Nobody appreciates small time electronic music makers/electronic musician for most is a lonely life

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Gotta admit that I hate utilitarian philosophy. Even when applied to music - it just is no good. No way to measure the amount of joy from audience and more importantly, no way to measure what would have been lost without a specific artist for example.

Utilitarianism in all forms makes assumptions that, in our event horizon, are impossible to measure and thus understand. Whenever someone considers this specific philosophy as something to be taken seriously, thou should be careful for there are dodgy elephants trying to make their way into the room!

Post

Now that's what I'm talkin' about, Functional. :clap:

Post

Yeah I've often come by some arrogant capitalists who never really read any Popper and there they are telling me how the state-assisted any kind of musical project (Opera etc.) should be dismantled because they provide joy only for selected people.

Then again, it soon turns out that there are also other state funded/assisted stuff that they themselves benefit from but not that much the rest. And that's the part where they temporarily ditch this philosophy because it can be used against them. Ad hoc reasoning, gotta love it. That special blend of philosophy which can be described as a bricolage.

Really the sad part about this is that in one way or another, pretty much all of us fall victim to such behavior.

Post

Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).

Post

robenestobenz wrote:Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).
Maybe, I just wanted to bitch about utilitarianism. Anyway music to serve a purpose is pretty dodgy as well. Sure such exists, can be interesting etc. but mostly is pretty boring should no creativity be involved eg. mainstage edm.

Also I don't like the way term EDM is used, because there's a lot of EDM fads which have little of the obnoxious habits that mainstage EDM has which usually is referred at when term "edm@ is used as a slur.

Post

robenestobenz wrote:Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).
Whatever fmr meant by "utilitarian," he implied that dance music isn't art simply because it's made for you to dance to. Anyone who's ever experienced an EDM festival knows this is far from the truth :party:

The art part comes into play when we experience the piece of music. It's up to the listener to make value judgments based on the level of emotions and thoughts the piece evokes. Not fmr nor his fancy word.

Ascribing utilitarian value to music is the death of music. It's a prejudicial viewpoint which limits the way we experience music. It has no significant purpose in a discussion about music. When fmr uses the word to make distinctions about what music is art and what music is not art, he sounds like an accountant, not someone who truly appreciates music.

Post

AudioPhile2 wrote:
fmr wrote: Your example brings up many of the concept problems that pretty much f**ck these things:

1. First - assembling a bunch of loops in Ableton is NOT electronic music. Actually, it will likely ending not being anything worthing AT ALL.
What are you even talking about? I slapped together a song that can stand on it's own within a few hours just last night - whether it's good or not is up for discussion, but that's not the point we're making here.

As for your definition of art, again: what are you even talking about?
So, video games have been recognized as an art form. They are meant to be played and the player is welcome to explore their options within the bounds of the game, but regardless the game is meant for enjoyment and to be played. That is it's job, so by your logical is is utilitarian and therefore no longer an art form?

"I'm pretty certain any piece of media cannot only play a role, but be art at the same time."

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who took issue with his narrow-minded definition of art. :clap:
I would not assert art qua art is the only art. That seems to be fmr's POV but I would state it differently.

It involves the intent, if the intent is to provide a noise to dance to, that is other than a straight musical end in mind. The strictures of it follow this intent, and the result tends to be it something that stands for music hardly at all. It can go on and on and do next-to-nothing musically and the 'audience' is not worried.

Maybe the sentence itself isn't fully traveling in english: let's say 'When a piece of media is made only to serve another role than art, we shouldn't say 'here's an artwork'.

If your graphics are directly suited to a bubblegum wrapper, the content and form of that follow that restriction. It isn't like 'art' in a certain sense. But we can claim anything as art, here after the fact; as I said before that is 'framing'. I don't know how you're going to frame some of dance music as musical art for me. I don't need to control someone else's definition though.

I don't think 'narrow-minded' is precise, actually. I think this suggests a little a fallacy of open-mindedness, it can become like a sieve.

Post

robenestobenz wrote:Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).
Never mind, let the kids play :borg: It's recess time in this thread :hihi:
Fernando (FMR)

Post

AudioPhile2 wrote:
robenestobenz wrote:Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).
Whatever fmr meant by "utilitarian," he implied that dance music isn't art simply because it's made for you to dance to. Anyone who's ever experienced an EDM festival knows this is far from the truth
That's actually a pretty empty statement. What about it is art?
AudioPhile2 wrote: The art part comes into play when we experience the piece of music. It's up to the listener to make value judgments based on the level of emotions and thoughts the piece evokes.

Great, but what if I come away with 'well this sure isn't art'? the art part didn't come into play. I don't pay close attention to EDM, but the things KVR people want in a sample pack to sound like famous EDM exponent x I know from, and product of x is largely not filled with art [ie., music], IME. They evidence a lack of care as to music qua music.
You're not going to define it for me by 'it's up to the listener's emotions'.
AudioPhile2 wrote: Ascribing utilitarian value to music is the death of music. It's a prejudicial viewpoint which limits the way we experience music.
This is some bullshit. If it's music to you I can kill it as music with one fell swoop? So Fernando 'ascribed utilitarian value' to something that is largely utilitarian in order to dismiss it and something died. Sounds like your position isn't very secure then. It doesn't limit how 'we experience music' unless you let it. And that's you, there is no 'we'.
AudioPhile2 wrote:It has no significant purpose in a discussion about music.
You're not talking about music, you're talking about words, though.

Post

jancivil wrote: I would not assert art qua art is the only art. That seems to be fmr's POV but I would state it differently.
Actually, no
jancivil wrote:But we can claim anything as art, here after the fact; as I said before that is 'framing'. I don't know how you're going to frame some of dance music as musical art for me. I don't need to control someone else's definition though.
You can't, but there some aesthetic, creative and artistic goals that have to be reached for something to be considered art. These standards tend to change with cultural and civilizational background evolution, and they are not the same anywhere. But usually, time is a good judge on that. Something that survives the aging is something that deserves to be considered with some more attention.

There was always "utilitarian" music (music that was created for extra musical purposes, like dance, or protest). Sometimes, this music has an intrinsic artistic value, therefore it can be considered art (like "Le Sacre du Printemps" for example, which was created for a ballet, and survived as pure music).

Other times it hasn't, therefore, it is just "a product". Most EDM is basically "a product". And it certainly is not more electronic music than almost anything else done nowadays.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

Ok, that's all quite clear now.

I would however say that ballet and music are entwined in intent per se so that 'dance music' is doing something quite different than 'disco' or what-have-you.
And I'm sure that such a composer of Le Sacre intended the music to work beyond that programme.

Post

jancivil wrote:
AudioPhile2 wrote:
robenestobenz wrote:Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).
Whatever fmr meant by "utilitarian," he implied that dance music isn't art simply because it's made for you to dance to. Anyone who's ever experienced an EDM festival knows this is far from the truth
That's actually a pretty empty statement. What about it is art?
EDM is an arrangement of symbols that evokes, at least, emotions. What about it isn't art?

What about your statement isn't vacuous?
AudioPhile2 wrote: The art part comes into play when we experience the piece of music. It's up to the listener to make value judgments based on the level of emotions and thoughts the piece evokes.
jancivil wrote: Great, but what if I come away with 'well this sure isn't art'? the art part didn't come into play. I don't pay close attention to EDM, but the things KVR people want in a sample pack to sound like famous EDM exponent x I know from, and product of x is largely not filled with art [ie., music], IME. They evidence a lack of care as to music qua music.
You're not going to define it for me by 'it's up to the listener's emotions'.
I mentioned the listener's emotional response as one important aspect of music criticism. You're the one doling out a hard line definition of art which excludes EDM. (By the way, it's wonderful to hear you don't follow the genre closely in the same sentence in which you discredit it).

"Music qua music." Right. Look if people are going to have to Google the words you use, there's probably a better way -- mutatis mutandis -- of phrasing whatever pedantic blather you're trying to get across.
AudioPhile2 wrote: Ascribing utilitarian value to music is the death of music. It's a prejudicial viewpoint which limits the way we experience music.
jancivil wrote:This is some bullshit. If it's music to you I can kill it as music with one fell swoop? So Fernando 'ascribed utilitarian value' to something that is largely utilitarian in order to dismiss it and something died. Sounds like your position isn't very secure then. It doesn't limit how 'we experience music' unless you let it. And that's you, there is no 'we'.
Now I find you relying on a vulgarism to prop up a petty semantic point. Fine, if you insist.

Since you're incapable of getting past the hyperbole of the expression, "the death of something," I'll put it into less drastic terms. Your way of appreciating music bores me. Your claim that EDM is not art because it's intended to make people dance bores me. Your use of Latin is boring me. Not just that -- now I'll have to be hyperbolic -- you're boring me to death.

And believe me, I'm not the only one.
AudioPhile2 wrote:It has no significant purpose in a discussion about music.
jancivil wrote:You're not talking about music, you're talking about words, though.
Whatever you say, pal.

Post

AudioPhile2 wrote:
jancivil wrote:
AudioPhile2 wrote:
robenestobenz wrote:Not taking a position, but I'm fairly sure fmr means utilitarian in the non-philosophical sense. I.e. music made for dancing to, shaped by and framed within the limitations of that utility (generally ultra-gridded 4/4 in the case of EDM).
Whatever fmr meant by "utilitarian," he implied that dance music isn't art simply because it's made for you to dance to. Anyone who's ever experienced an EDM festival knows this is far from the truth
That's actually a pretty empty statement. What about it is art?
EDM is an arrangement of symbols that evokes, at least, emotions. What about it isn't art?

What about your statement isn't vacuous?
AudioPhile2 wrote: The art part comes into play when we experience the piece of music. It's up to the listener to make value judgments based on the level of emotions and thoughts the piece evokes.
jancivil wrote: Great, but what if I come away with 'well this sure isn't art'? the art part didn't come into play. I don't pay close attention to EDM, but the things KVR people want in a sample pack to sound like famous EDM exponent x I know from, and product of x is largely not filled with art [ie., music], IME. They evidence a lack of care as to music qua music.
You're not going to define it for me by 'it's up to the listener's emotions'.
I mentioned the listener's emotional response as one important aspect of music criticism. You're the one doling out a hard line definition of art which excludes EDM. (By the way, it's wonderful to hear you admit that you don't follow the genre closely in the same sentence in which you discredit it).

"Music qua music." Right. Look if people are going to have to Google the words you use, there's probably a better way -- mutatis mutandis -- of phrasing whatever pedantic blather you're trying to get across.
AudioPhile2 wrote: Ascribing utilitarian value to music is the death of music. It's a prejudicial viewpoint which limits the way we experience music.
jancivil wrote:This is some bullshit. If it's music to you I can kill it as music with one fell swoop? So Fernando 'ascribed utilitarian value' to something that is largely utilitarian in order to dismiss it and something died. Sounds like your position isn't very secure then. It doesn't limit how 'we experience music' unless you let it. And that's you, there is no 'we'.
Now I find you relying on a vulgarism to prop up a petty semantic point. Fine, if you insist.

Since you're incapable of getting past the hyperbole of the expression, "the death of something," I'll put it into less drastic terms. Your way of appreciating music bores me. Your claim that EDM is not art because it's intended to make people dance bores me. Your use of Latin is boring me. Not just that -- now I'll have to be hyperbolic -- you're boring me to death.

And believe me, I'm not the only one.
AudioPhile2 wrote:It has no significant purpose in a discussion about music.
jancivil wrote:You're not talking about music, you're talking about words, though.
Whatever you say, pal.

Post

jancivil wrote:
Maybe the sentence itself isn't fully traveling in english: let's say 'When a piece of media is made only to serve another role than art, we shouldn't say 'here's an artwork'.
.
This actually makes sense, although when applied to the mainstream EDM scene, it's sort of a cynical view on it all - justifiably of course.

Per fmr;
At this point I feel like your scrutinizing music under some sort of academic levels. Just because it doesn't have X, or it doesn't have Y it is no longer considered art? My question is; who are you to say it isn't art?
You're welcome to have your own dictionary to define your own rules, but when you change the meaning of wanker to a greeting and you start going around calling people wankers, you may find your dictionary to be causing people to get rather annoyed with you.
In contrast to what I mentioned in quoting janicivil, while it's a cynical view, indeed, on the mainstream EDM scene (such as Garrix, Deadmau5, Avicii) and I whole heartedly would not doubt for a second their isn't a glimmer of heart put into their music, they just churn it out to make a buck and get the girls -and guys (we're not sexist here) to scream over them, but, that doesn't mean we have the right to say it, and all forms of it that crop up in the mainstream EDM scene, are not valid forms of art. Perhaps the art of it comes down to how generic it can sound while still churning the cash/bum machine.
Last edited by ntom on Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

whoops, double post.

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”