Playing Music – Much Better Than Just Listening

[Pogo]

Thanks for that, I'll peruse the link But immediate reflex is that putting "rap" and jazz improvisation into the same sentence is absurd.

Why absurd? In both cases there is creative improvisation going on, although in different forms.

Because I don't believe anger is "creative improvisation", while jazz very much is. The minimal effort needed to make one's anger rhyme doesn't quite jump the threshold.

1. You can certainly have angry creative improvisation. I'm not sure why you think anger cannot be creative. For that matter, I see no reason jazz cannot come from anger. And I can say both from personal experience and from seeing work from others that anger can lead to creativity.

2. You are operating under the assumption that rap = anger. That's just not true. I don't listen to rap, but I can easily see that not all rap is brought about from anger.
To give some evidence of this point, I looked up the best selling rap singles of all time, to get an idea of what the most popular rap songs are like. I briefly played each song on youtube (like I said, I don't listen to rap, so I wasn't familiar with most of them), with lyrics. This is not a list full of nothing but angry songs by any stretch. 12 Top-Selling Rap Singles Of All Time

So if your argument is that rap is not music because it comes from anger, that is pretty clearly untrue. Nothing requires rap to be based on anger.

If that is your argument, it would also seem to mean that most extreme heavy metal is not music, because it is clearly an angry style of music.

Of course, something else you seem to be overlooking is that while the music and/or lyrics of a song might be intentionally made to inspire or resonate with anger, that doesn't mean the songs have to be made by someone's anger. It is possible to write a song which inspires emotions that were not at all felt in the creating of the song.

3. Your statement about the minimal effort in making anger rhyme seems like it could apply to all lyrics, and further, to all rhyming poetry. Or is it somehow easier to make rhymes about anger than it is to make rhymes about other emotions?

Again --- can you think of any music, or any creative art form at all, that is made simply out of anger? I can't.
That's not what anger does. What it does is swing fists and shoot guns and break things. There's nothing in that that can be called "creative" .

And on #2, if you "don't listen to it" how can you go ahead and define it?

Sorry I won't bother with that link. I have no desire to go to that place. But again, that's a reaction I wouldn't have to opera or "Country" or Muzak or Justin Bieber, none of which I fancy but all of which actually are music whether I like it or not. The thing is -- neither Opera nor Country nor Muzak nor any other legitimate music exist to piss you off or to crow about how big your dick is. Fuck that.

Gotta go. Things to do.

That I don't listen to rap doesn't mean I have never heard rap, or that I can't go listen to any rap songs (which I did). It means I don't choose to listen to rap when I'm picking music to listen to for enjoyment. Despite not liking rap, not choosing to listen to it when I want to hear something I enjoy, I still know that not all rap is based on anger.

You also seem to be thinking of emotions as the same thing as creativity. Instead, I think that emotions may inspire creativity. Anger doesn't turn into a song, or a poem, or a painting, directly; anger inspires someone to create whatever art they may use as an outlet, just as sadness, love, or joy might inspire them. No creative art form is made out of an emotion. They are inspired by emotion. And, yes, I can certainly think of creative art that was inspired by anger. I have, in fact, created art myself that was inspired by anger, not to mention depression, or hatred, or fear, or any of the more "negative" emotions.

If you won't go to the link (which, by the way, only gives a list of the highest selling rap singles, it doesn't actually play the music), let me just say that the songs listed, and the lyrics to those songs, are not all about anger. Not even close. So your argument that rap comes purely from anger was untrue.

And now we're into a purely subjective discussion of what "legitimate" music is. Admittedly, what constitutes music is already a somewhat subjective thing, but it seems to me that you are using a personal definition which is not the norm. It reminds me of my own person definition of "sport": I only think of something as a sport if there is a direct competition between at least 2 players, where one can affect the outcome of the other. To me, golf is not a sport. Many of the Olympic competitions are not sport. They are competitions. I know that is my own personal definition, and not widely accepted.

I'm also curious of your take on a more "angry" style of music than rap, such as death metal. Is that, too, not music because it comes from anger? I've certainly heard people call it noise and not music before.

I fully agree with you that golf is not a sport, and neither is car racing. Not at all a bad analogy to our discussion.

I really don't know anything about "death metal" lyrics although I guess the name gives me an indication. I don't listen to that shit, because the music itself has already repulsed me, so I never got near what the lyrics are about, if they have a theme in common at all. No idea.

IOW if it's all just testosteronic force with no subtlety, which is what I infer is the case from the sound (in both "death metal" and "rap"), then I'm outta there. If it sounds as if its entire point is nothing more than to overpower (rather than engage) the listener, then it's worthless. And no, that can't be defined as music. It's more like rape.

 

[Montrovant]

Why absurd? In both cases there is creative improvisation going on, although in different forms.

Because I don't believe anger is "creative improvisation", while jazz very much is. The minimal effort needed to make one's anger rhyme doesn't quite jump the threshold.

1. You can certainly have angry creative improvisation. I'm not sure why you think anger cannot be creative. For that matter, I see no reason jazz cannot come from anger. And I can say both from personal experience and from seeing work from others that anger can lead to creativity.

2. You are operating under the assumption that rap = anger. That's just not true. I don't listen to rap, but I can easily see that not all rap is brought about from anger.
To give some evidence of this point, I looked up the best selling rap singles of all time, to get an idea of what the most popular rap songs are like. I briefly played each song on youtube (like I said, I don't listen to rap, so I wasn't familiar with most of them), with lyrics. This is not a list full of nothing but angry songs by any stretch. 12 Top-Selling Rap Singles Of All Time

So if your argument is that rap is not music because it comes from anger, that is pretty clearly untrue. Nothing requires rap to be based on anger.

If that is your argument, it would also seem to mean that most extreme heavy metal is not music, because it is clearly an angry style of music.

Of course, something else you seem to be overlooking is that while the music and/or lyrics of a song might be intentionally made to inspire or resonate with anger, that doesn't mean the songs have to be made by someone's anger. It is possible to write a song which inspires emotions that were not at all felt in the creating of the song.

3. Your statement about the minimal effort in making anger rhyme seems like it could apply to all lyrics, and further, to all rhyming poetry. Or is it somehow easier to make rhymes about anger than it is to make rhymes about other emotions?

Again --- can you think of any music, or any creative art form at all, that is made simply out of anger? I can't.
That's not what anger does. What it does is swing fists and shoot guns and break things. There's nothing in that that can be called "creative" .

And on #2, if you "don't listen to it" how can you go ahead and define it?

Sorry I won't bother with that link. I have no desire to go to that place. But again, that's a reaction I wouldn't have to opera or "Country" or Muzak or Justin Bieber, none of which I fancy but all of which actually are music whether I like it or not. The thing is -- neither Opera nor Country nor Muzak nor any other legitimate music exist to piss you off or to crow about how big your dick is. Fuck that.

Gotta go. Things to do.

That I don't listen to rap doesn't mean I have never heard rap, or that I can't go listen to any rap songs (which I did). It means I don't choose to listen to rap when I'm picking music to listen to for enjoyment. Despite not liking rap, not choosing to listen to it when I want to hear something I enjoy, I still know that not all rap is based on anger.

You also seem to be thinking of emotions as the same thing as creativity. Instead, I think that emotions may inspire creativity. Anger doesn't turn into a song, or a poem, or a painting, directly; anger inspires someone to create whatever art they may use as an outlet, just as sadness, love, or joy might inspire them. No creative art form is made out of an emotion. They are inspired by emotion. And, yes, I can certainly think of creative art that was inspired by anger. I have, in fact, created art myself that was inspired by anger, not to mention depression, or hatred, or fear, or any of the more "negative" emotions.

If you won't go to the link (which, by the way, only gives a list of the highest selling rap singles, it doesn't actually play the music), let me just say that the songs listed, and the lyrics to those songs, are not all about anger. Not even close. So your argument that rap comes purely from anger was untrue.

And now we're into a purely subjective discussion of what "legitimate" music is. Admittedly, what constitutes music is already a somewhat subjective thing, but it seems to me that you are using a personal definition which is not the norm. It reminds me of my own person definition of "sport": I only think of something as a sport if there is a direct competition between at least 2 players, where one can affect the outcome of the other. To me, golf is not a sport. Many of the Olympic competitions are not sport. They are competitions. I know that is my own personal definition, and not widely accepted.

I'm also curious of your take on a more "angry" style of music than rap, such as death metal. Is that, too, not music because it comes from anger? I've certainly heard people call it noise and not music before.

I fully agree with you that golf is not a sport, and neither is car racing. Not at all a bad analogy to our discussion.

I really don't know anything about "death metal" lyrics although I guess the name gives me an indication. I don't listen to that shit, because the music itself has already repulsed me, so I never got near what the lyrics are about, if they have a theme in common at all. No idea.

IOW if it's all just testosteronic force with no subtlety, which is what I infer is the case from the sound (in both "death metal" and "rap"), then I'm outta there. If it sounds as if its entire point is nothing more than to overpower (rather than engage) the listener, then it's worthless. And no, that can't be defined as music. It's more like rape.

Herein lies the problem: while you may feel the songs are overpowering, someone else will be engaged by them. In almost no case will the listener actually know the intent of the artists.

Or, put another way, someone might make a song that IS intended to do nothing but overpower, yet a listener might find themselves engaged by it.

People assuming artist intent is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I recently had a somewhat similar argument in regards to what constitutes literature, and whether the intent of the author was a defining characteristic. In my opinion, assuming one knows the intent of an artist (if they haven't stated their intent) is a bit silly, and in the end, somewhat pointless. What an artist intends isn't important; what is important is what the viewer/listener takes from the art.

I'm curious what you consider subtlety in music. Is it just about the lyrics, or the instruments and vocals as well?

Yeah, for the most part you can probably guess the basics of death metal lyrics. Even there, however, there can be variations in both talent and content.

We've gone a bit far afield from the OP, but it's been an interesting discussion.

 

[Pogo]

Because I don't believe anger is "creative improvisation", while jazz very much is. The minimal effort needed to make one's anger rhyme doesn't quite jump the threshold.

1. You can certainly have angry creative improvisation. I'm not sure why you think anger cannot be creative. For that matter, I see no reason jazz cannot come from anger. And I can say both from personal experience and from seeing work from others that anger can lead to creativity.

2. You are operating under the assumption that rap = anger. That's just not true. I don't listen to rap, but I can easily see that not all rap is brought about from anger.
To give some evidence of this point, I looked up the best selling rap singles of all time, to get an idea of what the most popular rap songs are like. I briefly played each song on youtube (like I said, I don't listen to rap, so I wasn't familiar with most of them), with lyrics. This is not a list full of nothing but angry songs by any stretch. 12 Top-Selling Rap Singles Of All Time

So if your argument is that rap is not music because it comes from anger, that is pretty clearly untrue. Nothing requires rap to be based on anger.

If that is your argument, it would also seem to mean that most extreme heavy metal is not music, because it is clearly an angry style of music.

Of course, something else you seem to be overlooking is that while the music and/or lyrics of a song might be intentionally made to inspire or resonate with anger, that doesn't mean the songs have to be made by someone's anger. It is possible to write a song which inspires emotions that were not at all felt in the creating of the song.

3. Your statement about the minimal effort in making anger rhyme seems like it could apply to all lyrics, and further, to all rhyming poetry. Or is it somehow easier to make rhymes about anger than it is to make rhymes about other emotions?

Again --- can you think of any music, or any creative art form at all, that is made simply out of anger? I can't.
That's not what anger does. What it does is swing fists and shoot guns and break things. There's nothing in that that can be called "creative" .

And on #2, if you "don't listen to it" how can you go ahead and define it?

Sorry I won't bother with that link. I have no desire to go to that place. But again, that's a reaction I wouldn't have to opera or "Country" or Muzak or Justin Bieber, none of which I fancy but all of which actually are music whether I like it or not. The thing is -- neither Opera nor Country nor Muzak nor any other legitimate music exist to piss you off or to crow about how big your dick is. Fuck that.

Gotta go. Things to do.

That I don't listen to rap doesn't mean I have never heard rap, or that I can't go listen to any rap songs (which I did). It means I don't choose to listen to rap when I'm picking music to listen to for enjoyment. Despite not liking rap, not choosing to listen to it when I want to hear something I enjoy, I still know that not all rap is based on anger.

You also seem to be thinking of emotions as the same thing as creativity. Instead, I think that emotions may inspire creativity. Anger doesn't turn into a song, or a poem, or a painting, directly; anger inspires someone to create whatever art they may use as an outlet, just as sadness, love, or joy might inspire them. No creative art form is made out of an emotion. They are inspired by emotion. And, yes, I can certainly think of creative art that was inspired by anger. I have, in fact, created art myself that was inspired by anger, not to mention depression, or hatred, or fear, or any of the more "negative" emotions.

If you won't go to the link (which, by the way, only gives a list of the highest selling rap singles, it doesn't actually play the music), let me just say that the songs listed, and the lyrics to those songs, are not all about anger. Not even close. So your argument that rap comes purely from anger was untrue.

And now we're into a purely subjective discussion of what "legitimate" music is. Admittedly, what constitutes music is already a somewhat subjective thing, but it seems to me that you are using a personal definition which is not the norm. It reminds me of my own person definition of "sport": I only think of something as a sport if there is a direct competition between at least 2 players, where one can affect the outcome of the other. To me, golf is not a sport. Many of the Olympic competitions are not sport. They are competitions. I know that is my own personal definition, and not widely accepted.

I'm also curious of your take on a more "angry" style of music than rap, such as death metal. Is that, too, not music because it comes from anger? I've certainly heard people call it noise and not music before.

I fully agree with you that golf is not a sport, and neither is car racing. Not at all a bad analogy to our discussion.

I really don't know anything about "death metal" lyrics although I guess the name gives me an indication. I don't listen to that shit, because the music itself has already repulsed me, so I never got near what the lyrics are about, if they have a theme in common at all. No idea.

IOW if it's all just testosteronic force with no subtlety, which is what I infer is the case from the sound (in both "death metal" and "rap"), then I'm outta there. If it sounds as if its entire point is nothing more than to overpower (rather than engage) the listener, then it's worthless. And no, that can't be defined as music. It's more like rape.

Herein lies the problem: while you may feel the songs are overpowering, someone else will be engaged by them. In almost no case will the listener actually know the intent of the artists.

Or, put another way, someone might make a song that IS intended to do nothing but overpower, yet a listener might find themselves engaged by it.

People assuming artist intent is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I recently had a somewhat similar argument in regards to what constitutes literature, and whether the intent of the author was a defining characteristic. In my opinion, assuming one knows the intent of an artist (if they haven't stated their intent) is a bit silly, and in the end, somewhat pointless. What an artist intends isn't important; what is important is what the viewer/listener takes from the art.

I'm curious what you consider subtlety in music. Is it just about the lyrics, or the instruments and vocals as well?

Yeah, for the most part you can probably guess the basics of death metal lyrics. Even there, however, there can be variations in both talent and content.

We've gone a bit far afield from the OP, but it's been an interesting discussion.

It's really not a matter of what the "intent" was. I'll say it again because I like the way it came out --- testosteronic force with no subtlety, no complexity, no deeper meaning than to literally knock you over. In a quantifiable way that can be literally quantified and measured in decibels and cycles per second.

If that's the intro to the expression, then its intent is already clear before any lyrical content even arrives. Therefore what's the point of further analysis?

 

[Montrovant]

1. You can certainly have angry creative improvisation. I'm not sure why you think anger cannot be creative. For that matter, I see no reason jazz cannot come from anger. And I can say both from personal experience and from seeing work from others that anger can lead to creativity.

2. You are operating under the assumption that rap = anger. That's just not true. I don't listen to rap, but I can easily see that not all rap is brought about from anger.
To give some evidence of this point, I looked up the best selling rap singles of all time, to get an idea of what the most popular rap songs are like. I briefly played each song on youtube (like I said, I don't listen to rap, so I wasn't familiar with most of them), with lyrics. This is not a list full of nothing but angry songs by any stretch. 12 Top-Selling Rap Singles Of All Time

So if your argument is that rap is not music because it comes from anger, that is pretty clearly untrue. Nothing requires rap to be based on anger.

If that is your argument, it would also seem to mean that most extreme heavy metal is not music, because it is clearly an angry style of music.

Of course, something else you seem to be overlooking is that while the music and/or lyrics of a song might be intentionally made to inspire or resonate with anger, that doesn't mean the songs have to be made by someone's anger. It is possible to write a song which inspires emotions that were not at all felt in the creating of the song.

3. Your statement about the minimal effort in making anger rhyme seems like it could apply to all lyrics, and further, to all rhyming poetry. Or is it somehow easier to make rhymes about anger than it is to make rhymes about other emotions?

Again --- can you think of any music, or any creative art form at all, that is made simply out of anger? I can't.
That's not what anger does. What it does is swing fists and shoot guns and break things. There's nothing in that that can be called "creative" .

And on #2, if you "don't listen to it" how can you go ahead and define it?

Sorry I won't bother with that link. I have no desire to go to that place. But again, that's a reaction I wouldn't have to opera or "Country" or Muzak or Justin Bieber, none of which I fancy but all of which actually are music whether I like it or not. The thing is -- neither Opera nor Country nor Muzak nor any other legitimate music exist to piss you off or to crow about how big your dick is. Fuck that.

Gotta go. Things to do.

That I don't listen to rap doesn't mean I have never heard rap, or that I can't go listen to any rap songs (which I did). It means I don't choose to listen to rap when I'm picking music to listen to for enjoyment. Despite not liking rap, not choosing to listen to it when I want to hear something I enjoy, I still know that not all rap is based on anger.

You also seem to be thinking of emotions as the same thing as creativity. Instead, I think that emotions may inspire creativity. Anger doesn't turn into a song, or a poem, or a painting, directly; anger inspires someone to create whatever art they may use as an outlet, just as sadness, love, or joy might inspire them. No creative art form is made out of an emotion. They are inspired by emotion. And, yes, I can certainly think of creative art that was inspired by anger. I have, in fact, created art myself that was inspired by anger, not to mention depression, or hatred, or fear, or any of the more "negative" emotions.

If you won't go to the link (which, by the way, only gives a list of the highest selling rap singles, it doesn't actually play the music), let me just say that the songs listed, and the lyrics to those songs, are not all about anger. Not even close. So your argument that rap comes purely from anger was untrue.

And now we're into a purely subjective discussion of what "legitimate" music is. Admittedly, what constitutes music is already a somewhat subjective thing, but it seems to me that you are using a personal definition which is not the norm. It reminds me of my own person definition of "sport": I only think of something as a sport if there is a direct competition between at least 2 players, where one can affect the outcome of the other. To me, golf is not a sport. Many of the Olympic competitions are not sport. They are competitions. I know that is my own personal definition, and not widely accepted.

I'm also curious of your take on a more "angry" style of music than rap, such as death metal. Is that, too, not music because it comes from anger? I've certainly heard people call it noise and not music before.

I fully agree with you that golf is not a sport, and neither is car racing. Not at all a bad analogy to our discussion.

I really don't know anything about "death metal" lyrics although I guess the name gives me an indication. I don't listen to that shit, because the music itself has already repulsed me, so I never got near what the lyrics are about, if they have a theme in common at all. No idea.

IOW if it's all just testosteronic force with no subtlety, which is what I infer is the case from the sound (in both "death metal" and "rap"), then I'm outta there. If it sounds as if its entire point is nothing more than to overpower (rather than engage) the listener, then it's worthless. And no, that can't be defined as music. It's more like rape.

Herein lies the problem: while you may feel the songs are overpowering, someone else will be engaged by them. In almost no case will the listener actually know the intent of the artists.

Or, put another way, someone might make a song that IS intended to do nothing but overpower, yet a listener might find themselves engaged by it.

People assuming artist intent is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I recently had a somewhat similar argument in regards to what constitutes literature, and whether the intent of the author was a defining characteristic. In my opinion, assuming one knows the intent of an artist (if they haven't stated their intent) is a bit silly, and in the end, somewhat pointless. What an artist intends isn't important; what is important is what the viewer/listener takes from the art.

I'm curious what you consider subtlety in music. Is it just about the lyrics, or the instruments and vocals as well?

Yeah, for the most part you can probably guess the basics of death metal lyrics. Even there, however, there can be variations in both talent and content.

We've gone a bit far afield from the OP, but it's been an interesting discussion.

It's really not a matter of what the "intent" was. I'll say it again because I like the way it came out --- testosteronic force with no subtlety, no complexity, no deeper meaning than to literally knock you over. In a quantifiable way that can be literally quantified and measured in decibels and cycles per second.

If that's the intro to the expression, then its intent is already clear before any lyrical content even arrives. Therefore what's the point of further analysis?

I'm not sure how decibel level can tell you anything. I can play any music at a high or low decibel level.

You still haven't explained what you mean when you talk about subtlety in music.

Now I'm also curious what you mean by complexity. I'm guessing you don't mean complexity in the playing of the music.

As far as deeper meaning, as I said, what meaning is in a song (or any other piece of art) is in the eye of the beholder. Take this painting that sold for $37 million, for example: Miro painting sells for record $37 million at auction I've seen it described as something a kindergarten child might paint.....and in my eyes, that's a pretty accurate assessment. I don't see any subtlety, or complexity, or deeper meaning in the painting. It looks like the scribblings of a toddler....yet, others look at it as a piece of valuable surrealist art.

What about something like a nursery rhyme? Are those music? And if not, what do you call them? Nursery rhymes certainly aren't necessarily subtle, or complex, or containing deeper meaning.

 

[Pogo]

Let's just leave this for now, since it's baseball time....

If pure noise isn't an act of aggression, even if it's called 'music'--- how are we to explain Bush the First's "Operation Nifty Package" (totally illegal) assault on his old partner Manuel Noriega, using the ammunition of Guns & Roses?

 

[Montrovant]

Let's just leave this for now, since it's baseball time....

If pure noise isn't an act of aggression, even if it's called 'music'--- how are we to explain Bush the First's "Operation Nifty Package" (totally illegal) assault on his old partner Manuel Noriega, using the ammunition of Guns & Roses?

It also used AC/DC, Jethro Tull, and The Clash. None of those are "pure noise." Each is a musical band. I don't know why they would pick those particular bands and the songs that they did, unless perhaps it was music the US soldiers involved would enjoy listening to while they blasted it at extraordinarily high volume toward the church Noriega was in. I would guess that just about any songs would serve the same purpose; it isn't as though those were the harshest songs available, nor are any of the songs "pure noise."

 

[protectionist]

Yep -- again the focus on left brain at the expense of the right.

I do everything with the right brain. After childhood I learned to play a grand total of one song from dots, just to see if I could do it. It was Bach's Prelude in C, and it took forever. Could have worked in out by ear in a fraction of the time (and I no longer play it from those dots, but from the aural memory)

"Classical music" --- or as I like to call it, "Dead white European male orchestral music from the 17th through 19th centuries".

Other than playing LONGGGGG classical pieces which necessitate playing from scores, musical notation is outdated. It was applicable to 17th, 18th, 19th century music, when recordings were not available, and written pages were necessary for musicians to get the pitch and timing of a tune/song.

Today, for any music of much shorter duration (Rock, Bluegrass, Country, Folk), a combination of tablature (superior because it's SPECIFIC to a particular instrument), and recorded music are the way to go. Really, notation (for anything other than the longwinded classical stuff), went out when records came in (and then 8 tracks, cassettes, CDs, flash drives)

Don't see too many Bluegrass or Rock musicians on stage with a music stand, do we ?

 

[Pogo]

Let's just leave this for now, since it's baseball time....

If pure noise isn't an act of aggression, even if it's called 'music'--- how are we to explain Bush the First's "Operation Nifty Package" (totally illegal) assault on his old partner Manuel Noriega, using the ammunition of Guns & Roses?

It also used AC/DC, Jethro Tull, and The Clash. None of those are "pure noise." Each is a musical band. I don't know why they would pick those particular bands and the songs that they did, unless perhaps it was music the US soldiers involved would enjoy listening to while they blasted it at extraordinarily high volume toward the church Noriega was in. I would guess that just about any songs would serve the same purpose; it isn't as though those were the harshest songs available, nor are any of the songs "pure noise."

No, agreed they're not just inherently noise and we didn't mention their ironic use of Bruce Cockburn's "If I Had a Rocket Launcher", one whose sentiment I personally like because I get its irony while the assaulters apparently didn't. BUT the point is they were using sound as a weapon, irrespective of the content therein. Which is in my judgment the same thing that the 'death metal' and 'rap' examples are doing as a primary purpose. Soundwaves used as physical domination. Even if their underlying goal is not to effect a coup d'êtat, it is to establish a domination over its target.

And that makes it unmusic. Because that isn't the function of music. It is in effect a perversion of music. You can take an electric guitar and play an Eric Clapton solo to reach a person's soul, or you can take the same guitar and physically bash somebody over the head. Or you can do the latter indirectly with sound waves, but in that case you're clearly not doing the former.

 

[Montrovant]

Yep -- again the focus on left brain at the expense of the right.

I do everything with the right brain. After childhood I learned to play a grand total of one song from dots, just to see if I could do it. It was Bach's Prelude in C, and it took forever. Could have worked in out by ear in a fraction of the time (and I no longer play it from those dots, but from the aural memory)

"Classical music" --- or as I like to call it, "Dead white European male orchestral music from the 17th through 19th centuries".

Other than playing LONGGGGG classical pieces which necessitate playing from scores, musical notation is outdated. It was applicable to 17th, 18th, 19th century music, when recordings were not available, and written pages were necessary for musicians to get the pitch and timing of a tune/song.

Today, for any music of much shorter duration (Rock, Bluegrass, Country, Folk), a combination of tablature (superior because it's SPECIFIC to a particular instrument), and recorded music are the way to go. Really, notation (for anything other than the longwinded classical stuff), went out when records came in (and then 8 tracks, cassettes, CDs, flash drives)

Don't see too many Bluegrass or Rock musicians on stage with a music stand, do we ?

I never learned to read musical notation, but I would guess that it depends on both the person and the instrument. Here are a couple of pages which give pros and cons of tab and standard notation :
Tablature - Wikipedia
Tablature vs. standard music notation? (guitar)

I learned to play on my own by ear. I eventually learned to use tab, but didn't use it very often. Of course, I didn't really play other people's music all that much; I was always more interested in playing original songs, even if I was not the one writing them. Being part of the process of creating a song was always much more enjoyable for me than the playing itself.

The one big advantage that standard notation seems to hold is that it is a universal notation. No matter what instrument you are playing, you can read the standard notation. Tab is instrument-specific.

 

[protectionist]

The one big advantage that standard notation seems to hold is that it is a universal notation. No matter what instrument you are playing, you can read the standard notation. Tab is instrument-specific.

I think the big advantage of musical notation lies with its ability to keep musicians going with a LONG LENGTH piece, and not have to remember 20 minutes of notes. This is why you see classical musicians in orchestras or small groups playing form scores, while Rock guys play without them.

As for tablature, its advantage is that it is instrument-specific, and thus get right to the strings and frets of your instrument. Notation might be better if you're going to play something on 9 different instruments (but who is ?)

I play 3 instruments (2 of which have same noting - violin & mandolin), and I still go for tablature + the recording every time.

 

[Montrovant]

Let's just leave this for now, since it's baseball time....

If pure noise isn't an act of aggression, even if it's called 'music'--- how are we to explain Bush the First's "Operation Nifty Package" (totally illegal) assault on his old partner Manuel Noriega, using the ammunition of Guns & Roses?

It also used AC/DC, Jethro Tull, and The Clash. None of those are "pure noise." Each is a musical band. I don't know why they would pick those particular bands and the songs that they did, unless perhaps it was music the US soldiers involved would enjoy listening to while they blasted it at extraordinarily high volume toward the church Noriega was in. I would guess that just about any songs would serve the same purpose; it isn't as though those were the harshest songs available, nor are any of the songs "pure noise."

No, agreed they're not just inherently noise and we didn't mention their ironic use of Bruce Cockburn's "If I Had a Rocket Launcher", one whose sentiment I personally like because I get its irony while the assaulters apparently didn't. BUT the point is they were using sound as a weapon, irrespective of the content therein. Which is in my judgment the same thing that the 'death metal' and 'rap' examples are doing as a primary purpose. Soundwaves used as physical domination. Even if their underlying goal is not to effect a coup d'êtat, it is to establish a domination over its target.

And that makes it unmusic. Because that isn't the function of music. It is in effect a perversion of music. You can take an electric guitar and play an Eric Clapton solo to reach a person's soul, or you can take the same guitar and physically bash somebody over the head. Or you can do the latter indirectly with sound waves, but in that case you're clearly not doing the former.

Again, I would say that you are assuming intent, seemingly based on your own reaction to the music. I don't feel in any way dominated by death metal. I listen to it, and I have played it, and in both cases, it is not about dominating, it is about expressing feelings, as music so often is. The fact that the feelings tend to be on the negative side does not alter the fact that it is an expression of feeling. Anger, hatred, and violence can be expressed through music just as happiness, love, and peace can.

That a style of music doesn't speak to your soul doesn't mean it doesn't speak to mine.

 

[protectionist]

Tablature vs. standard music notation? (guitar)

The link states this >>
"On the other hand, there are things that standard music notation can do that tabs cannot. Standard notation is better for indicating quarter notes vs. half notes, vs. sixteenth notes. Standard notation has a key signature that will identify the key. But one of the most useful things that standard notation can do that tabs absolutely cannot, is allow you to easily visualize the melody. In standard notation you can see if the melody is ascending or descending just by looking at the notes - without even thinking about it - something that is impossible with tab."

But what this link ignores, is the presence of RECORDED music that we can listen to. If, like 18th century musicians, we didn't have CD's and flash drives, to give us the music to LISTEN to, the above paragraph would have more validity.

 

[longknife]

I’m a former professional musician. I played the guitar (6 string) in a Rock band for 11 years. I also played the mandolin, the fiddle, and guitar for Bluegrass bands, and as an individual folk guitar player on stage, as well.

I find playing (and listening to) both my own blues, and cover songs very rewarding. Regardless of the origin of the songs (and tunes), it is the music flowing out of my brain, my hands, my eyes, ears, and nervous system, that I appreciate in a way that no recording by anyone, can match.

Not that I’m knocking the professional bands or their recordings, but I enjoy my own performance of Strawberry Fields over that of the Beatles. Same with my own performance of Wild Horses over the Rolling Stones’ recording. Same with dozens of others. It’s YOUR playing, in YOUR way, based on the music of the song.

I think few people realize how great it is to make (and listen to) your own music, from your own instrument(s). I’ve gone to 5 (non-music-jam) parties this year. All of the hosts had impressive stereo systems, and extensive collections of CDs. All the partygoers were knowledgable of the recordings played, and talked about them a lot. But when I asked if there was a guitar in the house (which I was offering to play), all 5 houses were without a guitar (or any musical instrument).

Wow! What a waste. All that God-given capability, and no use of it. Unlike lesser animals (cats, dogs, horses, chimps, etc), all these people could be doing something they might enjoy considerably more than other hobbies. This could be just from learning (and practicing) a few simple chords. Then with learning a few more chords, and some additional technique, the music becomes more personal, and special. Chord charts can be printed from the internet, and even lessons are available free on You Tube.

I’d say if people knew what it was like to play an instrument, music stores would be sold out of their stock of guitars, mandolins, bass guitars. etc. all over town.

I learned to sight-read sheet music and played the piano and organ for church services. I also sang in church choirs. I found both extremely satisfying.

If anyone has the chance to learn to be involved in making music, I highly recommend it.