Music Composers Unite!
I think music is way more about wisdom (as in dealing with the ambiguous) and judgment (as a sense, a sense that is in aligment with reality, that being any reality at all, our own included). So, while we compose we may have a goal (we kinda wish our music to do stuff, I do, I want it to be alive!) and we have our ways (as how we actualy make it happen, that being a concept that can even be ambiguos in it's development and may or may not be recursive of another methods). Well in all of these our philosophy dictates how we proceed.
Just for ilustration: say we want to create something. That can't be done out of the blue. We need basic ideas, we need a mean to translate it to another people and we need a way to actualy do it.
Let's start with the ideas. I'll apresent my philosophy and hope you guys to help me to improve it. We can work with more than one idea. We just need to know what are the elements of each one of them we want and that can be translated to our means. So we first ask each of the ideas our questions, we know more about them, as all the knowledge about them are not readly avaliable in our minds, at lest not in mine. We can follow Aristoteles routine to quintescence, that's a nice one. After that, it's time to select. What am I in all those questions and definitions? What does my will itself choose?
And then we work on our intent, translating on parts and whole the new idea (that has a litlle about you) in the mean.
Well, you guys can add at any point of this discution, be it the philosophy, or your already formed personal aesthetics on anything. Why would I want to know that? You may ask. Well I believe that we grow on sharing and add to ourselves as shock with another people's worlds. You can add pieces as examples, that would be ideal.
My music tends to just grow organically from a starting point, usually a melody or theme (rarely, a rhythmic pattern). It's as if an entire movement is contained in that one idea, and my job is simply to reveal it. But sometimes I have predetermined a particular piece, like a tone poem, and imagine the various sections and what they will portray, and then create the music for those sections. sometimes I will use material from older, incomplete works if it fits somewhere. but there is a large element of intuitiveness in how I compose. I definitely do not use methods or techniques. To me that produces music that is formulaic. Although sometimes that is what is needed, as in film or games, neither of which I have any interest in doing.
All I know is I know nothing... Or nearly nothing. I love the fact that you're thinking through these processes and you're far more certain than I am. You already sound like an old wise man!
I sometimes allow myself, like Michael, to use intuition, it has helped me a lot over the years and can sometimes really help push meaning onto something that is essentially nonsensical (I like to experiment). But for the most part I just don't know... I don't know what music is, I don't know what it's meant to be, I don't know what I should compose, I don't know if beauty is a thing... etc. There's so much and such different music out there that's incredible and it's all so dissimilar with vastly different intentions... My personal definition is that music is a window to the human soul and to some extent its culture, consequently it's unfathomable and all is allowed.
PS: The above doesn't mean that if I'm asked (or should I say PAID) I can write pretty much anything... But art... Oh dear art, you keep me sleepless, restless and in constant doubt...
Certainty means nothing if it doesn't give us meaning, and about meaning you guys said it all. We fell, and music only translates it to the physical world. It does go past our bariers sometimes to touch our beings, just as a good talk. I, as most of the beginers, am not as eloquent in music as I am on speeking, so I don't have the confidence to define it's meanings, but I do search for a direction. Music being alive, or organic, is exactly what I want! I gess I should learn how to speak before learn how to chat with souls. It does seems contraditory, since we are, mostly, simple mans, and our souls are simple souls, so our chats are simple chats, mostly hidden from the meanings of the world, but indeed simple in it's nature. I'm sory for the trip rsrsrs.
I think our souls are anything but simple. Our chats are simple because words are inadequate.
Many years ago, I attended a planetarium show at the observatory in Los Angeles. Great show. At the end they recreated a sunrise. The music in the background was the finale of the Firebird. I was young and had never heard that music before. It was stunning. To this day it is one of the most powerful things I have experienced. Music injects itself directly into the soul. It sets our imaginations free. It helps give meaning to life.
I kinda expressed myself wrongly. Say that our souls are responsible to our will (and will is a very hard to define thing, so we define it as itself, as an atom of meanig, witch it is not, but we can understand it as such, therefore simple). Our souls also should be responsible to our feelings and just as will, it is hard to define. But both of those elements conected to the soul, both of them very complex, are, in a way, known to all and "enjoyed" by all. So i call them simple, but they're not. If they're enjoyed by all, all are able to be touched, we just need to know how!
For me it was a simple but happy Gossec's Gavotte by Mischa Elman. I couldn't countain myself as his violin screamed with joy
But... Is there such a thing as will...? And how can we be certain that there is such a thing as a soul and not just a fabrication of our minds to cope with the solitude of existence...?
For me it was the Rite of Spring in Disney's Fantasia!
I love Fantasia.
We don't need to be certain,if we percieve will there is will, at least in my reality there is (there are states in witch we do not have autoconscience and therefore we can't percieve ourselves, but those are pathologycal only. On day-to-day we always feel ourselves). We can say that we are all behavior and biology, just as we can say we're not. Actualy, the process of induction that says: We are ONLY ... is by itself invalid and only used for better understandment of the part. As induction(when we go from facts to general truths) was created to be used only as a tool of refinement, not as a tool for absolute truths. So, until I am proven wrong I'll believe we have a little something more!
BTW, Mozart used that book?! Thanks for it!
but those are pathologycal only.
I must disagree! What about being drunk??? That is one of my 'natural states'...
So, until I am proven wrong I'll believe we have a little something more!
Does it not work the other way around? Are you not the one that needs to prove you exist?
BTW, Mozart used that book?! Thanks for it!
Did he? I'm not actually that surprised, it's pretty old... It's a sweet book, I wish people wrote all their educational books like that!
Good Lord, are we going to start debating esoteric philosophical/spiritual matters in a post about how to write music? This is the kind of thing that made me leave three years ago. Can we please get back on track?
OK! back on track! rsrsrs
Recently I've been trying new things on music, but It's very hard to know for my untrained ears If it is musicaly acceptable to try these ideas out, that is, to my ears they are kinda pleasing, but I may be fooling myself. The idea is to use pulses of out of range pitches (too high or too low for the range we are expecting) to create disparity on rythm. Why would I want to do that? Well, I'm writing music about stuff my father taught me and one of those things is to watch my growing up. We, as most things in nature don't, do not follow a rytmh as we grow. So I tried to make it more descriptive on this way. I may be taking a wrong turn on aesthetics and that's why I want you guys help. I'll post it here.