no worries mate, little misunderstanding i think :cool:
Printable View
Yeah thats true but do these people go straight for what they think or are they actually that shallow to listen to really good music and ignore it?
Personally i think alot of people just don't bother listening to what they don't know. what about the people who have had a listen, if its good they usually listen again i would think.
funny you should pick zappa because he didn't take drugs and actively campaigned drug-taking since the 60s. he wouldnt let band members take them on the road either!
good topic scott. agree with steve in that too much of 1 style stagnates the mind & body. i enjoy listening to as much music as possible from here there and everywhere, but this leaves one problem...no time to make music! it can be compared with knowledge once you know what is out there you can try & do different or build on it. if you dont know it already exsists you might repeat...thought i'd just have a splatter of words
oh i forgot to say, zappa rules!! love his music & lyrics. but i love fusion rock jazz blues stuff so that aint no big suprise!
that's true, but they were doing perfectly alright before they got into their drug phase to be fair, and there is eternal debate as to wether or not their heavy foray into drugs and spiritualism contributed to their break up, so for some people drugs had a devastating effect on the beatles, but again its subjective, but still a fair point of course
but there is a difference between producing off your head and writing songs off your head, in the traditional sense. I mean, ive had nights where ive been tripping my head off, writing songs, with the mics running, and when ive listened back in the morning.... errr lets just say it got deleted from the 4 track haha
well i wouldnt know as gospel, with zappa ive only ever gone on what people have recommended and told me stories about, ive never been able to get into him or researched him or what he was about, but i think this is a bit of an on going debate as alot of people seem to be convinced he was a space cadet, whilst it is documented in various places that he was as you say anti drugs
either way its tosh to me ;)
in my experience, alot of people sometimes dont actually understand certain music when they hear it, and this breeds a certain level of embarrasment or pressure to fit in and they ultimately end up plumping for something that whilst liking at the same time, they can actually talk about and understand. Which is fine, its horses for courses as they say
shaping up into a lovely thread this, top draw lads
Me and Brad's foray into Spiritualism has actually made the output more meaningful.
i got over that when i started listening to techno. listen to everything i try to. and ask myself "how does this make me feel?"
i can't imagine people who would be listening to techno (who probably had to have there eyes opened to it) listeing to someone's choon and overlooking them just because they are not a name. I would see them just avoiding the tune altogether, like me on juno i can't listen to everything so i go with what i know and whats related usually beacuse i don't have the time.
I just write what comes out.
Dont think about it, just do it and stop sitting their in a daze with your finger up your arse...haha!
so then their opinions on innovation don't count for shit to me if they ain't heard it.
nice tracks btw eyes
cheers mate, muchos appreciation :)
I think what I meant by ,my reference to drugs, is that you can`t discount them altogether, nor say they are the only way.
People get inspiration from different places, and have their muses in different areas.
I won`t entirely close my mind to any method, regardless of wether I agree with it or not, and I`ll certainly try anything I haven`t tried before as if you close doors then possible paths of learning are also closed.
I`ve purposfully put myself into various extreme emotional states to see what creative energies can be got from these places, as well as various states of inebriation, meditation and such.
Admittedly my artistic output isn`t restricted to music alone, I paint and write also, so I`m into exploring the mind and spirit for explorative and creative expression anyway.
But I think to totally discount any particular method is to essentially be a little closed minded Scot.
Art is a process of the soul and mind, and everyone has their methods and varying output, which is what makes it all so beautiful, and although we may not understand the methods or output of another artist or artists it doesn`t mean we can`t appreciate what they do and how they do it.
I'm not judging anyones influencies. and i'm not being sarchastic either.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRADLEE
Its all very noble and its cool in my book dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by dirty_bass
here man, i listen to all sorts and don't think twice what stigma it has. But no other ones taste is like ones own and other people's opinions can't change that. I actually think its good chat here. I'm just refereing to people's opinions on my music tastes. if all they've got to say is shite them i'm sorry i don't wanna listen to theres
So we assume the following:
Output does not equal input?
All we can really assume i what we hear isnt it? I mean, we can't really know what one was thinking when they were making something right?
Either way no hard feelings....
It's ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC RIGHT?
It's all about the image Brad.
Should the defendant not have any further statements he may be dismissed from the stand.
It`s all about hype and nepotism really.
But we can live in hope.
some seriously great views in here chaps
tea and biscuits for all
I don't like biscuits, pass me the Earl Grey.
Or as Busta Rhymes so eloquently put it.
"Forget the Moet n*gga and pass the Cisco!"
As for attaining higher consciousness through drugs, the mystic warned that "it is one thing to unloosen the girders of the mind, and quite another to get the rivets tightened up again, and unless one is prepared to go through life rattling like a cheap motor-car it is unwise to seek this method of development, speedy and effectual though it is."
....??
Well I think creativity can be self destructive, and most artists with or without drugs tend to live through extreme emotion.
I think the bolts are already loose in most cases.
But that`s the price you pay for the muse.
Copying is just a derogratory way of interpreting influence.
Any work could be praised for being influenced by X or slated for being an attempt to copy X. Comes down to whoever is doing the copying/influencing in the first place. If they set out to copy its a copy. If they set out to do something and ended up making what sounded like a copy its influence. A question of intent, and totally subjective and dependent on the listeners interpretation of the artists work.
Starting out, being young you have limited experience and influence. You haven't seen that many people play live, you've listened to a certain amount of albums and you haven't seen scenes rise and fall. So if you get into a new sound, which is defined to you by Mr X and Mr Y and you start making stuff its hardly your fault if it ends up sounding like a cross between Mr X and Mr Y. Sure, some artists emerge from nowhere and become the musical zeitgeist but this is the exception rather than the norm.
I'd say you need to keep your potential pool of influencers as broad as possible, this will make your music personal and unique to you - your output being the sum of your influences + whatever else goes into your creativity and output.
That said I think even people with very limited listening repetoire can produce incredibly original stuff. Some people are just very creative that way. Personally I don't think I am, I'm more reliant on my influences. So depends on the person.
A very moot point...
A producer who has had limited knowledge of what has gone before may produce an absolutely wicked tune - only to be told that it sounds like Mills back in '95, or whatever...:whoops:
What does he/she do? Attempt to release the track, only to be shot down in flames as a mimmick...? bin it and say a lesson has been learnt..? try to manipulate the elements into something different so that the hard work put in wasn't a total waste of time..?
As time marches on it becomes more of a minefield for producers to try to infuse the influences they have experienced into a definitive sound that they can genuinely call their own, which has a sense of unique-ness and innovation....:mmm:
yes maybe so, fella, but innovation can never be completely deminish 'tho eh? It will be a minefield, but innonvation will become more and more refined i think.
Its nice when other people feel your music, whether other people like it or not. all artists can do is create what they feel an hope lots of people (or in the future less people or even someone) feel thier music. The reward is in what they make for themselves and not for others really.
It will have to...
I am optomistic that innovaion will thrive as time goes on... we have a lot more tools available to us that are becoming ever more advanced these days... it is quite amazing how you can manipulate sounds... which is a very healthy breeding ground for individual creativity...:cool:
So....
How do you help rebuild a whole scene if the reward is purely on a personal level , and not for others?
I understand your point, because if you don't like the tune you've just created then lawdy, what is the point...:whoops:
That's your starting point, but surely there has to be some purpose that drives your creativity....:ruquestion: :ruquestion: :ruquestion:
Heh heh...:;
I like this analogy... I think you have to have been there, loosening them girders - or rather, I feel I have benefited anyways...
To do anything about it though, I think you have to take a step back n try tightening them up again...
Nice one...:cheese:
I agree in part with that, high emotion does breed artist creativity.
However i dont think that its something that is NEEDED for artists to function - there have been plenty of stable, happy and mentally secure artists who have created enormous works of art both in music and the visual arts.
What perhaps is most important is the idea. Which kinda leads to another interesting point - Machine driven music can be just that. Randomisation techniques without setting base parameters. Are these randomisation techniques part of the human idea or do they side step that. sure we bring them into play when randomising a mad synth line but is that the same as launching the program or even turning on the computer. i.e. is it part of the process of operating a machine or is it part of the creative process to let the machine do the thinking for us, just giving it some boundaries and letting it do its business according to a lawless environment.
anyone understand what im on about?
BTW point 2 has got nothing to do with point 1. or has it....
isnt that an oxymoron?Quote:
innonvation will become more and more refined i think.
This topic looks like an influence from my last topic. (where almost nobody replied)
Producers have to understand the game again of making techno music. It's about what you can create with sound. Throw away all your used samples and loops and all that shit. If you are talking about influences, it's particularly those samples, because they are taken from existing tracks. Especially the loops.
And what's left: An empty space.
If you really are a techno producer, on this point you are able to create your own interpretation of (let's take something) thunder and lightning.
yeah randomization, i quite like it lately. machine can sometimes create patterns i would never think about.. really enjoying it,.
so using loops is biting off influences, lmao
yeah and using screwdrivers to build a building is so last century
and a plunger for a clogged toilet, primitive
tools are tools no matter who you are
like saying samples in hip hop are wack, are you kidding me?
to be fair, i couldnt understand what you were getting at with your thread Ritzi mate and i think that's why not many people replied, i couldnt grasp what you were trying to say and i can only presume others didnt also. It doesnt matter who started what thread, as long as the discussion is going on in the first place, which it is here, so its all cool
I'm not sure if its contradictory to itself.. (that's an oxymoron isn't it?)
I agree with dirty bass about the artists and hacks thing. There are degrees of how high one's emotion is when making music, but usually the best artistic shit comes from, say, someone wanting to cut there ear off..
Yip, the best music comes from the people who love it most and have no agenda but to create it for it's own exsitance and for nothing else.
I think that comes part and parcel.
As for randomisation....good for ideas and learning, bad for final expression of the artist i think, as its not what they wanted to convey it's what a computer did and it takes no effort to think about. Less organic - which is the beauty thats lost!
But to be honest if one is bringing it all together in a masterpiece of music then i don't give a ****.
Dis is how it looks when ju know me an Brad is in de estudio, cockroaches.
http://www.healthbolt.net/wp-content...ce-6235696.jpg