On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:00:26AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: Given that this was written in the early 50s, it is quite prophetic.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:51:53PM +0200, Bengt Gördén wrote: He's not saying that musical creation should be restricted to a small number of predetermined people. But de facto, like all artistic endeavour, it is a minority activity, We may all be potential great composers or artists, but most of us do not exploit that potential, just look around. Maybe 10% of the population is capable of producing anything that would be regarded by the remaining 90% as music they'd want to listen to. Less than 1% could do something that would survive a generation and become part of music history, Ciao, -- FA

Czech or American style depending on if I need to cure an emerging dyspepsia or not. :-)

his allusion was clearly that most of what we all produce is crap, but that shouldn't stop anyone from engaging in the process.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Fons Adriaensen<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote: Although I don't disagree with anything you've written here Fons, I feel compelled to note that there is a purpose to artistic creation that has nothing to do with creation "for others". When we encourage children to paint or make music, we are not doing so because we believe that their work will have meaning for others or illuminate some aspect of the human condition. At least, that wasn't why I encouraged my daughter to do so, and its not why I encourage her now with her cello playing. When I started writing audio/midi software 11 years ago, it was originally with a goal to providing the tools I wanted so that I could make music. Over time, I realized that I am a really stunningly mediocre musician (even that is putting it a little kindly), and its much more productive for me to use whatever skills I have as a programmer creating tools for others. BUT ... I still attempt to create my pathetic little pieces of sound not out of any delusion that they will last beyond the end of next week but because the *process* of creation is intensely satisfying even if the end result is almost certain to be disgarded. the problem with the "democratization" of music production is, IMHO, not that most people shouldn't be engaged in it - they should. the problem is that the same processes that have led to this "democratization" also seem to have led everyone who can rearrange loops in garageband to believe that they are creating work worthy of exposure to others and *this* is where they are mistaken. they should be enjoying themselves, deeply immersed in creating mediocre pieces that nevertheless bring some pleasure and meaning *to them*. i remember eno describing the hundreds or thousands of demo tapes he would get at one point in his career, and noting that people didn't seem to realize that for every piece he ever released, he worked on "hundreds or a thousand" other pieces that he discarded because they were crap. his allusion was clearly that most of what we all produce is crap, but that shouldn't stop anyone from engaging in the process. we just have to find a way to get people to understand how the difference between making music for others and making it for yourself. there is no shame in either.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Fons Adriaensen<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote: Although I don't disagree with anything you've written here Fons, I feel compelled to note that there is a purpose to artistic creation that has nothing to do with creation "for others". When we encourage children to paint or make music, we are not doing so because we believe that their work will have meaning for others or illuminate some aspect of the human condition. At least, that wasn't why I encouraged my daughter to do so, and its not why I encourage her now with her cello playing.

I encourage her now with her cello playing.

Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> writes: Kids needs crayons, too. No one seems to give real wax crayons to kids anymore.

Dave Phillips wrote: Thanks for posting this provocative piece, Dave. This response follows the many you've already received, so I'd just like to add that Hindemith appears to be drawing a distinction between the rare achievement of art and the common achievement of craft.  His prophetic caution is that society will lose if it conflates the two, and what once was art will become just another industrial product. Perhaps, more provocative is his assertion of the brutal aspect of artistic creation.  True art is not only difficult to achieve even for those supremely qualified, where they'll savagely discard most of what they create as unworthy, but also in regards a discriminating society savagely rejecting much of what artists actually present as unworthy, both in its own time but even moreso across generations. So, make musical "art" if you can, and your audience and history will provide judgment, but if you're not quite up to that, by all means make musical "craft," as the very act of making music in any form and at any level is its own reward. Frank

To put it the other way round... (Which is partly what Paul Davis was also hinting at...) You need to have mastered the craft, before you can make art out of it.

Paul Davis wrote: Recently my fears re: this "discorporealization" have been allayed. A local festival is going to have a Guitar Hero contest in lieu of an actual contest for guitar players. Well, one part of me says "Thank goodness". ;)

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:11 PM, nescivi<nescivi(a)gmail.com> wrote: and to amplify *that*, another eno quote: "a good instrument has properties that the body can learn and the mind cannot". electronic music control systems until very recently (and even then only in the context of academic research projects) just have so little sensitivity and so much requirement for conscious decision making that its really hard to have the same kind of muscle-memory-based kinesthetic experience when making sound with them.

so not only do we have the "golly gee whizz look it goes whiiirrrrrrrr!!!" kind of effect that you write about, but even when you have moved beyond that, its very difficult to get into a "tight feedback loop" of physical expression and consequent sound.

so much contemporary music is all based entirely "in the head" because you simply don't need a body to play it - in some cases, a body *cannot* play it! its not the virtuosic skill that goes missing - i can live without that. what we lose is the kinesthetic experience that lends extra meaning, direction and ideas to a performer/composer's work, even without them being particularly aware of it.

Quoting Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>om>: To quote (from memory) Frank Zappa when asked if he preferred the Synclavier or the live band : "On one hand the machine doesn't get hungover or bored and plays every note exactly as written. On the other hand it doesn't say 'We're Ethel' at exactly the "wrong" time..."