Interestingly finding myself engaged in a bit of self criticism for some of the music that I've been working on. Compelled for a few reasons, but mostly it comes to mind that in recent times, I've spent a little time focusing on other things in writing, and then I've delved for a number of months working on music stuffs, and at a glance, it seems at times there is hardly a conscious segway between the two, or at least at times more momentary writing between the two landscapes seem completely disparate, or at least this seems more deliberative on my part.
Firstly it seems the approach are different, at least in terms of formalism, there is a difference in fluency here between the two. If you find yourself difficult at expressing yourself in terms of words, then it seems the way that you'd express yourself should seem the nature of one's expression would could seem limited? I hadn't written any fictional works by the way in a while, or I've a sense of not knowing what exactly I should write if I did it. If I started, generally, it seems like on the premise of something simple, and then I am not sure where the writings itself would lead by convention. Then if you asked me to write several hundred pages about horses or horse racing, I might flee from the subject quickly. Should we know how to write about these things even if we hadn't related? I know this is a much delved into subject matter in any event for fiction, and the artfulness in writing were finding a signature in writing about this. Maybe not exactly about horses, about the characters, about something...people may not have originally related, and then you end up with the Black Stallion, a whole story about the land from where the horse came from, and then the writer delves into historical fiction, wild horses on the steppes or something like this, but I feel guilty at this point, I'd need to research more, need to find out more information about the nature of the landscape, travel there..
I am fascinated now working in music now, not because I consider myself so much of an expert, or that I am sure of what I set about attempting to do here clearly.
Striking to me that how music in some ways differs from other art mediums in our present age. I find myself dwelling on this criticism I heard echoed recently regarding an NPR segment on a recent jazz artist working on a compilation of tunes in varying disciplines. In many ways I find myself in a similar position, albeit working from a different perspective. Namely, spending a lot of time studying sound in general. Trying to reproduce in some ways on the basis of style, but using an old hand of mine in creating sound packages themselves. Here and there, I use already created samples, but I reproduce much also on my own in terms of sound synthesis, neither working necessarily from rotely created short segments (a couple of tunes were more predominantly this way), but a number weren't. Its not exactly as easy as it sounds either, or at least seems that way to me. A lot of sounds, seem in some way coarse to me at first, but then finding myself working to shape them into something different. I found myself asking myself on this critical convention here, at least by way of the convention that seems inevitable...it seems like its there from the standpoint of the abiding package. In the way that we are expressing ourselves...so much that it seems that we would produce according to the convention that we are driven. Then it occurred to me, how diverse is the landscape of music in terms of convention from composition to composition. Overall, one weren't prevented from compiling works, and then if this were presented in the format of 'music for film', we would be more inclined to accept the diverse landscape that were entailed. We might not think as critically of the artist attempting any number of disciplines here, but should I be so concerned if Classical opera singers delved into popular music crossovers? It seems a double standard in a way, and who exactly criticizes these days. At times, I've turned to listen to self published works. Of course, like myself, it seems production sensibilities could be varied at times here, and I wonder exactly how much standard exists in terms of judging works for the sheer sake of this alone? I hear the words, "Where is it soul?" And that seems a difficulty in its own right. Not sure that I feel comfortable in saying this, other then on the point of self criticism. It seems more easy in saying and not relating so much on a point of criticism. There must be an art even to something of landscape, wandering, and abstraction?!
Months now in passing, I've tired of reading technical books much, or attempting some self study, and then I've managed to feel good in a way, not because I were professional, or engaged in something overly critical by what I've done, or more so it seems like a good humor that I've had. Leads me to the day that I hadn't known in expecting.
Firstly it seems the approach are different, at least in terms of formalism, there is a difference in fluency here between the two. If you find yourself difficult at expressing yourself in terms of words, then it seems the way that you'd express yourself should seem the nature of one's expression would could seem limited? I hadn't written any fictional works by the way in a while, or I've a sense of not knowing what exactly I should write if I did it. If I started, generally, it seems like on the premise of something simple, and then I am not sure where the writings itself would lead by convention. Then if you asked me to write several hundred pages about horses or horse racing, I might flee from the subject quickly. Should we know how to write about these things even if we hadn't related? I know this is a much delved into subject matter in any event for fiction, and the artfulness in writing were finding a signature in writing about this. Maybe not exactly about horses, about the characters, about something...people may not have originally related, and then you end up with the Black Stallion, a whole story about the land from where the horse came from, and then the writer delves into historical fiction, wild horses on the steppes or something like this, but I feel guilty at this point, I'd need to research more, need to find out more information about the nature of the landscape, travel there..
I am fascinated now working in music now, not because I consider myself so much of an expert, or that I am sure of what I set about attempting to do here clearly.
Striking to me that how music in some ways differs from other art mediums in our present age. I find myself dwelling on this criticism I heard echoed recently regarding an NPR segment on a recent jazz artist working on a compilation of tunes in varying disciplines. In many ways I find myself in a similar position, albeit working from a different perspective. Namely, spending a lot of time studying sound in general. Trying to reproduce in some ways on the basis of style, but using an old hand of mine in creating sound packages themselves. Here and there, I use already created samples, but I reproduce much also on my own in terms of sound synthesis, neither working necessarily from rotely created short segments (a couple of tunes were more predominantly this way), but a number weren't. Its not exactly as easy as it sounds either, or at least seems that way to me. A lot of sounds, seem in some way coarse to me at first, but then finding myself working to shape them into something different. I found myself asking myself on this critical convention here, at least by way of the convention that seems inevitable...it seems like its there from the standpoint of the abiding package. In the way that we are expressing ourselves...so much that it seems that we would produce according to the convention that we are driven. Then it occurred to me, how diverse is the landscape of music in terms of convention from composition to composition. Overall, one weren't prevented from compiling works, and then if this were presented in the format of 'music for film', we would be more inclined to accept the diverse landscape that were entailed. We might not think as critically of the artist attempting any number of disciplines here, but should I be so concerned if Classical opera singers delved into popular music crossovers? It seems a double standard in a way, and who exactly criticizes these days. At times, I've turned to listen to self published works. Of course, like myself, it seems production sensibilities could be varied at times here, and I wonder exactly how much standard exists in terms of judging works for the sheer sake of this alone? I hear the words, "Where is it soul?" And that seems a difficulty in its own right. Not sure that I feel comfortable in saying this, other then on the point of self criticism. It seems more easy in saying and not relating so much on a point of criticism. There must be an art even to something of landscape, wandering, and abstraction?!
Months now in passing, I've tired of reading technical books much, or attempting some self study, and then I've managed to feel good in a way, not because I were professional, or engaged in something overly critical by what I've done, or more so it seems like a good humor that I've had. Leads me to the day that I hadn't known in expecting.
No comments:
Post a Comment