Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    "Art" is defined by the market.  If you are a famous painter, paint an
    original painting and sell it for a million dollars, it's art.  If you
    paint a million of them and sell each one for a dollar, that's not art.
    
    "Music" has no definition except that it usually involves vibration (or
    lack of it) usually within the audio range.  Whether it is "art"
    depends on how it is marketed.
    
    Steve

>    "Art" is defined by the market.  If you are a famous painter, paint an
>    original painting and sell it for a million dollars, it's art.  If you
>    paint a million of them and sell each one for a dollar, that's not art.
    
     So if Picasso goes platinum he goes in the same box as Twisted Sister?

	Art is in the appreciation and the channel/medium means little.
	The price means even less.

    I have to restrain myself from making criticisms of myself when someone
    complements me after a live performance, but I do it later privately. 
    It can come across as phony humility.
    A musician is a person who listens to and/or composes and/or
    performs (even privately) music.  A person who spends 40 hours a week
    making patches to the exclusion of the other things is not a musician. 
    A person who spends 40 hours a week writing music software to the
    exclusion of the other stuff is not a musician.  Kind of shoots me
    down.
    The ironic aspect of computers is that rather than reducing the amount
    of time spent doing tedious things, they increase it because with the
    computer (or synth) it becomes possible to do many new things but only
    if you spend time doing tedious things to accomplish it.
    sorry, I'm not awake enough to write english (see how phony that
    sounds)
    Tom

>>	We get so caught up in the technology to create music, that I wonder 
>>if we are losing sight of why we are doing it. When does a piece of 
>>music become art? When does anything become art? Does it matter???

	Hoo boy. I have this discussion often with people. My studio work 
	has become quite varied in the last three years - I've been trying
	to be less driven by "what the public wants" since the public doesn't
	seem to have a clue much of the time. So I've got so-called "industrial"
	stuff which might not be music (collection of sounds?) but is art
	(a collage of sounds, maybe ;^) )...

>>	I put forth the proposition that "art" cannot be separated from the 
>>"art experience". That is to say, if no one sees, or hears, or in any way 
>>perceives it, it it isn't art.


	I'm not sure. Art is in the eye or ears of the artist. Most great
	artists were ignored in their lifetimes. Many musicians are ignored
	or are at least unappreciated currently. If I call some of my work 
	art, and some of it commercial garbage, that's my call. If someone
	calls my commercial garbage art, well, okay. 

>>	Furthermore, if *anyone* derives a worthwhile experience from the 
>>perception of an artwork, then that artwork has at least *some* value. 

	well that's supposed to be a good thing, eh?


>>	How many of you have performed some music for people and have had 
>>someone come up to complement you afterward? Did you ever tell such a 
>>person "Oh, I'm afraid it wasn't my best", or "I really made a lot of 
>>mistakes." I contend that their perception of the music was perfectly valid 
>>*for them*, and for you to criticise yourself is the worst form of 
>>snobbishness. What you are really saying is "you don't know good music. *I* 
>>know good music and *that* wasn't it. Your enjoyment was due to ignorance."

	I was taught from my piano recital days not to self-criticize. You 
	politely thank them, and put an air of sincerity into it, even if 
	inwardly you feel that your playing was not unlike a vacuum cleaner's
	actions. I have had people come up to me and provide rational and
	knowing criticisms of my playing as well - and I thank those people
	in much the same manner. If people enjoy the music, then I did well.
	If they didn't, well, I may still have done well for myself, but that's
	art ;^)


>>	I guess the point of all this is to say, it ain't what gear you've 
>>got, but what you do with it that counts. Anyone care to comment?


	Well, I think that what you do with what you got is the whole point.
	There are plenty of rich "artists" who play with all the latest
	toys and make (in my opinion) horrible music with their equipment
	in big-name LA and NY studios. But they're selling CDs by the millions.
	I'm not selling CDs at all (yet). I don't have a financial backer
	(unless you count Digital Equipment Corp ;^) ) and I make music
	for my own reasons. I've heard the arguments (and platitudes) about
	craftspersons and their tools. I can do more with what I got (and I
	admittedly have a lot of stuff), and yes, I use it. What good would it
	do if I wasn't?

	The studio is an enabler to making music. Any artist can make do with
	less, but that's no excuse for having more to work with.

	My 2 cents.

	/pjh

    I personally think any form of art is an expression of the artist's
    inner being - call it mind set, attitudes, heart, whatever.  Music is
    certainly that for me, in that I often attempt to express musically how
    I feel about life, myself, etc from an *internal* perspective (viz,
    without the fa�ade that we all seem to put on).  From that perspective,
    it's an intensely private thing. 

    I don't guess I view art as requiring public consumption or approval in
    order for it to be considered "valuable", although it is a good thing
    if others can relate or be positively affected by it.  So much for the
    personal point of view. 

    In terms of viewing other people's art ... well, IMO, there are some
    forms of expression that would better remain private than public. The
    recent to-do in DC over the kiddie-porn "art" financed by the
    government is one example that comes to mind.  While I believe that it
    was a genuine expression of the artist internally, I don't think it was
    appropriate for him to "inflict" himself on the public in that manner.
    I guess it comes back to things are "good if others ... are positively
    affected".  I saw nothing constructive in this.  But I digress.

    In terms of art being marketable - that's another subject.  If art *is*
    in fact an inner expression of the artist, and that artist is not
    expressing what the public wants to hear (be it "good" or not) for
    whatever reason, the artist starves.  I'm not sure that "commercial
    art" and real art are really even in the same league. The former is
    created for others; the latter is not (necessarily). 

    Did I say anything?  Shessh.

-b

	I think that art is the expression of ideas. Communication.
	Sometimes, no person other than the artist sees the aritists
	work. In that case, it is a form of communication with the
	self. It's the artist experimenting with his own ideas. Giving
	them form, so that they are more clearly observed.

	The idea is not simply a message from the aritist. An
	appreciation of nature can be art appreciation. Who's the
	artist, what's the message. The message can come entirely 
	from within the viewer.	That is Still Communication though, 
	with others, or with the self.

    I'm going to dodge the question of 'what is art' and save some disk
    space.  I'm more ready to talk about 'when is my music DONE?'..
    
    -	when I can play it for someone and not cringe
    -	when I dub it to tape and DON'T write "early mix" on the box
    -	when I listen and don't want to make major changes
    -	when it doesn't ask for more tweaking..
    
    karl

Good music is never finished, because it opens a new world that can be
readily expanded on and seen in new ways.  Twisted Sister (or Picasso if
he goes platinum) are another story ...

Steve

        hum, they teach my kids at the local high school that
        
        "Music is organized sound used to convey emotion!".
        
        Sounds fair, especially by my definitions of organized (you'd have
        to see my office).
        
        I think in that definition the linkage to Art is the convey
        emotion bit.  
        
        I play music to convey emotion. I'm not particularly excited over
        fiddling with knobs, or anal retentive sequencing. I'm perfectly
        willing to record without any midi anywhere if i can get the job
        done without it - it's just a tool like a paint brush.  When i
        went to Berklee, i had this major revision in thinking about music
        so that i stopped studying, took up different instruments(brushes),
        and regarded everything i did as a success if it conveyed the
        feelings behind the music, whatever they were. 18 years or so later,
        i still think i made the right choice....
        
                bs
                

    music is not for communicating emotion.  it is for music.
    There is more to people than emotion. There are intellect, spirituality,
    and billiards.  Music can come from these other aspects of the psyche;
    you know music is filled with mathematics: that is intellect.
    But I believe there is a part of the brain that is musical and that 
    that musical part of the brain likes music for itself without demanding
    it to be emotional.  You can see the blood flow into this part of the
    brain when music plays with thermal detection equipment.
    Tom

        re : -1 not sure we disagree - but i can see i'd better come
        up with a better definition of emotion... Although composing
        is certainly an intellectual exercise, it's not clear to me
        that listening (unless being deliberately analytical) is
        all that much of an intellectual exercise.   Look at the role
        movie music makes - it's impact on setting emotional context
        for a given scene is quite substantial!
        
                That there is this strong relationship with mathematics
        is certainly not suprising - seems to be little in existence
        that mathematics can't describe. Does that make all sensory
        perception intellectual?  I suppose we could then make the
        same arguments concerning visual art - describe it terms of
        the human imaging system ( could make for some droll critiques ).
        
                So i guess what i'm concluding is that while we can
        analyze the mechanic's of music, it's primary purpose still
        adhere's to my original definition. Although i guess you could
        convey coded specific information provided there is a trained
        ear at the other end.   
        
                Or, Music is used to convey emotion except for all those
        compulsive  techoweeniedweeb (is that right len?) types that
        live in commusic.note and it's usenet equivalents ;-)
        

                bs
                

    
    	Good art invokes some kind of esoteric emotion. Which may come
    across as the listener or whatever somehow seeing or hearing something
    in the work that causes them to perceive the world differently through 
    the work.
    Either that or its gotta have a good beat. 
        

    Yeah, I agree with that last definition!  For example, if I can make
    one record and sell it for $1M, which will stimulate all kinds of
    estoteric emotion, all the way to the bank.  The guy that blows the $1M
    on my record is bound to perceive the world differently as a result.
    On the other hand, if I have to sell a million of them for a buck each,
    I'll have to work so hard, I'll likely not have too many esoteric
    moments.  And, the dweebs that buy my record will eventually put my 
    record on the rack with Picasso, Twisted Sistern [sic], and their 
    collection of Dennis Weaver Country Classics.
    
    Steve

    re: last
    
    I think thats what I meant er...yea...I'm an artEEST, If it's cool and
    stuff, I meant it.
    
    Damn it! don't knock Dennis Weaver, He's one hip dude. He was one of the
    last guys to record with Snakefinger before he died. :-)