JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Musician Message Forum Perceptions and Aptitudes

Does what constitute good music need to be form fitting?
I have tried that and going with myself. The general listenership seemed to like me more not being a form fitter, outsiside of professionals.

I have not wanted to be a performer snice my adolescence.
My originals consisted of an alongated riff.
Where I have attempted theory with more effort, I am understood least.
Often what is understood by musician clicks and professionals is considered effort.
It sure has not been that way to me.
It seems to all come down to aptitudes.

I could attempt a Beatles and beat rock type song with the scales. A listener rmay like that while the intellegensia may consider that an insult.

Maybe I am just not entitled to say since I have not been in that place.

There are many that are not associated with a musicians click or intellegensia that like to see what makes sense out of what they are doing.
It is something I can not put samples or even a meterenome on.

What are the members expectations on here with their services?
I know what should be understood of me, but what is formidible or good to members I look at within the context of my expression.
The second question I have is that do the members on here play in what is obtuse to them?
It matters too if they like that or not I guess.

The all prose type I have noticed with their own forms are often the most eclectic.

Good Music is anything that puts a smile on you, or makes you feel good, or feel sad, or inspires, or uplifts.

There is way more than one kind of good, sticking to form is more of a business decision than a musical one. If you are trying to write hit songs that will be played on the radio, you have to try and write those kind of songs, if you dont give a damn if anybody likes your song at all, you only have to please yourself.

Music is music, the business of music is an art form all by itself, I dont think music was intended to be a business/and or competition, but once it did, it changed how people write songs or how they perform, or how they arrange and produce their music, kind of strange really that you can change your music based on what you want to do with it.

The best time to be a musician or a songwrier is when your 12 or 13 years old and playing with some kids who are just learning too, the garbage that you make is classic, you dont know enough to write coherently and know nothing about structure.

My verse, my chorus? err? I dont know know whats that.

If we could somehow keep that in us even as we learn more and more we could make some great music.

Case in point:

Here is a literal basement tape of some childhood friends and I jamming. As you could imagine there is still a raging debate as to who wrote the piece. me on guitar, radio shac mics into a boom box, and im sure driving my folks crazy.
http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=12720178

Then maybe at age 15? we sat around and studied the whos live performance we saw on TV of Sister Disco. And although the sound is horrendous I think we nailed it!

There is good music and there is great music... the folk songs of yesteryear were the pop songs of their day... the best of them still endure today.

Music adapts and changes as people seek something new and different some chord that sings to them.

You say "Where I have attempted theory with more effort, I am understood least." This will be because you are not comfortable with the restrictions it places upon you... which means either a. Write what you like and be true to yourself... or b. PRACTICE, PRACTICE and PRACTICE until you are.

Cheers

There's alot of jazz and classical musicians who would call every pop song ever written elementary and trivial!

If I could only show you an email conversation I had with an editor of a jazz magazine. I had seen an article he had written online talking about how jazz and classical music was superior to rock and pop, and how jazz and classical are the real music, wheras pop and rock are entertainment.

He couldnt grasp the idea that emotions play a major role in whether somebody likes the music or not, that many people are not interested in listening to noodling on an instrument all night long, he rebutted with that "nah, pop music is all the singer, and nothing else, he had that jazz kind of snobbery which was hard to budge.

To a schooled, 8 hour a day practicing musician, pop songs are a waste of time, to a teenage girl, pop songs are life.

it's all perspective. Louie Louie has stood the test of time too, and I dont know one word but Louie.

Many kinds of good, there's Herbie Hancock good, Lady Gaga good, Taylor Swift good, Bob Dylan good.

At the end of the day it comes down to whether or not a listener gets something out of it.

To each his own... said the old lady as she kissed the cow!

We all have different tastes whether it be music, art, automobiles or movie stars. At present, music is controlled by big money and teenie boppers spending daddy's hard earned cash on stuff that will disappear tomorrow.

With age comes wisdom, true taste and appreciation for good music, no matter what genre. Music is many things from the sublime to the simple and any of it can be either good or not so good.

Let's hope all of you create only good music.

Regards,

Dave

Well Bugsey,
I would suggest that Editor never heard of the Boston Pops.
One of the biggest Country Hit of all time was the Jimmy Rogers tune In The Jailhouse Now. Not a lot to it but Webb Pierce recorded it. The Rest is History.

But to be fair you need to listen to the Brahms Violin Concerto by David Oistrakh. Not sure what Jazz Peice I would mention. Maybe Rhapsady in Blue or An American in Paris by George Gershwin.

Aw, well.

Yeah, I agree we both could name a bunch of stuff we think is great.

I dont think he even considers songwriting.

I mean, I understand where he's coming from. A country singer or a pop singer/rock singer can get by on 1,2,3,4,5 chords, play waltzes or 4/4 time signatures their whole career. In his opinion they are not real musicians, only playing what they know.

He thinks a musician should be able to play everything, and be adept at all styles, be able to play in any key, and really have to study music, whereas most other genres dont need to be as skilled, in that way.

Where he fails, is not any idiot can be Paul McCartney or Paul Simon. Or, that a great melody or a great guitar or drum solo, doesnt HAVE to come from the greatest musician in the world, they just need to stimulate somebodies ear.

I think thats where the gap is, jazz music is more about the pure music of it, pop, rock country is more about the song, something, he prolly doesnt understand either.

There are great musicians, and then there are great artists.

I will agree though that even the most basic jazz musician runs rings around other musicians in other genres, as far as knowledge and pur musicianship, but i dont think people care about great musicianship, they like songs.

Yeah, I agree we both could name a bunch of stuff we think is great.

I dont think he even considers songwriting.

I mean, I understand where he's coming from. A country singer or a pop singer/rock singer can get by on 1,2,3,4,5 chords, play waltzes or 4/4 time signatures their whole career. In his opinion they are not real musicians, only playing what they know.

He thinks a musician should be able to play everything, and be adept at all styles, be able to play in any key, and really have to study music, whereas most other genres dont need to be as skilled, in that way.

Where he fails, is not any idiot can be Paul McCartney or Paul Simon. Or, that a great melody or a great guitar or drum solo, doesnt HAVE to come from the greatest musician in the world, they just need to stimulate somebodies ear.

I think thats where the gap is, jazz music is more about the pure music of it, pop, rock country is more about the song, something, he prolly doesnt understand either.

There are great musicians, and then there are great artists.

I will agree though that even the most basic jazz musician runs rings around other musicians in other genres, as far as knowledge and pure musicianship, most pop and rock musicians do not know enough chords or understand the rhtyms and time sigs that heavy jazz cats use, and the depth of the scales and the music theory they know is unmatched, but I dont think people really care, it's usually only other jazz musicians who can really appreciate it!

Hi Bugsey:

I hope R&M does not resent us "taking over" his thread... LOL!
It would be difficult for me to say one form of music is better or more powerful than another. Anything with a melody that allows musicians or artists to demonstrate their ability and, while performing, convey that quality to the listener... is absolutely wonderful.

My appreciation for Jazz, Classical, Country, Pop, Folk, Bluegrass, Rock and all it's derivatives is unlimited... so long as the work is performed well. I wish I could be endowed with such talent.

It is a gift from Above and when I think of Bach, Brahms and Beethoven... carving such intricate works from the far corners of their imaginative minds... often without an instrument within reach to work over the notes and chords, I am awestruck.

The same is true for artists like Les Paul, The Beatles, Spyro Gyra, Louis Armstrong... you get my drift. We have been blessed to have so many talents in so many genres.

Later,

Dave

I would agree, but I think what a world class musician would argue is that The Beatles have hundreds if not thousands of impersonator bands that can play anything the beatles played.

I dont think you could find hundreds of Mccoy Tyner impersonators or Miles Davis

There is no doubt that The Beatles music is great, I love it, but I dont think it's very difficult for a decent musician to play. What makes it great is the songs, and that they were the ones who came up with all that music.

Jazz is more complicated, I dont know if you have ever tried to play with a REAL jazz band, you will get lost so fast it wont be funny. 5 or 6 chords per measure, at fast rhytms, and all being improvised.

it's just two different worlds. I cant say which is better either, he thought he could. I dont think the Beatles could do what Miles Davis did, and I dont think Miles Davis could do what the Beatles did, they do completely different things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_tgnG7t0kA

take this for example, this is hard to understand just LISTENING lol, you get this good when you practice every waking moment of the day.

Thanks for sharing, Bugs:

Not hard to understand at all. Being able to perform that well with any instrument is the problem for me... LOL! Wow, he loaded things up with a couple of other Jazz Legends as well. Delicious work.

I tend to be more "Brubeckian" with my taste in jazz but in most cases, it's all good.

My Navy buddies from Michigan introduced this ignorant southerner to jazz back in the mid-50's and I've never regretted the opportunity.

In college, I was fortunate to be able to hear Spanish Classical Guitarist, Andres Segovia. One man, one guitar, no amplification and one basketball arena turned into a concert hall. He could make that thing talk... and made it took so easy. I was green with envy.

Later,

Dave

I had a segovia method book I learned some good picking with back in the day.

Guess the message is everybody has something to offer somebody. From Taylor Swift to Wes Montgomery

Well,
This week we have an invasion od Elvis Impersonators. Go figure.