Is Art Limited?

[Grieve]

Maybe art really is getting limited, apparently we are remaking our 80s cold war propaganda movies as anti-chinese propaganda movies

Despite my complete ideological opposition to everything that movie (the original) stood for, I still freakin' love that flick.

I'm sure this version will be far too PC - they should have brought John Milius back.

(Wow, the original only scored #15 on "The Slamz, Dustie and Thudz Movie Collection list"? Below Ghostbusters? No way! http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q...llY2E3MGM=)

[Jakensama]

Oh yea, its one of my favorite B movies from childhood.

Some of the movies on that list are a bit of a stretch...

[Grieve]

Some of the movies on that list are a bit of a stretch...

Yeah, especially Brazil - I'm sure Terry Gilliam would be tickled pink by that. And Juno kinda ridicules the "Abortion is evil" kid.

Most of the others I can buy, though...The Incredibles, 300, Team America, Narnia, We Were Soldiers, etc. Even LOTR and The Dark Knight.

[Dustie]

The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003): Author J. R. R. Tolkien was deeply conservative, so it’s no surprise that the trilogy of movies based on his masterwork is as well. Largely filmed before 9/11, they seemed perfectly pitched for the post-9/11 world. The debates over what to do about Sauron and Saruman echoed our own disputes over the Iraq War. (Think of Wormtongue as Keith Olbermann.) When Frodo sighs, “I wish none of this had happened,” Gandalf’s response speaks to us, too: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”

hah!

[Grieve]

The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003): Author J. R. R. Tolkien was deeply conservative, so it’s no surprise that the trilogy of movies based on his masterwork is as well. Largely filmed before 9/11, they seemed perfectly pitched for the post-9/11 world. The debates over what to do about Sauron and Saruman echoed our own disputes over the Iraq War. (Think of Wormtongue as Keith Olbermann.) When Frodo sighs, “I wish none of this had happened,” Gandalf’s response speaks to us, too: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”

hah!

Funny, I had Dick Cheney more in my mind for Wormtongue, or possibly Glenn Beck these days. Plus all the heroes (Aragorn, Legolas, every other elf) are all long haired hippies, so I can't see Conservatives getting behind them at all.

[Jakensama]

I thought the latent (or should I say blatent) homosexuality between the Hobbits would have made it not conservative..

[Vllad]

Tupac and the dixie chicks have more in common musically than Bach and Mozart? I disagree. More importantly Bach and Mozart are simply the most well known representatives from their respective classical genres and while they characterize those periods for modern listeners they certainly didn't create their music out of thin air. They were very much influenced by other musicians and the style of the time.

Yes they were influenced, actually Mozart was a big fan of Bach however you couldn't be more wrong about Tupac and the Dixie Chicks vs. Mozart and Bach. They are probably perfect examples of the questions I am asking.

Let me emphasize I am asking the question "Is Art Limited" not making the claim that it is.

Bach vs. Mozart:

Both are apples and oranges. Bach is the premier Baroque period musician and Mozart the the premier Romantic period musician. Bach may be the best writer of keyboard classical music of all time however the Baroque style was not built upon the chaos that the Mozart romantic period is full of.

Bach used multiple key changes to expand a single melody however he never went beyond the mandatory two key changes requirements for Baroque music. Mozart was not limited to fixed key changes and he was not limited by time signature requirements. Mozart could sustain changes over 7/8 to 3/4 time signatures over multiple keys.

To non musicians this is like comparing a automobile cumbustion engine to the jet engine. They both propel an object forward but that is almost all they have in common.


Tupac vs Dixie Chicks:

They both play music solely in a 4/4 time signature, they both play most of there music in a major key using a 1-3-5 chord progression or the occasional 1-4-5 blues progression. All of there compositions follow the same formats. Verse, Pre-chorus, Chorus, rinse and repeat. The most radical thing either of them do is the occasional modulation however the modulations still keep the same progressions.

It doesn't matter if it is Bon Jovi, Tupac or the Dixie Chicks. They all play the same kind of music. The only differences really is Tupac uses just a base and drums (well drum machine to be more accurate), Bon Jovi adds guitars and the Dixie Chicks add a fiddle or slide guitar.

If Mozart is the Jet Engine and Bach is the 72 Cuda Hemi, then Tupac/Dixie Chicks are the pink Schwinn bicycle with the pink streamers coming out of the handle bars.



Let me put this in a gaming term.

Bach and Mozart is like comparing EQ and WWII online. Yes they are both MMO's that we play on our computers but that is pretty much where the comparison ends.

Tupac and Dixie Chicks is like comparing EQ vs. an EQ only with WoW types of Avatars. If you dropped the WoW avatars into the old EQ game it would look totally different but it is still EQ. You could give Freeport or Oggok a face lift but the game is still essentially the same. People may enjoy the face lift but it is still EQ.

The premise of what I am asking is do Art Mediums play themselves out and does man only have so many artistic ideas?
Is the world of movies just putting out more EQ's only just spicing up Freeport? Is the world of photography just putting out more EQ's only with a new and fresh Oggok?


Vllad

[Jakensama]

That example misses the point that Tupac's songs were distinguished lyrically, not off what notes the music were in. Also the production on them was not just with base and drum but with sampling and other effects. Its a fundamentally different kind of music than either the dixie chicks or Bach of Mozart.

I am a fan of every music genre other than metal (and pop music or nashville country), and they is vast variation in between all of them. To compare two drastically different sounds as pop country and mid 90s hip hop as the same because they are not as technically complex on as classical compositions is just silly. You can certainly be of the opinoins that the classical compositions are a higher class/more refined taste than the former, but to say the others are the same is silly (and also ignoring that lyrics are as much a part of music as an instrument).

In fact, when you claim that Tupac 'plays music' you belie the underlying point of a large cross section of hip hop, where the music is pretty much background noise to accompany the main point - lyrics, compared to the dixie chicks who are (nominally) musicians who play instruments. To non hip hop fans this is like comparing a automobile cumbustion engine to the jet engine. They both propel an object forward but that is almost all they have in common.

(Also amusing that in your 'what the kids are listening to' choices you picked "Bon Jovi, Tupac or the Dixie Chicks", since the former was last popular in the late 80s when young guns 2 came out, the seconds been dead for a decade and the third hasn't been relevant since they were in the news about criticizing bush

[Vllad]

Vllad, your opinions are based on what you personally see and not other people's reality. You are what a 40 something parent in a non-urban area? What access or interest do you have in what is considered art beyond what is commercially available to you?

I am not sure what relevance this has but working in the transportation industry plus the militar I have lived in 5 countries 13 cities and 7 different US states in the last 30 years. Starting with Los Angeles where I grew up and now in Buffalo. I certainly have seen more then the average person.

[color=#FF0000]I completely disagree. Electronic music didnt exist in the past 50 years. Electric guitar revolutionized music. Sythesizers have changed music. Your previous examples in your previous thread represent commercial music only. There is plenty of amazing, unique artists out there that exist outside the mainstream

It didn't revolutionize music. Nothing has revolutionized it in 200 years.

It revolutionized the venues of how the common person views musical events and the cost associated with those events but the music itself hasn't changed at all. It certainly has changed how things sounds, but the music itself is still the same. A 1-4-5 chord progression played on a piano, acustic guitar or an electric guitar is still a 1-4-5 chord progression. They all have there unique sounds but it is still all the same music.

Please see my EQ with new avatars example with Hoof.

That's where we'd have to disagree. I think the way David Lynch tells stories is entirely original. Where have you ever seen something like Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive before? Same for Miyazaki and Almodovar. I also can't recall ever seeing anything quite like Pan's Labyrinth or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. There is plenty of originality out there, you just have to go looking for it.

Yea I have seen those movies before.

Mulholland Drive- Sunset Blvd or Vanilla Sky
Blue Velvet- Shadow of Doubt, About 6 Alfred Hitchcock films.

I might go with you that Lynch is original but Lynch is also a horrible film maker. He creates shit for 4 hour movies that get butchered to 2 and then you can't understand them. Plus who could ever forgive Dune. Lynch is a perfect example of what I am talking about. IF we run out of idea's is all we get for originality the David Lynch's of the world?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- Xfiles did an episode on this very story. Frank Capra did a film on this about Twins (I will have to look up the name) Twins seperated at birth later find each other as best friends even though they didn't know they were twins. Hell even Jackie Chan did a movie like this.

We can keep going but the question I am asking is:

Can you make a movie today that hasn't already been made? Does man kind have a limited imagination?


Vllad

[Jakensama]

If you have such a strict interpretation of originality, than no there will be no such thing, since the whole concept of human knowledge is that it builds upon what came before it, its why in literary criticism you are taught the basic archetypes which you can find in any form of human storytelling.

[Hoofhurr]

I don't think you can boil art down and paste it into a mathematical equation and expect much of anything to be original. The art is in everything that evaporated.

[Vllad]

That example misses the point that Tupac's songs were distinguished lyrically, not off what notes the music were in. Also the production on them was not just with base and drum but with sampling and other effects. Its a fundamentally different kind of music than either the dixie chicks or Bach of Mozart.

Lyrics are irrelevant to the discusssion of music. Maybe you can put it in the "Poetry" catagory but not the music catagory. This discussion was specific to music. When talking about Music think of it as listening to all songs with out any singer or just the singer singing the melody used over the music. Lyrical content is irrelevant. Remove the singer/rapper and now you are down to the music.

How are Tupac tracks fundamentally different then the Dixie Chicks?

I am a fan of every music genre other than metal (and pop music or nashville country), and they is vast variation in between all of them. To compare two drastically different sounds as pop country and mid 90s hip hop as the same because they are not as technically complex on as classical compositions is just silly.

Different sounds is irrelevant to music. Just like my earlier discription to Breand. You can play a 1-4-5 chord progression with acoustic guitar, sax or piano and they all sound different. The music is still a 1-4-5 chord progression.

How does Metal and Pop have vast variations between them musically?

To compare two drastically different sounds as pop country and mid 90s hip hop as the same because they are not as technically complex on as classical compositions is just silly.

You miss the point. I am not saying they are the same because they are overly simple musically. I am saying they are the same because they are the same.
It is as factual as saying 2 plus 2 equals 4. Music is entirely mathematical and it is just that simple.

(and also ignoring that lyrics are as much a part of music as an instrument).

Lyrics are not part of the music. The melody is. There are rules in music that must be strictly adhered to. 2 plus 2 always equals 4. Lyrics are poetry and can be interchanged with in music with out any consequence. The melody (the muscial part of singing) on the other hand can not. You can put in what ever words you want but the melody must stick with in its structure.

For example:

Sing the words from "Row Row Row your Boat" in the key of C Major. Now change those words to anything you like. Lets call it, "Kill Kill Kill your Mom". As long as you sing it in the key of C Major you now have a new hit.

Now Sing your new hit in the key of C Major while the accompaning instruments play in the key of D Minor and you now have people putting there hands to there ears.


Vllad

[Breand]

I just dunno what you are looking for with music originality. The examples you pose make it impossible for originality without changing the definition of music, which is creating pitch and/or ryhthm out of sound. There is plenty of music that doesnt use chord progressions, African drum circles for one.

[Vllad]

I just dunno what you are looking for with music originality.

Well in my defenese I was the one to say using music was a bad example. Music is to mathematical and black and white to have an artistic discussion on. I was the one who said Music isn't art, it is math.


Vllad

[Breand]

meh. I dunno calling all music math is like saying there's no difference between Joe Satriani playing a guitar and Bo Diddley.

[Hoofhurr]

Yeah I guess I don't see the point of playing music if solving a proof gives the same satisfaction. Music has emotional component for me that isn't mathematically derived. That being said I have to wonder if human emotion has its own limited range which might really limit originality.

[Vllad]

meh. I dunno calling all music math is like saying there's no difference between Joe Satriani playing a guitar and Bo Diddley.

There is no difference musically. If they are playing the 1-4-5 blues progression they are playing the same exact thing. One player may be able to physically do something the other can not because of the base talent difference but everything else is essentially the same.

Yeah I guess I don't see the point of playing music if solving a proof gives the same satisfaction. Music has emotional component for me that isn't mathematically derived. That being said I have to wonder if human emotion has its own limited range which might really limit originality.

Exactly. That is the same question I am asking just with a slight variation.

You are incorrect that music is capable of creating an emotional response and be completely mathematically derived. Emotions can be created by music but can be perfectly explained by the math used to create them.

For example:

Play a 3 chord progression in a minor key. It is automattically sad and will spark sad emotions. Write the same progression in a major key and it would be happy. This all by changing the third note in the octive from a Major third to a Minor Third (basically a half town downward). Sad or evil songs are in minor keys, happy ones in major keys. (Generally speaking).

This is how the music industry today uses certain pre-formulated things in order to spark emotiongs.

For example:

Modulation. Take Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer" or any Maria Carrey/Beyonce song. When the song is repeating the chorus at the end of the song they modulate the chorus up one key. Say from C to D in order to give the elusion that the song actually kicks into another gear. Actually all they are doing is a simple modulation from one key to another. The chord progression stay's exactly the same they just play it in another key.

This elusion creates a listener to think it actually gets faster but in reality it doesn't.

With out taking your own personal nostalgia or pyschy into account any good musician knows exactly how to spark emotions by playing a certain way. They can repeat it everytime and achieve the same results.




Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

Hmm. Interesting points. Could music make a person who has no sad experiences in life feel sad? Or is music's capacity to evoke emotion intimately linked to a person's range of prior emotional experiences and their body chemistry?

I think I still disagree with you that we've run the well dry on original music. I agree that mathematically there are only so many combinations of notes, timing, and rhythm, but I think how you present the music and how you play it can contribute to what I call 'originality' and it's very hard to quantify emotional response to music. Let's face it, two completely different artists could play a minor chord progression and evoke a wide range of intense responses that one might call sadness. What your equation doesn't take into account are things like the timbre and harmonics that are unique to every voice and instrument.

Let's move to comedy as an artform. The way a person tells a joke is 99% of what makes us laugh, imo. So is the originality in the 1% that is the scripted sequence of words or is it in the 99% that is the interpretation and delivery?

[Slamz]

I think we have to look at the rules of music similar to the rules of grammar.

Books are written using a system of rules. You have a very limited set of letters to print and how they can be printed is defined with rules of grammar. You can teach a computer these rules but you can't get it to invent a story.

Similarly, you can teach a computer about the rules of music and it can actually compose music, but it can't use music to tell you a story. It doesn't have a story. It just has rules.

I think that's the human connection, and that's the art. Music has rules. Writing has rules. What makes it art isn't knowing those rules but rather, how to use those rules to tell a story. Storytelling is an art. Everything else is just a medium for storytelling.

I would suggest the same is true of, say, paintings. The best paintings have something to say. You could easily get a computer to deliver a technically good painting (and you probably already have a printer capable of this) but while the computer understands the rules of how to apply ink to paper to deliver a requested image, it doesn't know how to tell you a story. For that, you need an artist to paint something in particular. Is painting limited? Well sure. You have paints and canvas and there's only so many exciting things you can do with that, but the point isn't the technical implementation of painting -- the point is the story, and understanding how to use the technical abilities of a medium to get your story across.

If your story was "there is a guy on a horse riding across the desert carrying a mop" you could deliver that story in music, painting, poem, photography, etc. Each of those outlets has its own rules and limitations (in the case of poetry, the rules and limitations are intentionally invented and self-imposed). So I don't think the limitations of the medium are all that important to the question at hand.

The real question is whether or not storytelling is limited. If we have run out of stories to tell then it doesn't matter what your medium is.

I have a hard time believing we could have run out of stories, though. There are always more stories to tell, or better ways to tell old stories. Yes, the medium of art is always limited, but the art of storytelling is limitless.

[Hoofhurr]

An interesting accompaniment to this thread is a company that has designed algorithmic software to rate whether your song will be a hit or not. Might be able to google it but I heard about it on the radio last week. Apparently they've applied this software to many past hit music singles and have good fidelity. This lends some credibility to Vllad's argument although the counter argument might be that what the masses buy into and make hits out of probably isn't that original.

I don't often give the opposing viewpoint ammunition but here you go Vllad.

October 12, 2009 - Many of us like to believe that there's a little magic behind the making of a hit single. Take a song like "I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas. That's a good song, judging by sales: It's on top of the Billboard pop chart. David Meredith, CEO of Music Intelligence Solutions, says there's no magic in that; it's math. His software, called Hit Song Science, gave the song a hit score of 8.9 out 10.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113673324">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =113673324</a><!-- m -->

[Breand]

the funny thing is I Gotta Feeling might be the worst and unimaginative song ever written =)

In any event, I dont know enough about the creation of music to make a counter argument. I will say Radiohead stopped using chord progressions a long time ago. Maybe they are my one band that can defend the art of music.

[Slamz]

I was also thinking that when it comes to popular music, art usually isn't the point - entertainment is. That is, the musician isn't trying to do something new and exciting in the field of his art, he's trying to entertain his audience. For a lot of music, this means you can dance to it or sing to it. Familiarity is actually an important part of it. Groups that are known for being very good on a technical level rarely make top 10 hits because that's not what audiences are looking for.

You could possibly apply this to current MMO design as well. The people love WOW, so game companies keep trying to give them more WOW. I, however, feel like MMO PvP is the dawn of rock and roll and I'm having a hard time convincing anyone that, no, the kids will love this stuff, and the first one to produce it and get it out there is going to be big. Huge. Bigger than Elvis! It's not the technical expertise of the thing that starts a new trend -- rock and roll didn't become popular because it was "artsy". It was just a new flavor, and it turned out people liked it even better than the previous flavor.

[Vllad]

Hmm. Interesting points. Could music make a person who has no sad experiences in life feel sad? Or is music's capacity to evoke emotion intimately linked to a person's range of prior emotional experiences and their body chemistry?

Great question. I wonder how much of it is human programing. In today's world you associate music with pictures going back to Fantasia. Tocata and Fugue in D minor is played over every hollowween commercial so... That music inspires evil.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1z12_Ps-gk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1z12_Ps-gk</a><!-- m -->

The same goes back to Opera's from Mozart. Television isn't the only culpret here. People might be pre-programmed to spark the emotion based on assosiation and continued repeating of the same formula's.

This brings me back to the original question then. If these emotions are sparked by repeated use and association. Is this because we lack original idea's?

the funny thing is I Gotta Feeling might be the worst and unimaginative song ever written =)

In any event, I dont know enough about the creation of music to make a counter argument. I will say Radiohead stopped using chord progressions a long time ago. Maybe they are my one band that can defend the art of music.

Great point Breand.

I agree many people stopped using chord progressions in the 90's and now use repeated riffs instead. Music is de-evolving not evolving in the popular sect. In order to be different Marilyn Manson (sp) doesn't use chord progressions but the repeated use of a single riff. Unique but extremely simple. Hip, Hop does the same thing.

Has paintings and other mediums moved in the same direction? De-evolving the older the medium gets? What is next in music? Holding a single note for 3.5 minutes? Have movies begun to simplify in order to be original? What is the next big thing. The Three Stooges?

I was also thinking that when it comes to popular music, art usually isn't the point - entertainment is.

Another great point. As entertainment goes that brings in a whole different slew of things that distorts things like Music. In that sense like Hoof linked, music has become like MMO's. There is a formula to writing successful hits. Follow that formula and you will increase your chances of succeeding. This goes all the way back to before Motown.

The other problem with production cost and formula writing in the music world is the record company corruption of music. Record companies do many things to fuck music up but that is another subject altogether.

In the days of Mozart he was faced with the same challeges. They had to follow certain rules in order to be considered hits. If they didn't follow them it was difficult for the public to hear your music and therefore make money.

Money and original idea's don't mix in any medium.

You other post I totally agree with. If you look historically though at other mediums are you sure we have an unlimited amount of stories?


Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

You other post I totally agree with. If you look historically though at other mediums are you sure we have an unlimited amount of stories?
Vllad

Interesting. Have human beings experienced, as a race, everything that humans can possibly experience, ever? New experiences lead to new stories and upon those new experiences we can build fictitious extrapolations. It's hard for me to believe we've exhausted every experience expressed through every medium.

[Slamz]

I think we'll always have new stories because we keep having new ideas. Our heads have always been bigger than the universe we know about, and the universe we know about keeps expanding. Culture keeps changing too, which is going to influence what stories we can think of.

Suppose you were an alien race and you came to earth. You find we have all this art and all these stories. You quickly store them all in your computers and neatly catalog them. Since you are really only interested in art, do you:
a) Destroy the earth to make way for your new super highway, having decided that we have already done everything we are ever going to do, artistically, and therefore we have no future value to the universe.
or
b) Keep us intact to see what new art or stories we might come up with next, because it's immediately apparent that we have a great ability to think outside of the bounds of the universe.

I'd go with "b".

For now.

I think there are a lot of stories we haven't even dreamed of yet.