What makes one a good musician or poet?

[frisian]

What logically makes one a good musician or poet?

For musicians you believe are "good" or poets that are "good", critical thinking wise what makes them good?

[Skeptical Greg]

What makes one a good musician or poet?
If someone enjoys listening to your work..

If you can't find an audience, don't quit your regular job...

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes

If someone enjoys listening to your work..

If you can't find an audience, don't quit your regular job...

So you are good, if people enjoy your "work"?

So an artist is good relative to his/her audience?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian


So you are good, if people enjoy your "work"?

So an artist is good relative to his/her audience?

Who else is to decide?

[frisian]

Thought maybe science could give an answer?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by frisian
What logically makes one a good musician or poet?

For musicians you believe are "good" or poets that are "good", critical thinking wise what makes them good?

Music and poetry can't be defined good and bad based on logic. Their purpose lies in their appeal to emotion, and as Diogenes says, it's all in the audience.
The size or, equally based on value judgement, quality of your audience doesn't really matter, except to you.
If you make music and are happy being the only one who likes the result, you're a good musician, at least in your own eyes.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian
Thought maybe science could give an answer?

Science has to pretty much ignore emotion..

Of course they can attach electrodes to someone ( or something, dog, cat, frog....) and record their responses to music, art and poetry, but it still wouldn't tell us how good or bad it is...

Nope. Science wouldn't provide a definitive answer for your question as presented..

[frisian]

So the response it the only way to look at music?

Music itself is not emotion.

Perhaps you could help me ask a better question? Related to music or poetry?

[frisian]

Originally posted by bjornart


Music and poetry can't be defined good and bad based on logic. Their purpose lies in their appeal to emotion, and as Diogenes says, it's all in the audience.
The size or, equally based on value judgement, quality of your audience doesn't really matter, except to you.
If you make music and are happy being the only one who likes the result, you're a good musician, at least in your own eyes.

Couldn't it be said that religion is like music and such since it is also an appeal to emotion?

[roger]

Originally posted by frisian
Couldn't it be said that religion is like music and such since it is also an appeal to emotion? No, because religion makes statements of (alleged) fact. You can't decide truth by whether you like what is being said or not.

[frisian]

Originally posted by roger
No, because religion makes statements of (alleged) fact. You can't decide truth by whether you like what is being said or not.

An audience doesn't make statements of "alleged" fact?

Because there are no relative "truths"?

If something doesn't apply to all, it is worthless?

[Skeptical Greg]

you asked..

What makes one a good musician or poet?

The simple answer is:

If someone/anyone likes it ( poetry, music, art ), it is good; if not, then .....


Do you have another question? Like, " What is truth ? "

[frisian]

"Indeed, it seems inevitable that Nietzsche’s philosophy should have a strong connection to music, since his writings are so much about language and the collapsing of those artificial oppositions that underlie our precious systems. What better language than music to escape the tyranny of a certain kind of logical thought? Nietzsche wrote extensively about music and musicians. He harbored ambitions to be a composer and was himself a pianist. He never lost his awe for musicians and for the power of music. In this sense he is a successor to E.T.A. Hoffmann (1776-1822) and Jean-Paul Richter (1763-1825), who saw in music an instrument of consciousness, expression, and meaning that eluded, transcended, and overpowered mere reason. Nietzsche was clear about his own debt to Artur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), who privileged music above all other artistic creations in his philosophical analysis of human thought and action."

" He led a fanatical crusade against the internal mechanisms each of us develop to denigrate ourselves, to feel guilty, to submit to the authority of others, to imitate, to cower before self-proclaimed expertise, and to turn our potential individuality into a docile slavery to convention. Nietzsche hated the tyranny of modern mass politics and the world of journalism and fashion so aptly attacked by Balzac a generation earlier. He also had little use for his fellow academics and the pretensions of scholars and scientists, who in their confidence in explaining the world, reduce it to sets of useless and constricting categories"

http://www.americansymphony.org/dialogues_extensions/99_2000season/2000_03_08/leon.cfm



"Food" for thought.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by frisian
Thought maybe science could give an answer? The history of experimental aesthetics is an odd one. Of course, philosophers have worked on the question, but not experimentally.

Gustav Fechner, the founder of psychophysics (the forerunner to experimental psychology) wrote on aesthetics, as did a number of early psychologists. The problem was that the experimental methodology of the time was introspection--hardly scientific, no matter how hard the researchers tried to make it reliable (nope) or valid (sketchy).

Only recently has there been a small number of folk interested in experimental aesthetics. The neat thing is, they come from many different areas--music, art, psychology, even mathematics! A friend of mine is the author of a chapter in The Topos of Music (http://www.birkhauser.ch/books/math/5731.htm) , which is a huge text exploring the mathematics of music (including virtuoso performance, so not limited to simple relationships between tones). A more accessable book (and a great read) is Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038078209X/102-3337297-2069744?v=glance) , which does a nice job of explaining musical performance, hearing, appreciation, and even the amazing feeling one gets from some music, using a very approachable presentation of the psychological research. I have already loaned this book out to a music prof....and might get it back someday...

[epepke]

Originally posted by frisian
What logically makes one a good musician or poet?

For musicians you believe are "good" or poets that are "good", critical thinking wise what makes them good?

According to Frank Zappa, who in my opinion was a good composer and bandleader, if you like it, it's bitchen, and if you don't, it sucks.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
The history of experimental aesthetics is an odd one. Of course, philosophers have worked on the question, but not experimentally.

Gustav Fechner, the founder of psychophysics (the forerunner to experimental psychology) wrote on aesthetics, as did a number of early psychologists. The problem was that the experimental methodology of the time was introspection--hardly scientific, no matter how hard the researchers tried to make it reliable (nope) or valid (sketchy).

Only recently has there been a small number of folk interested in experimental aesthetics. The neat thing is, they come from many different areas--music, art, psychology, even mathematics! A friend of mine is the author of a chapter in The Topos of Music (http://www.birkhauser.ch/books/math/5731.htm) , which is a huge text exploring the mathematics of music (including virtuoso performance, so not limited to simple relationships between tones). A more accessable book (and a great read) is Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038078209X/102-3337297-2069744?v=glance) , which does a nice job of explaining musical performance, hearing, appreciation, and even the amazing feeling one gets from some music, using a very approachable presentation of the psychological research. I have already loaned this book out to a music prof....and might get it back someday...

Cool!

I will check it out.

Thanks!

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
The history of experimental aesthetics is an odd one. Of course, philosophers have worked on the question, but not experimentally.

Gustav Fechner, the founder of psychophysics (the forerunner to experimental psychology) wrote on aesthetics, as did a number of early psychologists. The problem was that the experimental methodology of the time was introspection--hardly scientific, no matter how hard the researchers tried to make it reliable (nope) or valid (sketchy).

Only recently has there been a small number of folk interested in experimental aesthetics. The neat thing is, they come from many different areas--music, art, psychology, even mathematics! A friend of mine is the author of a chapter in The Topos of Music (http://www.birkhauser.ch/books/math/5731.htm) , which is a huge text exploring the mathematics of music (including virtuoso performance, so not limited to simple relationships between tones). A more accessable book (and a great read) is Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038078209X/102-3337297-2069744?v=glance) , which does a nice job of explaining musical performance, hearing, appreciation, and even the amazing feeling one gets from some music, using a very approachable presentation of the psychological research. I have already loaned this book out to a music prof....and might get it back someday...
I like Mercutio's post. So it is good.

Aside from the topologies of what are widely considered good pieces of music, does this relate to what makes a good performer (musician)? I think that is what the original post was asking.

The aesthetics of a piece of music may be universally appealing, but certainly not everyone can perform it well enough to be called good. If I performed Mozart on my kazoo for example, you all would think it was very very bad.

Poetry may be different in this regard, as it is not so much performed by the poet in most cases, but in a sense, performed by the reader. In this case, I would say that aesthetics play a larger role in determining what is good. However, an aesthetically competent poet may still not be as popular as a free-verser able to infuse passion into his words and elicit emotion from the reader. I don't know that this can be done by simply following the "rules" of good poetry.

So in a long-winded way, I've added exactly nothing to what Diogenes said in one sentence:If someone/anyone likes it ( poetry, music, art ), it is good; if not, then . . .

But how was my performance?

[frisian]

:D Phil.

I think you added something.

I liked the long winded version better.

[Skeptical Greg]

But how was my performance?
:clap:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by frisian
Thought maybe science could give an answer?

Technique could be an answer. As a musician for over 35 years, I know 'good' when I hear it. John McLaughlin is 'good' - although someone who doesn't know what is going on will be confused by his playing sometimes.

It's like abstract art on an instument.

James Joyce and Dylan Thomas are universally acknowledged as the best in their field - they're 'good'. However, I am confused by some of their writings - because I'm not at their level of technique.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Phil

I like Mercutio's post. So it is good.
:D

Aside from the topologies of what are widely considered good pieces of music, does this relate to what makes a good performer (musician)? I think that is what the original post was asking.
That's why I mentioned "virtuoso performance". I would think that performance and composition would be, for most western music at least, independent (or orthogonal, for you stats wonks). Probable exception of Jazz, within western music, where performance and composition are more closely woven.

The aesthetics of a piece of music may be universally appealing, but certainly not everyone can perform it well enough to be called good. If I performed Mozart on my kazoo for example, you all would think it was very very bad.
I had an idea for an experiment once on music performance. It was based on the observation that some people actually enjoy Kenny G. (go figure.) There is a statistical technique called time-series analysis which can be applied to, say, a conversation, or to an improvised duet. The speech or music is converted to a simple on/off pattern (yes, it loses a lot of information, but it is amazing what can be found from what remains) and analyzed for patterns. My question was: are such patterns reliably different and predictive of "good" (e.g., Miles or Bird or Trane...*sigh*) and "bad" (e.g., Kenny G) music? I really don't know if it is the case; the "music, the brain, and ecstasy" book suggests that we develop our appreciation of music from simpler to more complex, and so it is possible that the "good" stuff will have a more complex waveform, but it is an open question. Good material for a Ph. D. thesis, if you ask me. But nobody did.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
:D
[/b] That's why I mentioned "virtuoso performance". I would think that performance and composition would be, for most western music at least, independent (or orthogonal, for you stats wonks). Probable exception of Jazz, within western music, where performance and composition are more closely woven.
I had an idea for an experiment once on music performance. It was based on the observation that some people actually enjoy Kenny G. (go figure.) There is a statistical technique called time-series analysis which can be applied to, say, a conversation, or to an improvised duet. The speech or music is converted to a simple on/off pattern (yes, it loses a lot of information, but it is amazing what can be found from what remains) and analyzed for patterns. My question was: are such patterns reliably different and predictive of "good" (e.g., Miles or Bird or Trane...*sigh*) and "bad" (e.g., Kenny G) music? I really don't know if it is the case; the "music, the brain, and ecstasy" book suggests that we develop our appreciation of music from simpler to more complex, and so it is possible that the "good" stuff will have a more complex waveform, but it is an open question. Good material for a Ph. D. thesis, if you ask me. But nobody did. [/B]
What say we run the experiment ourselves. We may not discover anything, but we'll get to hear some great music in the process, and who knows, maybe meet some nice young female music lovers.

And I promise not to drink all the beer this time.

[frisian]

I know I have heard about some theories on music effecting mob conciousness. Anyone ever hear of this or studies to that effect?

I know the band The Doors wanted to play around with this concept, but then Morrison was mostly just drunk at least after their first tour.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Phil

What say we run the experiment ourselves. We may not discover anything, but we'll get to hear some great music in the process, and who knows, maybe meet some nice young female music lovers.

And I promise not to drink all the beer this time. Damn...you get started on the grant (you write better than I do)...see if it can cover the cost of beer as well...and travel expenses, as you live far from civilization...and then, moderators, please delete my and Phil's posts so we can keep this a secret from the rest of the world...

...meanwhile, I'll....um....I'll...I'll be over here.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Damn...you get started on the grant (you write better than I do)...see if it can cover the cost of beer as well...and travel expenses, as you live far from civilization...and then, moderators, please delete my and Phil's posts so we can keep this a secret from the rest of the world...

...meanwhile, I'll....um....I'll...I'll be over here.

Hmmmm... I like this idea.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by frisian


Hmmmm... I like this idea. :mad:

If you supply the beers, you can be third author.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
:mad:

If you supply the beers, you can be third author.

Well I play an instrument and can sing (IMO:p ), and would be more than willing to test out theories of what chord progressions, decibel levels, etc. can cause differing receptors to incite varying emotions.

I can provide and drink beer.

:D

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Mercutio
My question was: are such patterns reliably different and predictive of "good" (e.g., Miles or Bird or Trane...*sigh*) and "bad" (e.g., Kenny G) music?

Miles, Bird and Trane pushed the envelope. Kenny G stays within the bounds of non-explorative commercialism. (He won't sell records if he explores, because the majority of people don't understand musical exploration - although there are probably people who think he is on the edge of radicalism)

Do you have any doubt that Bird or Coltrane could play what Kenny is playing? Can Kenny play what Bird or Coltrane did?

Bird and Coltrane did that stuff - they didn't want to go backwards. They kept pressing forward...which is good.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
:mad:

If you supply the beers, you can be third author.
Good news and bad news!

Good news: I've received the grant. It covers all traveling expenses (thank god I'll be able to get out of the wilderness and to a city;) ), and includes a stipend for a few barley pops here and there.

Bad news: As a stipulation for the grant money, we have to examine performers in a reverse alphabetical order, which means we start with Zamphir and then Yani.

[metropolis_part_one]

Originally posted by frisian
What logically makes one a good musician or poet?

For musicians you believe are "good" or poets that are "good", critical thinking wise what makes them good?

It isn't their technical skill that makes them good; rather, this allows them to be better.

[Igopogo]

Here's my theories on the enigmatic qualities of creativity:

My own opinion is great artists and great scientists are both cut from the same cloth of 'creative thinking'. Both are well gifted in the art of 'perception'. That is, they are able to 'see the big picture' & pay attention to details at the same time without having to analyze things. They have the uncanny knack of knowing when and how to trust their instincts, and are rarely let down.