What I Listen For In Music

I am an educated musician, but I am also an avid listener and fan. Ever since I discovered pop music, one of my favorite pastimes has been buying a new album, taking it home and listening to it for the first time. Of course, what I look for in a record may be quite different from the average layperson. As is the case with many musicians, I am an active listener. There is no such thing as "background music" for me.

I also feel that actively listening to music can be almost as creative as the act of making music. Listening to a piece of music I love opens up new avenues of creativity. It challenges me to create something that will surpass it! For me, this is not competitive. It is an act of admiration for the artist and composer. When I hear a great piece of music by another composer, I want to understand how they felt when they created it!

Of course, there is also the possibility of seeing the seed of an idea in the work of another artist, and taking that idea further than they could have imagined. That technique reaches far beyond art, for it is the cornerstone of invention. Thus, active listening may at times fall under the category of "research."

Over the years, in my own acts of research as well as creativity, there are a number of things I have searched for. One of my goals, for instance, has been to push beyond the accepted boundaries of music. This is done in a variety of ways, but the following have been of most interest to me, both as a listener and a composer:

• Fusion - Combining elements of different musical styles and traditions, as well as the use of nontraditional instrument combinations. This also extends to the fusion of artistic mediums.
  
• Tonality - Modal, atonal, polytonal, microtonal music, or any other method of moving beyond the major and minor scales.
  
• Challenging the traditional definition of Music - The genesis of this idea was in the work of the great John Cage, who was interested in stretching the boundaries of what can be considered music. The use of nonmusical sounds in composition has especially been of great interest to me.
  
• Elements of Chance - This includes improvisation, as well as effects or overtones caused by note combinations (especially in drones.)

In other words, I am often most interested in music which thwarts convention in one or more ways, no matter how subtle.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still love a catchy melody, an interesting chord progression or riff, or a groove that makes you tap your feet. However, if you combine that with one of the elements in the list above, you have pure magic, as far as I'm concerned.

How about you? What do you listen for in music?

I'm reading: What I Listen For In Music

The Artist 2.0 Manifesto

Insofar as the nature of the transmission and dissemination of art and media has been irrevocably altered in the past 10+ years, it may also follow that the nature of the artist can and must evolve. Despite the best efforts of the Music Industry and the Entertainment Industry at large, the internet has uncorked the bottle, and the genie has been emancipated. The pigeons are no longer content to stay snug in their holes. We now live in a world where walls are being toppled, both physical and metaphysical. It is quite possible, in point of fact, that many of the aforementioned walls never even existed. Perhaps recent events have lifted the veil in front of our eyes, so that we may finally see that the walls were never there to begin with.

In our former life, the Music Industry would tell us what we liked, and we would dutifully hand over our shekels in exchange for their Product. When they sensed a disturbance in The Force, every so often they would allow an Alternative Product to emerge, only to quickly co-opt it for maximum profit.

The Artist, at the time, was a commodity, tightly controlled and groomed for maximum profitability. A Formula was instituted, and only occasionally tweaked until maximum profitability was summarily achieved. If maximum profitability was not quickly achieved after a few tweaks of the Formula, the Artist was quickly jettisoned, to be immediately replaced by a younger, fresher version. However, if the Formula proved successful, it would be milked for all it was worth over a period of many years, until the artist either self-destructed in a magical blaze of fire or was, once again, jettisoned.

If the Artist began to yearn for increased creativity or artistic evolution, he or she was quickly reigned in. Some Artists were eventually able to achieve a degree of manumission after a period of many years. Others were sometimes given their own "Boutique Label," or allowed to operate under a separate persona if they wished to create Product outside the bounds of the Formula. However, even these activities were tightly controlled, in order to achieve maximum profitability.

Despite all this, the patronage of the Music Industry, in the form of the Record Contract, was a gold ring sought after by almost every Artist. Yet, in exchange for this gold ring, the Artist usually gave up everything. The Music Industry owned the Artist, as well as the Product, with an ironclad contract. The Artist believed he or she was unable to function outside of the Industry, and this was often the case. The Industry controlled the distribution channels, as well as the flow of information and money.

Of course, the Music Industry relied heavily on the assumed naivete of the Consumer, who seemed willing to accept any Formula that was handed to them. Accordingly, they served as another wall, the wall between the Artist and the Consumer. They instituted the Filter, through which the Artist and Consumer would only see what the Music Industry allowed them to see.

Then came the internet, and we began to unplug from our matrix. The Consumer began to realize that it didn't necessarily like what it was being fed. Sure, maybe it liked Britney Spears, but it also wanted to listen to some country, and maybe some jazz. And, you know, this noise rock band it found on the internet was pretty cool. And hey, here's a really good ska band, and what about this salsa song and this rap artist? The artist, in turn, began to realize there was a way around the filter. A hole had been punched in the wall.

The Music Industry was flabbergasted. How were they going to control the Consumer and the Artist now? The internet didn't have nicely segregated bins like Sam Goode! Communication between the neatly defined segments of Consumer and Artist was now possible. Different Consumer segments could intercommunicate, and they could communicate with the Artist as well. The cat was out of the bag, and thus began the slow, steady, continuing decline of the powers-that-be.

It is a new order, a time for a new business artistic model. In a world without borders, we must assume that the Audience (formerly the Consumer) will be as sophisticated, and perhaps even as eclectic, as we are. In the early days of our movement, before we were all part of the collective hive mind, this was the case, and it seems to have returned to the spirit of those halcyon days.

In accordance, we the undersigned, artists, pledge the following:

1. We will no longer create art solely for a specific audience or demographic.
   
2. We do not need to create separate artistic personas for different aspects of our creativity.
   
3. We will allow our creativity free reign.
   
4. We will no longer refer to our art solely as a Product.
5. We will not allow our art to be governed by a Formula.
6. There is no longer a Consumer. There is only the Audience.
7. It is perfectly acceptable for an artist to release a country song and a freeform jazz exploration on the same record.
   
8. We will no longer use the phrases "is this accessible" or "could someone whistle this melody?"
   
9. We will no longer use the terms "single edit," "radio mix," or "commercial," and we will no longer use the phrase "is this too long?"
   
10. We do not necessarily want or need to "get signed" to a major record label.
    
11. We will never again surrender our artistic control to any person or entity.
    
12. As we are able to control our art, we are also able to control our commerce and our livelihood.
    
13. We will control our own "brand" or "image." This includes the freedom to completely reject those concepts if we so desire.
14. We summarily reject genre labels when possible, by labeling our music "other."
    
15. We are free to use any and every artistic medium available.
16. We will interact with the Audience without a middleman or filter. If we chose to allow the Audience to participate in the creation of our art, this is perfectly acceptable as well.
17. We are free to use new and emerging distribution channels, or create our own if necessary.
18. In short, none of the old rules apply. We are free to make our own rules, or declare that there are no rules if we wish. Furthermore, we are free to amend or emend this manifesto whenever we desire!

The Artist 2.0 Manifesto by Michael J Johnson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://michaeljohnson0664.blogspot.com.

I'm reading: The Artist 2.0 Manifesto

On Artistic Expression, Part 2: Pitch

Let me begin this post with a potentially controversial statement: Pitch is an artificial construct, foisted upon us by our culture. Why is this controversial? Perhaps because people such as myself have spent many years and dollars studying a discipline that is centered around the concept of playing or singing in tune, matching the pitches perfectly. Then, we turn around and teach the next generation the same concepts.

Now, technically, pitch is actually the number of cycles per second a sound wave travels through the air, so in that sense, perhaps we wouldn't call it an artificial construct. I am referring instead to our perception of pitch within our western scale -- you know, the one that starts with A and ends with G#?

Of course, the greatest evidence for this hypothesis is the fact that, in some eastern cultures, there are more scale tones to the octave. These are quite foreign to our ears, and usually sound "out of tune." However, to those brought up in that culture, they sound perfectly normal.

In many indie rock styles, it is actually considered inauthentic to sing or play too much in tune. This is most likely rooted in the punk aesthetic. There are also many R&B singers who tend to sing consistently out of tune. In recent years, R&B and rap artists have incorporated non-western sounds into their music. I believe this has contributed to this phenomenon. Popular music was born from a fusion of western and non-western sounds, which may partly explain why pop musicians have never been overly concerned with singing in tune.

I have come to the point in my life where I no longer consider singing or playing out of tune a bad thing. If someone has an interesting sound, but isn't quite in tune, it doesn't bother me. I also no longer consider that solely a reflection of someone's musical ability. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the listener,) I cannot divorce myself of the obsession with being in tune. Perhaps that will come in time.

Comments, please!

Powered by ScribeFire.

I'm reading: On Artistic Expression, Part 2: Pitch

On Artistic Expression, part 1

Reading David Thomas' blog post the other day reminded me of some questions I have wrestled with for many years:

1. Can "Art" exist in a vacuum?
2. Is a work of art required to appeal to an audience, even if it is only a small one?
3. Is the artist who is creating solely for their own enjoyment really creating art?

Years ago, my answers to these questions would have been no, yes, and no. However, I'm not sure my motives were pure. At the time, I was trying to be a "rock star," and I was always quick to defend my conscious decision to write "hooks." I also think that deep down inside, I really felt like I was selling out, so I was very defensive.

If you will pardon the pun, I have changed my tune these days. If I am creating purely for my own enjoyment, I still have an audience. It doesn't matter that the artist and the audience are one and the same. An audience of one is still an audience. Furthermore, some art may appeal to a large audience while other art may appeal to only a small, select audience. This does not diminish the artistic quality of either work. Of course, this leads us back to the art vs. commerce debate, but you may refer to my earlier post on the subject.

Please comment - I really want to hear your opinions!

Powered by ScribeFire.

I'm reading: On Artistic Expression, part 1