Is there such a thing as GOOD music?

[Nathan Sarver]

I saw that there had been a rather heated discussion regarding Mr. Lanois about a year ago, so I thought I'd try to avoid opening old wounds by tearing open an entirely new one.

I had been discussing pedal steel with a musician who is even newer to the instrument than I am, and he said that Daniel Lanois was a major source of inspiration for him to learn. So, right off the bat, I appreciate that he is able to turn people on to my favorite instrument; he has at least that much going for him. When I looked him up, I found much of his pedal steel efforts to be personally disagreeable, but there were certain factors that made me want to examine the music further.

First of all, I am not particularly bothered by any lack of technical skill in his playing. Personally, I'd rather listen to my uncle play guitar than Yngwie Malmsteen or Steve Vai. What I am bothered by is what I perceive to be a lack of form in his compositions. He seems to create progressions that evoke whatever feeling he wishes from moment to moment, which is fine within a form, but is chaotic outside of one. I could splice together unrelated pieces of film to provoke any emotion I desire. If I want to make you feel sadness at one moment, I can show footage of a baby crying. If the next emotion I want you to feel is happiness, I can show footage of a marriage or a game-ending home run. And so on. I can put all those things together and evoke whatever visceral reactions I want at any given time, but there is no form.

IMO, art is creative expression by means of a form, whether it's a painting or a song or a movie or a poem. A lot of people seem to think of art as creative expression simply framed as art. High school kids write broken sentences expressing their feelings and frame it as a poem, without regard for any kind of meter or word order or imagery.

I reckon I'm over-thinking this. I bring it up only because I think it would be interesting to discuss (reasonably) what we all think of as important in music and music composition. Is Duke Ellington objectively better than Britney Spears? Is good music held back by people with traditionalist views or kept in check by them?

[David Doggett]

I have a problem with viewing things in black and white terms, such as good and bad, or form and no-form. Viewing things that way has always seemed closed-minded and narrow to me, and leads to divisiveness, hatred, and tedious conflict. In addition to the contrasts at the extremes, it is worthwhile to look at the whole continuum that usually lies between the extremes.

When musicians get bored with old forms, they loosen the forms, which often leads to new forms. The public is less involved with music, and so does not get bored so easily. At first bored musicians create "musicians music" that the public does not follow. Eventually the public may follow and support a new genre. The history of jazz illustrates this well.

As jazz developed as a genre in which pushing the envelope is integral to the genre, one lesson that evolved was the realization that formlessness is best enjoyed as a contrast to a form. There has to be a form to break. Thus, jazz developed the convention of first playing "the head" in a more or less recognizable form. Then it becomes enjoyable to experiment and see how creatively the form can be pushed and broken. And eventually the form is returned to and repeated as a resolution. It was a journey, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. This is also the old classical music tradition of stating a theme, followed by variations. Complete formlessness from beginning to end is difficult to relate to and doesn't become popular.

Even a seemingly very rigid form like blues allows a lot of creativity and innovation if you know where to listen. Those not "into" the genre hear only the basic structure of the unchanging rhythm, simple chord progression and simple melody. But those who are absorbed with the genre listen beyond that and hear the subtle and creative variations in those basic elements that give the music its passion and soul.

It is the pushing of the form that gives interest both to the form, and to the pushing. Static form alone becomes boring. And complete formlessness is incomprehensible.

There are many levels of this interplay between form and change. Some free jazz and modern atonal and arrhythmic classical music seems completely formless at first. But often brief forms develop from the seeming chaos, and then dissolve, and evolve into new forms. The way the forms change becomes the form.

The complete opposite of free jazz and modern classical music would seem to be the drumming and chanting trance music of West Africa, and it's modern reincarnation in rap. Yet, if you become absorbed in such music, you discover the tension between the basic form, and the variations that accompany it. The "groove" is the essential foundation against which the free expression plays off. Again, it's the form, and the pushing of the form. And the interplay becomes a form in itself.

[Dave Mudgett]

You have a right to like or dislike anything you choose. But I think your insistence that art must remain within a single form is a seriously confining straitjacket. There are no rules except those which people create. To change the rules only requires that a particular group of people agree on new ones. Naturally, there will be different groups of people with different rules, and that's fine as far as I'm concerned.

He seems to create progressions that evoke whatever feeling he wishes from moment to moment, which is fine within a form, but is chaotic outside of one.

To me, evoking a human emotional response is the prime directive in art, and to be able to evoke a wide range of emotions through different forms is penultimate. To me, your comment is the most supreme compliment one could pay to an artist. Why does staying within a particular form always reign supreme? Is chaos always bad? When we are all dust and the Earth is no more, chaos will reign. Why is any of this taboo for art?

Again - I think people should like or dislike whatever they want. I'm not against staying within a form - there's lots that can be done within even the most limited forms - elemental blues, haiku, "3 chords and the truth" country music, whatever. But why should everyone feel pressure to be limited by this?

PS - I'm sure I don't see even the most remote artistic connection between the likes of Daniel Lanois & Duke Ellington, and Britney Spears. The former actually have something themselves to say, while the latter is merely a commercial mouthpiece for others. This doesn't work as reductio ad absurdum.

[Calvin Walley]

just my 2 cents here

music has to flow for lack of a better word

i don't like classical music but it flows i don't care much for jazz but it flows but thing s such as "rap" doesnt. it is broken, choppy and as you said has no form that i can see
we all learn what chords follow each other ( go together) if we don't follow this then it starts becoming racket

[Edward Meisse]

My very first music teacher taught me that good music requires a balance between form and ....... I forget the word he used. But you get the idea. Strict adherence to form is a bore. Ignorance of said form is too chaotic to be, "Meaningful."

[b0b]

If the next emotion I want you to feel is happiness, I can show footage of a marriage...

You must be a bachelor.

Seriously, the fact that people can play music at all is a blessing and a gift. Even the "worst" music provides an emotional outlet for the player, and evokes some response from every listener.

Myself, I listen for richness in tone, unexpected notes and precise yet emotional performances. These are the criteria that are important to me. Other people listen to words and like repetition. They seem to outnumber people who share my musical values.

Is Duke Ellington objectively better than Britney Spears?

By my criteria, yes. By my tween-aged granddaughter's, no. Being objective means that you are applying specific tests without preconceptions about the subject matter. Different people use different tests.

Even the visual aspect of a performer's show can be an objective test. Toddler Z is delighted by a costumed bear that sings, and wanders off when she sees a piano player's hands on screen. Her evaluation of the music, good or bad, is 100% objective by her standards.

[David Doggett]

Rap does flow with a very strong cadence. The rhythmic form is very structured. It doesn't have a conventional melody, rather the vocal is shouted, sing-song, rhyming poetry that interplays strongly with the rhythm section (which includes very carefully tuned drums). That is the form. But the vocal is not a single monotone note. It has pitch inflections that make up an unconventional type of melody. And often hip-hop is not pure rap. A very common and popular form is to alternate a male rapper with a female singing melodic R&B.

[Edward Meisse]

What I said in another thread that covers the Ellington Spears thing is that there are two aspects to being an artist. One is technical proficiency. Ellington pretty much epitomized that. The other is the ability to reach an audience. It doesn't necessarily take alot of technical proficiency to do that. Britney does move me. And I don't mean that in a strictly sexual sense. Her performances do have emotional content. Her lack of a highly developed skill aside. She is a good performer.

[c c johnson]

what ever the genre, if it sounds good to me, its good music. To heck with the technical stuff. cc

[Charles Davidson]

Good MUSIC,Anything Mr. Seymour does, RACKET, RAP. DYKBC.

[Mark van Allen]

Very nice thread- some thoughtful responses here.
It might almost be a sub-definition of "Art", that no one person is going to enjoy or appreciate it all.

Personally, I really enjoy hearing stuff that's outside my box. It stimulates and inspires me, whether to explore more of my box, or outside of it.
(There is a fine line sometimes between "I wouldn't think to play that" and "I wouldn't play that")

Lanois gets textures and emotional content out of using his fingers and dynamics in ways that are vastly different from many other steelers. A lot of his playing inspires me to experiment with steel in the ambient or new age genre. (I've recently finished a project creating the meditation music for a new book by author Emily Smith, and the pedal steel parts were inspired by just such an approach.)

What really bothers me is when style and/or art become mandated or legislated. There was a recent thread referencing a website with '40's Nazi party rules about what constituted acceptable musical forms. I'm not making a direct connection, but Clear Channel and other corporate-think conglomerates spoon-feeding watered-down pop to the masses is certainly not the best environment for the encouragement of "art". Luckily there are still independent outlets for musicians.

I often think about what a backlash occurs here from some of the membership toward anything remotely out-of-their-box; Garcia, Cage, Randolph, Lanois... but then, come to think of it, none of those guys play a black Emmons.

[John De Maille]

Sure there is! It's everywhere. But, only your own pleasures will decide what's what. I, personally, can't stand music played out of tune or meter. It drives me nuts. Singers, who, sing sharp or flat or miss the beat drive me crazy too. I'll listen to mostly any music and enjoy it, but, I have my favorites. Poetic prose spoken to a drumbeat is not music to me, anytime. Classical has many, many beautiful movements, jazz can be complicated or simple, showtunes can be very lyrical and pretty. Music played well is good music. One of the reasons I play steel is because of the beautiful ascending and descending harmonious notes, that, create delighgtful chords. All in sympathy with each other. There is so much good music to be played on the steel and other instruments, that, all you have to do is open your ears.

[Nathan Sarver]

b0b, you're right about my use of the word "marriage". I shoulda said "wedding". Good Lord, are you ever right about that.

Being objective means that you are applying specific tests without preconceptions about the subject matter. Different people use different tests.

If different people use different tests, then it is, by definition, entirely subjective. Something can't be objective to me.

I have no complaints against someone thinking or playing outside the box or experimenting with dissonant sounds. And as I said before, I don't care at all about any lack of technical ability he may have. I'm just asking someone to have a context for their experimentation. I tried to make an analogy with film that doesn't seem to have connected quite as well as I had hoped. Music, like film or painting, is able to illicit primitive responses in people, but it is only artistically significant if there is a context for the movement of the chords and melody, and the responses they illicit. If I just have a series of dartboards labeled "Major Chords" "Minor Chords" "Dominant 7th Chords," etc., and just throw darts at whichever mood I'm after from measure to measure, I will have composed something that is technically a song, but is entirely devoid of artistic significance. I'm not trying to mandate what anyone can do in a song. I'm trying to figure out a way to define what someone can do to make something a good song.

I agree that it is lazy to get wrapped up in good/bad, but I believe that one song can most certainly be better than another song. "God Only Knows" is a better song than "Purple People Eater". The former isn't good because the latter is bad, and the latter isn't bad because the former is good. Can't we say that both have elements of good, but one has more good than the other?

[Guy Cundell]

All music has form. Even the "formless" music referred to above. It has at least duration. There may be a great deal of difference between 30s of formlessness and 2 hours. (A two hour sleep is much more refreshing) "Formlessness" in music is often referred to as "through composed". You might call it "stream of consciousness".

Nathan, what I think you are referring to is internal structures within the duration. That is probably a more common understanding. Often musicians refer to the verse/chorus structure etc structure as being the form but it surely goes further than that. In a micro direction it goes to notes in a phrase and then phrase upon phrase and in the macro direction it goes to sections upon sections ie AAA, AB, ABA, ABACA, AABA, ABCDCBA, etc. These could be verses and choruses of pop tunes or sections of classical music. Going macro form can go beyond the piece itself to what makes it to the album and where it is placed or the movements of a symphony. You can take an even bigger macro view of placing a piece of work within the life's work of an artist and thus see the form of their work. Beethoven and Stevie Wonder come to mind. But no need to stop there!!! How about Beethoven or Stevie's place in the canon of classical music or 20thC pop music respectively... whew.... I need a drink!

But good or bad and how to achieve good?... Music is language. This is not an analogy. Just straight ahead, I think. Language is about communication. Can the piece communicate is the measure of good or bad IMO. I personally like the Japanese idea that there are really only 7(?) stories and every story you hear is a version of one of these stories. I don't want to argue this out. It is just an idea that sits well with me and I can comfortably relate it to music. Sure musicians are always looking for new ways to communicate but I think we come back to the 7(?) stories.

The chart that I posted on the Esperanza Spalding thread shows an example. "Precious" feels fresh and innovative (to me) and has an interesting form. But it is still related to one of the stories.

The song really speaks to me. Communication achieved.

[b0b]

If I just have a series of dartboards labeled "Major Chords" "Minor Chords" "Dominant 7th Chords," etc., and just throw darts at whichever mood I'm after from measure to measure, I will have composed something that is technically a song, but is entirely devoid of artistic significance.

John Cage fans would surely disagree and, as a matter of fact, I have composed music using similar methods. Listen to "Quartz Variation II" or "Carnival's Closed" on myspace.com/thetechnicalacademy.

[Nathan Sarver]

Language is a very apt description, I think. They are both means of communication - as Guy pointed out - which have structure and syntax. With a spoken language, you can speak poorly and still communicate what you mean to someone else, but, because of your inability to speak well, you are limited in what you are able to communicate. Doesn't it stand to reason that music is similar in that regard also? I suppose if what you wish to communicate is some kind of meandering, ethereal randomness, then anything goes, and you'll succeed in communicating that pretty easily. So, yes, I agree that a "stream of consciousness" composition technically has a form, it's just one I personally find insignificant.

[Bill Hatcher]

JS Bach 1685-1750.

All other music is suspect.

[Dave Mudgett]

Language is a very apt description, I think. They are both means of communication - as you pointed out - which have structure and syntax.

If you're talking about human language, there's a helluvalot more than structure and syntax. Lots of humans communicate without ever uttering anything from their mouths or following any rules. I frequently like order and logic also, but sometimes other people confound my attempts to bring reason to a discussion. C'est la vie.

So, yes, I agree that a "stream of consciousness" composition technically has a form, it's just one I personally find insignificant.

That is the beginning and end of that idea - it's your personal preference, which is fine but not binding on anybody but yourself.

Can nature produce music? In other words, can natural phenomena be treated as art of some type? Very often, there is a strong structure and form to such things. Is this "more valid" than stream of consciousness or otherwise unstructured art produced by a human? Please double-space your submissions, MLA citation format, and not more than 25 pages, please.

[Nathan Sarver]

If you're talking about human language, there's a helluvalot more than structure and syntax. Lots of humans communicate without ever uttering anything from their mouths or following any rules.

There's a helluva lot more to communication than structure and syntax, but language is a means of communication, not the other way around, as you have it there.

That is the beginning and end of that idea - it's your personal preference, which is fine but not binding on anybody but yourself.

I knew when I started this post that it would be difficult to not appear as though I were trying to be a kind of music nazi. I don't wish to bind anybody to anything, I'm not asking anyone to sign a petition, and I'm not asking the Senate for a resolution condemning music that Nathan Sarver doesn't like. Yes, I personally find stream-of-consciousness anything to be indulgent and of little value to anyone but the person streaming it. But the fact that I thought that made me wonder whether there could be such a thing as a relatively objective good in any endeavor. It just seems to me that there must be a way of measuring something's quality beyond whatever enjoyment, or lack thereof, I receive from it. I can enjoy a bacon-wrapped, deep-fried Twinkie, but it isn't good.

My mistake was phrasing my original post in a way that could be read as an attack on a person or an idea, which can make someone feel the need to defend them. Perhaps my real question is whether something can be good in the sense that it is in some way nutritious to the soul, (I know it's corny) rather than simply enjoyable. How about that? Is that possible?

[David Doggett]

Can nature produce music? In other words, can natural phenomena be treated as art of some type?

Art is by definition man-made. The more common discussion is whether "art" is a special subset of made-made things, or whether everything man-made is art. After many centuries of debate between elitist art establishments attempting to enforce their subjective and artificial boundaries, and artists pushing the boundaries, the conclusion of the 20th Century was the latter - it's all art. Any attempt to parse out the boundary is futile. It can be high or low, sophisticated or primitive, good or bad, beautiful or ugly, but it's all art. Everything humans make or do is art. In fact, every human life is a work of art, from beginning to end, every aspect of it.

In pushing the boundaries, a category of "found art" came to be recognized. This is things found as products of humans, or of nature, which become art simply by being framed or pointed out as art by humans. It was not considered or recognized as art until someone framed it, or collected it, or displayed it as art. The human activity of framing, collecting, displaying, or simply pointing out the phenomenon, adds a human intellectual content that elevates the phenomenon to the status of art. The gurgling brook, the rusting tool, the crashing waves, the cluster of fruit, the graceful body movement, the glowing sunset - it's all a work of nature, or an industrial product, or an unconscious action. But if a human experiences it, and is moved by it, and photographs it, records it, frames it, or simply points to it, it becomes art.

[David Doggett]

Perhaps my real question is whether something can be good in the sense that it is in some way nutritious to the soul, (I know it's corny) rather than simply enjoyable. How about that? Is that possible?

Ah, now that it is established that it is all art (at least among academic art critics with boundaries opened by generations of artists pushing the boundaries, but probably never among armchair art critics wanting to create boundaries from their own prejudices), now you want to know if it is possible to define good art and bad art, or maybe significant art and insignificant art.

There are at least two elements of art. One is the practiced skill. This merely delineates sophisticated art from primitive art. But we all know there is an emotional and intellectual component. Innate talent, or intellect, or sensitivity can trump practiced skill. So, simple or primitive art with "feeling" can sometimes move the observer more than technical skill. But that movement, or emotional/intellectual experience, the "feeling," is determined as much by the inclinations of the observer as the ability of the artist. It's subjective, which by definition defies objective criteria. So attempting to establish the criteria for good and bad art is a fool's errand. Feel it or not - there's no one to say.

[Dave Mudgett]

There's a helluva lot more to communication than structure and syntax, but language is a means of communication, not the other way around, as you have it there.

Then I guess body language is not language? What's the syntax of body language, or any other nonverbal and nonwritten language? To me, anything that involves communication involves a language, but not necessarily syntax and grammar as in the theory of formal languages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_languages or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy. Syntax and grammar do not, by themselves, generate semantics, nor does semantics necessarily generate syntax and grammar. Humans, communication, and semantics can exist completely outside of the realm of syntax, grammar, and formal language. But that doesn't mean that there's no type of language happening, IMO. It depends on how one defines "language" - it doesn't have to be formal or follow any particular rules. I guess I believe that transcendental communication - transcendental language, if you will - exists to some extent. I'm delighted if you can prove this to be incorrect, but I don't see how to do it.

It just seems to me that there must be a way of measuring something's quality beyond whatever enjoyment, or lack thereof, I receive from it.

OK - how? What is "quality"? How do you determine it? Philosophy, logic, and mathematics provide a lot of ways to evaluate things, but good luck showing that there's any special significance to any of them. Since art, especially, is so inextricably tied to the human experience, it seems utterly hopeless to me. Any metric or topology you apply seems totally arbitrary and only valid in the context of agreement by groups of people who, somehow, understand things in the same way.

Art is by definition man-made.

The gurgling brook, the rusting tool, the crashing waves, the cluster of fruit, the graceful body movement, the glowing sunset - it's all a work of nature, or an industrial product, or an unconscious action. But if a human experiences it, and is moved by it, and photographs it, records it, frames it, or simply points to it, it becomes art.

I know this is strictly semantic, but those seem contradictory - especially the "simply points to it" part. If the human interprets and records that interpretation somehow, then these make sense. But I don't agree that a human merely observing natural phenomena makes it art as defined by your first meta-principle. But that goes to my original question - must art truly be man-made?

I see all this as being completely arbitrary, which has been my point all along. You can make any case for anything, and nobody can prove you right or wrong. My opinion, of course.

[Edward Meisse]

I wish I could find this somewhere now. But I remember that a brain study was done in maybe the 1980's. One of the things it found was that the brains of Japanese people tended to process birdsong as music. American brains tended to process birdsong as noise.
So, is art really only produced by humans? Is it possible that the birds intend their songs to be pleasing? And is it possible that grizzly bears find them so? And if so, isn't that artistic expression?
I'm sure many of you will find my my speculation ridiculous. But I'm very frustrated by the assumptions so many of my fellow humans like to make about our supposed uniqueness and superiority over other species. I think those assumptions are highly dubious.

[Guy Cundell]

Olivier Messiean used birdsong in many of his compositions. With a remarkable ear for tonality and rhythm, he can be seen at the end of this clip, manuscript pad in hand, out in the field, transcribing bird song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWZRnhhuY9s

I think it is "From the canyon to the stars" that consists solely of song of the birds from the Grand Canyon. A deeply spiritual man, I think he was convinced of the divine nature of creation being manifest in birdsong. Why not! Isn't it the laws of physics, the harmonic series that gives us dissonance and consonance that permit us to develop the perception of music.

[Theresa Galbraith]

YES