Music help

[FuSoYa]

I was wondering if anyone would care to offer input on the following problem: I have a group of compositions-in-progress that all initially were really conceptual. The ideas, techniques, theories that went into the initial ideas for these pieces were, in my mind, the whole point of the piece... sort of. I mean I want them to sound good too. So the problem is that if I stick to the concept 100% strictly, the pieces don't sound as "good", conversely, if I stray from the concept a little bit, the pieces are much more fun to listen to and emotional-sounding. So my questions are:

1) If you have some purposefully conceptual music, does straying from the concept take away from the music?

2) If the trade-off is emotion and viscera, is it worth it to lose the concept which may be much more enduring?

 

[avi]

personally, I am increasingly annoyed by music that's more interesting to read about than to actually listen to. Cage, Zorn, et al. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I'm over it.

really, what's the point in the end if I'm gonna listen once, say "I guess that was interesting" and never think about ever again?

 

[FuSoYa]

I guess ideally it'd be cool to make music that's both.

 

[xfer]

Since I think peoples' concepts of a certain "concept" are always necessarily slightly hazy anyway, it seems that you should verge toward "sounding good" a little bit.

 

[NAD]

1) No. Personally I don't like the concept to lead the music, I'd rather hear the music lead the concept.

2) Absolutely. The music itself is much more important than the concept. I may find flaws in certain moments of a piece, but I rarely (if ever) think a part of the concept is lacking.

 

[FuSoYa]

Yeah but that could ruin the whole idea! Like generally most of the time, musical concepts say "It's possible to make good music adhering to x and y rules." If you stray from those rules then you're basically saying it's not possible, which is kind of a big deal. You're trying to show that old formulas aren't the only way.

 

[avi]

personally, I am increasingly annoyed by music that's more interesting to read about than to actually listen to. Cage, Zorn, et al. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I'm over it.

really, what's the point in the end if I'm gonna listen once, say "I guess that was interesting" and never think about ever again?

 

[Xtokalon]

A meta-compositional message on the ambiguity of compositional adherence would be nice, please.

I think if departing from the rules makes your work compositionally inferior, maybe something still can be done about making an art out of that very departure; so if you do it, it's like you're saying something about that, you're organizing the errancy into a symetrically interesting form that gets its meaning from a larger scope that is outside the limited purview of strictly musical composition.

Not sure if that makes sense in anyway, but I felt like posting.

 

[coelacanth_M]

i'm with avi here, but you know that.
it's not enjoyable to listen to something that sounds more scientific/mathematical than emotional. not that there's anything wrong with scientific/mathematical/emotionless/purely conceptual/left-brained music. it's just that it does *nothing* to me emotionally. i always always want music to move me.

 

[coelacanth_M]

furthermore, i think it's ultra-neat when a piece is composed from the heart and it just happens to end up being wonderfully innovative and original.

 

[lizard]

yes.
Avi is right in that I also can hear something that can be a brilliant concept or blindingly talented but in the end if the music itself doesn't entice me to play it again, its just going to gather dust.

like Liquid Tension Experiment. I can listen and say to myself, holy shit! but since I'm not a musician I don't get lured back by the playing, no matter how obviously talented and flash it is, and wankery for wankery's sake is boring.

 

[mindspell]

I going against the grain here but here we go:

1. Yes it does take away something because you didn't find a way to accomplish your primary objective. However, if the goal changes along the way and you decide to drop the concept there is nothing wrong about that, the first try basically fueled other music. I don't see how anybody can do something half-assed, either you go completly conceptually either you don't.

2. You can do whatever you want and if it becomes more interesting for you to drop the concept for emotions then go right ahead.

 

[avi]

maybe try taking something like the dogme movement as an example. sometimes it works to create art, sometimes it doesn't. a lot of the time you have to play with the rules to achieve that, once they're set.

 

[exciar28]

PERHAPS your endeavor to adhere to concepts is not possible through the music itself. Remember a quote from old fellow Ives: "...There's a limit in music.(I read this quote translated so I'm not sure it's proper words )" Don't try so hard to persist in something that can't be achieved through the music.

Sorry I'm posting without perusing everyone's post, (I'm so sleepy & here's much difficult words ) so maybe I'm saying extravagant things. Sorry again.

 

[chupe666]

achieving a balance between the two is hard to do, but i'd think that'd be the goal

i tend to use ideas as a base, but then tailor it to suit emotional/aesthetic needs so that it may not end up being 100% concept-based but still carries some of the random- or formulated-sounding qualities and also sounds aesthetically pleasing. i don't necessarily think bending your own rules is out of the question. especially if you're not going to explain how you got your results. if you're including a detailed conceptual explanation in the liner notes or website, then it may be something you'd want to be more stringent with. but mixing and matching coneptual ideas with catchy hooks is what keeps it interesting for me; making your own rules and knowing when to break them.

 

[Helm]

I think It's a matter of artistic intent, like mindspell says.

the pieces don't sound as "good", conversely

Do you mean they do not sound good to the supposed audience? If such is the case you have to clarify if these compositions presuppose the existance of an audience in order to be considered functional, for you. Many say that this is a given, and such is the nature of music but I don't feel this is one of music's aforementioned limitations. If you ment yes on that, then the compositions are intended as communicational art, and are imbued with some sort of message. If that message is in any way an emotional one, then I suppose you should try to make the music have as much emotional impact as possible.

If you ment sound good as in sound good to yourself then it's about what does sound good to you, and how far you're willing to bend the customary rules of composing and recording before what you've made starts to lose relevance to your intention.

Personally, I don't think music that is about theory should try to be emotional. And also, I think that the only aknowledged message such music could carry would have to be the sum of it's theoretic intent. And I think that such a message must be put in words that go with the piece of art. Possibly people would trace other emotional and lateral messages in your music and they'd really like to tell you about them and you'd think them hopelessly intellectual and completely off-base (and irritating) but only the clarity in which the intended theoretic message was transfered should be the basis of determining the artistic validity of the composition.

But I'd be wary of such meta-conceptual recursion like what Xtocalon suggests because it can be pretty easy to be carried away with transforming messages from one level to the next until they are completely undetectable, even to yourself.