unless the copy has something unique about it