What NOT To Do?

[mckelly]

MIDI - I wanted to avoid a digression into a lengthy discussion concerning the litigiousness of society and merely provide the text book law.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

MIDI - I wanted to avoid a digression into a lengthy discussion concerning the litigiousness of society and merely provide the text book law.

Understood. But I have to say that people seem a bit on their tippy toes about going off topic in this forum. I see it as an open discussion and going off topic (within reason) can be very productive.) BTW, I have NOT been diagnosed with ADD. Doesn't mean I don't have it.

How about them Mets?

[mckelly]

MIDI - I wanted to avoid a digression into a lengthy discussion concerning the litigiousness of society and merely provide the text book law.

Understood. But I have to say that people seem a bit on their tippy toes about going off topic in this forum. I see it as an open discussion and going off topic (within reason) can be very productive.) BTW, I have NOT been diagnosed with ADD. Doesn't mean I don't have it.

How about them Mets?

Yes, I agree - I think diversions can be quite appropriate (and helpful). However, I am endeavoring to keep the topics related to music (even tenuously). Politics, religion and law (save for IP), create a hornet's nest of issues.

Besides, after my digression into the "Yeah, you're right!" posts, I'm personally placing a moratorium on unrelated topics.

[Frodo]

Besides, after my digression into the "Yeah, you're right!" posts, I'm personally placing a moratorium on unrelated topics.

A moratorium?

Oh, darn!

[twistedtom]

MLC Class action did the take your music too?
McKelly yes you are right it is good to stay on topic.

[Kaszper]

The internet is an exciting place-- giving any who'd speak a fair voice in their field of interest.

The internet seems to be turning into a place where people go to shout at each other...and get ignored.

Not here at the Nation, of course!

[vier-personen]

thanks a lot for showing me how bad I am in writing english in such a nice way!

No, that is as far from my intentions as it gets! I was mocking myself, and only myself. It was the LOGIC of the original quote, and not your English that didn't make sense to me. Your message was pretty clear to me, and I had/have no objections to it.

I'd say - the success depends on who, and on how many people, will like the sound of that.

commercial succes? yes. artistic success? not necessarily.

Now, with this one, you really got me. How would you define and quantify artistic success? Commercial success is pretty easy, but artistic success?? I really have troubles trying to isolate something artistically successful from something artistically unsuccessful. Care to share your take on it? This one sounds like a good topic for a new thread...

well to define "artistic success" would take a few books and possibly generations of scholars. I wanted to point out that music can be good even if noone likes it except the composer whereas music that is adored by millions can be utter crap.
I don‘t judge the success of my own music by how many people buy it.
With my music I want to always go further, to somewhere I haven‘t been before (which is not necessarily the newest stuff that noone has ever heard before), I want to learn something new. If I write something in a form that I‘ve used or heard before I get bored easily.
of course I am no saint, I have to take "boring" gigs to pay the rent, but I try to minimize this.

[twistedtom]

Frodo wrote

The internet is an exciting place-- giving any who'd speak a fair voice in their field of interest.

Yes we are doing it now.

The internet seems to be turning into a place where people go to shout at each other...and get ignored.

Not here at the Nation, of course!

Kaszper did you say some thing? Just joking, yes there is so much on the net one has to skim what they read.

[nickysnd]

well to define "artistic success" would take a few books and possibly generations of scholars. I wanted to point out that music can be good even if noone likes it except the composer whereas music that is adored by millions can be utter crap.
I don‘t judge the success of my own music by how many people buy it.

Well, here we depart - if only the composer likes his own music, then I can hardly call that music a success. I understand where are you coming from, and I totally love pieces that I'm not sure how many people care of. Yet, as I understand it, success can only be commercial. If millions of people like a piece, then I can't call it "crap", as I'm not the holder of the universal value system, I only got a subjective system, as good as any one else's, if we are to think objectively. Of course, if I don't like a piece, then I don't like it and that's it - no matter how many millions do like it. But maybe it's me and not the piece. Maybe I am not equipped with the proper receiver for that sort of music. It is safe to say "I don't get it" and even a honest "I don't like it." That would be more fair than to call it "crap," wouldn't you agree?

Anyways, I have also troubles with the concept of "artistic value" - IMO that is something that is not embedded in the piece of music, but only added by the listeners. I truly believe that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," and in no other place than there. I don't fancy elitism. Bach's music is not great in itself, but because millions of people add value to it. Bach is a commercial success, which is the only type of success. Of course, me loving Bach's music has nothing to do with the other millions that happen to like it too, 'cause I would have loved it even if everyone else would have despised it.

Not sure if that makes much sense... I think that, besides our different value systems, there is also the language limitations that makes us disagree... Not that disagreeing would be bad.

[twistedtom]

Good points Nick I feel much the same way, you said it well.

[SixStringGeek]

The internet seems to be turning into a place where people go to shout at each other...and get ignored.

It has always been so since the early days of usenet and the advent of alt.flame. I've been on the 'net since 1982 - back when you could name most of the machines.

This respectful discussion thing here - that's kind of new, actually.

[papageno]

It is a bit like saying: to make a guitar, get a piece of wood and start removing anything that doesn't look like a guitar. The start adding elements (like strings, bridges, tuning pins) until it sounds just right. Also, you can start strumming on all the pieces at once until you arrive at an acceptable sound.

You made my day

...or two.

[Phil O]

Bach's music is not great in itself, but because millions of people add value to it. Bach is a commercial success, which is the only type of success.

What if Bach was totally ignored while he was alive and didn't make a penny with music. Would he still be considered a success?

Phil

[nickysnd]

What if Bach was totally ignored while he was alive and didn't make a penny with music. Would he still be considered a success?

Phil

In short: no.

But let me explain myself a bit. First, when I said "Bach" I really meant "Bach's music", of course. So yes: that music had a very limited success during his lifetime. After his death, his music became more and more successful over the years - and, IMO, that is entirely due to the people who have put value into it. Without the value added by those people, Bach's music would have been as (un)successful as the music of his unknown fellow composers of his time whom we have never heard of.

I have played/analyzed tons of scores, including Bach's scores, and I have never seen that thing that might be called "value." Nevermind "success" - I have never seen/heard such things as value and success in a printed musical score or in a performed piece. So I figure that "value" and "success" are external things, they are not inside music, as I could never find them there. So I assume that they are not artistic features, but individual/social features that are added to music, while having nothing to do with anything that is inside that music.

So, I love Bach's music exclusively for its ability to impress me personally, and not because it has pre-existing "value" embedded in it, or because it is music that has the quality of being "successful." The fact that it is successful I can measure by the number of people who play his pieces, who attend concerts where his music is played, who buy CDs with his music. Success is just numbers, like votes, or like the $$$$ coming from commercializing his music - and I can safely call that commercial success, the only success I can observe. As for value, I cannot say one word about its existence or non-existence, as I know nothing about what that thing called "value" might be.

This is my belief, based on my experience: music is a subjective thing that has only the value that each of us adds to it. For example: if only one person likes (i.e. adds value to) a piece of music, then that is the only value that that piece of music has. As for success, to me it is a term derived from the number of individuals that add their personal/subjective value to one piece of music or another.

[Phil O]

So yes: that music had a very limited success during his lifetime. After his death, his music became more and more successful over the years - and, IMO, that is entirely due to the people who have put value into it. Without the value added by those people, Bach's music would have been as (un)successful as the music of his unknown fellow composers of his time whom we have never heard of.

So when we talk about success, we need to separate the art from the artist. Bach wasn't terribly successful, but in time his music was. Is that a fair assessment?

Phil