Chrono Compendium

Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: dan_death on February 29, 2008, 08:04:30 pm

Title: no soul
Post by: dan_death on February 29, 2008, 08:04:30 pm
I have a question, is it possible to make music without putting soul, love and/or anger put into it?

Because almost every musician makes music to their liking, and what they feel, or want people to feel, and no matter how crappy it sounds, it's still putting soul into it.

I know from experience it's very hard to sing and play a song that you have no liking of, therefore you don't put any effort or soul into it, and it's very hard to make it sound good. But I'm not sure about making the music without putting any effort into it, because I always put my soul into my songs.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: BROJ on February 29, 2008, 08:39:45 pm
I have a question, is it possible to make music without putting soul, love and/or anger put into it?
It depends upon your definition of 'making music' and music in general and who/what is making said music. Computers can make random-based music, and since they can't, supposedly, display emotion they *can* make music without emotion and with little effort at all.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: FaustWolf on February 29, 2008, 09:31:20 pm
An interesting point BROJ brings up. I haven't heard any strictly computer-generated music I would consider superior to Yasunori Mitsuda's work though, and I'm sure he puts all kinds of soul and emotion into those masterpieces.

Not only music, but also visual work and writing are imbued with the artist's "soul" -- it doesn't necessarily have to be a spiritual or religious idea, just that spark that inspires humans to try their hand at Creation.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 29, 2008, 09:32:05 pm
Sure; it's possible to technically craft music, poetry, or art without inspiration. In the artist's opinion, it usually produces an inferior result.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on February 29, 2008, 10:38:36 pm
Consciously, yes. Subconsciously, no.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: V_Translanka on March 01, 2008, 05:24:13 am
A lot of art is about the perspectives & perceptions of others, the audience. So, in that way, a soul to a performance can come after it's creation. A community generated soul? OMG! DOES THE COMPENDIUM HAVE A SOUL?!?!
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: FaustWolf on March 01, 2008, 11:43:10 am
Yes. The Compendium has a soul. It is a living, breathing Entity greater than the sum of its parts, and that gives us countless hours of art appreciation, philosophical discussion, and hacking fun. The Compendium...is the embodiment of art. Er, something.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: dan_death on March 01, 2008, 03:57:34 pm
I have a question, is it possible to make music without putting soul, love and/or anger put into it?
It depends upon your definition of 'making music' and music in general and who/what is making said music.

I was talking about making music, as in writing it, and putting time into it.

And I just noticed that you can't really play the blues without putting soul or emotion into it...because that's what blues is based on.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: ZeaLitY on March 01, 2008, 04:13:51 pm
There is no doubt that after playing for 30 years, B.B. King can go through a blues song with a hand tied behind his back while thinking of his stocks and bonds' performance.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: dan_death on March 01, 2008, 04:37:13 pm
B.B. King is cool...so is Muddy Waters, and Robert Johnson the King of the Delta Blues. If only I was experienced enough to play like one of them....practice practice practice...is what everyone is telling me, and have have been for three or four years, and now I'm at a stand still, I practice, but don't improve as much as I used to. Heck, I played better my second year of guitar then now.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: ZeaLitY on March 01, 2008, 09:48:26 pm
Perhaps it's time to raise the stakes by practicing in front of friends and trying to impress them. Like in exercise...if you're in a rut, throw down the gauntlet and find a tasty challenge to sink your teeth into. And if you fail at that challenge...

Instant motivation to unleash the passion of youth and practice until that challenge cowers before you the next time you meet!
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on March 01, 2008, 10:57:11 pm
A lot of art is about the perspectives & perceptions of others, the audience. So, in that way, a soul to a performance can come after it's creation. A community generated soul? OMG! DOES THE COMPENDIUM HAVE A SOUL?!?!
Entity did it.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: dan_death on March 02, 2008, 02:06:35 pm
Perhaps it's time to raise the stakes by practicing in front of friends and trying to impress them. Like in exercise...if you're in a rut, throw down the gauntlet and find a tasty challenge to sink your teeth into. And if you fail at that challenge...

Instant motivation to unleash the passion of youth and practice until that challenge cowers before you the next time you meet!

I've already had five public concerts, and one with a band. It's just that, in this town, nobody likes the music I play, a few people here likes the Beatles and Zeppelin. But I'm not going to change my musical taste for anybody...

Oh and the concert was a lot harder for me, because I'm the singer of the band...and yeah, when I look back on the video I was so out of tune...
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on March 03, 2008, 06:03:33 am
If you feel that what you are creating is mechanical, then it isn't art. Simple as that. (unless you're Andy Warhol, who tried to make his art as mechanical as he could but ended up making it as expressionist as possible).
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: Thought on March 03, 2008, 11:23:24 am
Not only music, but also visual work and writing are imbued with the artist's "soul" -- it doesn't necessarily have to be a spiritual or religious idea, just that spark that inspires humans to try their hand at Creation.

Even artists like Pierre Brassau (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Pierre_Brassau_-_Monkey_Artist/)?

Art seems to be a two-way medium. There is the soul that the artist may or may not put into a particular work, but there is also the soul that the viewer/listener/reader/etc projects onto the work. Thus I would argue that even a soul-less "artists" (a computer, random chance, etc) could make art if, when a being with a soul experienced it, that being was moved.

If a computer played the Moonlight Sonata in the woods, and no one was around, would it still be art?
Yet if a scientist performs immunohistochemistry (http://www.leica-microsystems.com/WebSite/pictures.nsf/(ALLIDs)/5D095236650B4989C12572CA002B5676/$FILE/PhotoContest23_3.26.07_Snapshot_02_sg_b.jpg) on some cells, we might just as well submit the result to a museum as to a science journal.

The mechanical can be art, if the viewer is the one that puts the soul into it.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: dan_death on March 03, 2008, 08:19:07 pm
If you feel that what you are creating is mechanical, then it isn't art. Simple as that. (unless you're Andy Warhol, who tried to make his art as mechanical as he could but ended up making it as expressionist as possible).

What do you mean by mechanical? As in nothing put into it, or how I say it, no "soul"? Well, I know I'm not making any mechanical music. I put my time and heart into it...although I wouldn't mind for better sound quality.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on March 04, 2008, 02:23:13 am
^ = art.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: V_Translanka on March 04, 2008, 02:30:39 am
If you feel that what you are creating is mechanical, then it isn't art. Simple as that. (unless you're Andy Warhol, who tried to make his art as mechanical as he could but ended up making it as expressionist as possible).

Does that idea include practical art like architecture?
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: placidchap on March 04, 2008, 08:12:39 am
I assume BZ meant "going through the motions" when he said mechanical.
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: V_Translanka on March 04, 2008, 08:16:09 am
Um, that's not what it sounds like from that quote...If it said 'when' instead of 'what' & 'it is'...and didn't have that Andy Warhol stuff then, yeah, I could understand where you're coming from placidchap...is there something earlier than that that was said that I missed?
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: placidchap on March 04, 2008, 08:42:26 am
No, I don't think you missed anything V_Trans, he said mechanical and the word mechanical to me, can either have to do with machinery, or have to do with performing/doing something without passion, which is basically "going through the motions".  You are doing it just to do it, not because you love to do it or want to do it.  I don't know what else mechanical could mean?
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: V_Translanka on March 04, 2008, 02:27:48 pm
In this case it seems to me to be more the former i.e. something cold, robotic, repetitive, unemotional, etc.

Where teh hell are you BZ? ANSWER ME!!! :P
Title: Re: no soul
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on March 05, 2008, 03:15:37 am
I'm here, I'm here! What I meant by mechanical was when you create something without putting your values, ideas, concepts of beauty and stuff into it. And it depends one what you mean by architecture. Since only 3% of houses in Australia are designed by 'architects', that implies that the beautiful and kooky ones you see are most likely "art", but the ones that you see which are based on plans and function and stuff aren't art (unless you're a follower of Bauhaus, in which case GTFO)