With the Grammy's coming up in a few weeks, I have to weigh in with my thoughts on it all. And in a world where things are being shortened, from 140-character tweets to text messaging concatenations like "bff", I've got to do some shortening of my own that makes total sense...in the context of the "music business" remove the middle 6 letters from "business" and you get "bs". That's what the music business is. BS.
The Grammy's are not about "good music". The Grammy's are about good "music business". There's a world of difference between the two. Measuring music by how much it sells makes about as much sense as measuring the quality of food by it's sales. I don't think any of us would consider the Big Mac the best hamburger in the world. But based only on sales, not taste, it'd be the champ. So why do we use this kind of "popular" label as a measure of the quality of music? Lady Gaga is like the Big Mac. It may sell well, but it doesn't mean it's the "best".
This doesn't mean that "best selling" and "popular" music don't have a place in our society. They obviously do. But let's be honest about it all. Best selling does not mean best.
So what truly is the best in terms of music? There's no such thing. It doesn't matter. Best for me is not best for you. And that's the beauty of music. Music is not a competition. There should never be an Olympic sport in the various genres of music. Why does music need this thing called the Grammy's? How does competition fit into this? It doesn't. And, that should shed some light on exactly why the Grammy's are about "music business" not "music".
I've had a very successful music career. One of the interesting side notes along the way was a band audition for a record contract with a record company executive in Nashville. We were an acoustic band, so we actually took our instruments into this record exec's office and auditioned playing in front of him as he sat at his desk, with two Grammy's sitting behind him on the shelf.
We played 5 songs, then stopped to get the verdict. What he said will always stay with me. "I can totally see you guys on my record label." We thought we'd won. But then the "business" side of the "music business" kicked in. His next question? "When you play out locally here in town (Nashville), how many people show up?" We responded with the number 500. He said, "Call me back when it gets to 700."
Really? The music is good enough, but the economics aren't there? Yep. Not a bad business decision, I have to admit. He knew where his break even point was in terms of an audience that was ready to buy a product he put on the market. He knew good music business. He also knew good music. But the two don't always jive.
Again, that's okay. Let's not confuse the music business with music. Good music is NOT synonymous with good music business.
So let's switch gears. With that perspective on music vs. music business, how are you going to approach the Grammy's this year? What does "best song" mean to you? ...as opposed to what the "best song" means to the music business?
Do you know what the best song truly is? The best song is that one you make up on your own that totally connects with your soul. No sales required. No competition. No gold medals. No stupid golden statued Grammy.
Get real people. Music is not about the Grammy's. Music is about what makes your soul sing. No golden statue required to prove it's worth. The worth is the smile on your face. Do your own thing. Rock on people!
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Space - The Final Frontier
When most people think about writing music and/or words, they usually think about the content and filling the audible spectrum with this. Rarely do they think about its opposite....space or silence. But there's something called "groove" that most of us really enjoy in music and words. And ironically, it's usually the space or silence that sets up this groove.
Adding space (or silence) is actually one of my favorite song writing techniques. When I come up with a sweet riff, either verbally or on guitar, my first editing reaction is usually "how do I improve this?" As a young artist, my first reaction was of the form "What can I add to make this better?" But as the wisdom of age sets in on this artist, I realize that the focus of "adding something" is totally wrong. What makes something groove is the space. So now, when I'm trying to improve something artistically, I don't think about what to add. I think of what to remove. When you remove, you reveal the groove.
This especially comes into play when I improvise on guitar. The normal reaction for most lead guitar players is to "play fast in the scale". And when you hear most guitar solos, they are usually constant blitzes of notes that come off like a 30 second chance for the artist to show off. Rarely do guitar solos take the song to a new place. And I think it's lack of space, or the willingness of most lead guitar players to let their lines slow down and breathe, that is the usual cause.
In the realm of words, the same ego concept exists. The spoken word artist usually spews a string of words without time for the listener to reflect, just like that ego-fueled lead guitarist. The work comes off as if it's all about the artist, and not about the art.
Let me make an obvious connection to daily lives. What do you prefer? Constant motion? Or a little bit of silence here and there to reflect?
I don't think I need to hammer this concept home any further.
I think you get it.
Take the same approach with your artwork.
Give it some space.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Adding space (or silence) is actually one of my favorite song writing techniques. When I come up with a sweet riff, either verbally or on guitar, my first editing reaction is usually "how do I improve this?" As a young artist, my first reaction was of the form "What can I add to make this better?" But as the wisdom of age sets in on this artist, I realize that the focus of "adding something" is totally wrong. What makes something groove is the space. So now, when I'm trying to improve something artistically, I don't think about what to add. I think of what to remove. When you remove, you reveal the groove.
This especially comes into play when I improvise on guitar. The normal reaction for most lead guitar players is to "play fast in the scale". And when you hear most guitar solos, they are usually constant blitzes of notes that come off like a 30 second chance for the artist to show off. Rarely do guitar solos take the song to a new place. And I think it's lack of space, or the willingness of most lead guitar players to let their lines slow down and breathe, that is the usual cause.
In the realm of words, the same ego concept exists. The spoken word artist usually spews a string of words without time for the listener to reflect, just like that ego-fueled lead guitarist. The work comes off as if it's all about the artist, and not about the art.
Let me make an obvious connection to daily lives. What do you prefer? Constant motion? Or a little bit of silence here and there to reflect?
I don't think I need to hammer this concept home any further.
I think you get it.
Take the same approach with your artwork.
Give it some space.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Rhythm Guitar Improvisation as Song Writing
I'm one of those weird guitar players, the kind who prefers rhythm guitar over lead guitar. It’s not that I can’t play lead. I know my scales backwards and forwards. And some of my most treasured live and studio moments involve lead guitar. But that’s not where my heart is.
It’s probably because I’m more than just a “guitar player”. Some of my highest achievements in music came during my time in Nashville as a bass player (an upright bass player). And although I primarily consider myself a guitar player, I’m also a drummer, a song writer, a lyricist, and a vocalist. So I tend to view everything from a more centric position than most guitar players. I tend to see every instrument for its role in the song, a single piece of the entire puzzle. Whatever instrument I’m playing, I like to find its place in the song, and maximize that instrument’s contribution to the entire work of sonic art.
And I think that’s why I prefer rhythm guitar. It has a more prominent role in the song as a whole. The lead guitar only adds embellishments here and there. Of course there’s the occasional (sometimes it’s not “occasional” as much as “obligatory”) guitar solo. But I despise the “show off” guitar solos. In my mind, and from my position as a “centric” guitar player and musician, I always want to see a lead guitar part actually take the SONG someplace, not just take the lead guitar player’s ego someplace. But that “someplace” for a lead guitarist is usually 30 seconds or less. But the rhythm guitar plays a role in the song’s evolution throughout most of its existence. So in terms of the view of guitar’s role in the song as a whole, it’s usually the rhythm guitar that’s more important.
What does this have to do with improvisation? It goes back to lead vs. rhythm guitar. Most guitar players learn to use improvisation in the context of lead guitar. But what about improvisation in terms of rhythm guitar? In my experience over the years in bands and as a music teacher, guitarists rarely think about improvisation from the perspective of a rhythm guitarist.
The obvious question is “Why?” Why would one even think of improvising on rhythm guitar? In a live situation it would create havoc. How could the rest of the band follow an improvised chord structure? But that’s not the appropriate place for “rhythm guitar improvisation”. The appropriate place for rhythm guitar improvisation is in the context of song writing.
What is song writing? At its core, from a purely music (not vocal or lyric) perspective, it is the creation of new musical concepts, primarily a chord structure with melody. Improvisation on lead guitar is synonymous with spontaneous creation of melody. And where the improvisation on rhythm guitar comes into the picture is in the spontaneous creation of those chord structures. And that’s the role of improvisation on rhythm guitar: spontaneous creation not only of the chord structures, but also the underlying rhythmic pattern that drives them.
When I pick up a guitar to write a new song, It’s obvious to me. Song writing at it’s core is improvisation on rhythm guitar.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
It’s probably because I’m more than just a “guitar player”. Some of my highest achievements in music came during my time in Nashville as a bass player (an upright bass player). And although I primarily consider myself a guitar player, I’m also a drummer, a song writer, a lyricist, and a vocalist. So I tend to view everything from a more centric position than most guitar players. I tend to see every instrument for its role in the song, a single piece of the entire puzzle. Whatever instrument I’m playing, I like to find its place in the song, and maximize that instrument’s contribution to the entire work of sonic art.
And I think that’s why I prefer rhythm guitar. It has a more prominent role in the song as a whole. The lead guitar only adds embellishments here and there. Of course there’s the occasional (sometimes it’s not “occasional” as much as “obligatory”) guitar solo. But I despise the “show off” guitar solos. In my mind, and from my position as a “centric” guitar player and musician, I always want to see a lead guitar part actually take the SONG someplace, not just take the lead guitar player’s ego someplace. But that “someplace” for a lead guitarist is usually 30 seconds or less. But the rhythm guitar plays a role in the song’s evolution throughout most of its existence. So in terms of the view of guitar’s role in the song as a whole, it’s usually the rhythm guitar that’s more important.
What does this have to do with improvisation? It goes back to lead vs. rhythm guitar. Most guitar players learn to use improvisation in the context of lead guitar. But what about improvisation in terms of rhythm guitar? In my experience over the years in bands and as a music teacher, guitarists rarely think about improvisation from the perspective of a rhythm guitarist.
The obvious question is “Why?” Why would one even think of improvising on rhythm guitar? In a live situation it would create havoc. How could the rest of the band follow an improvised chord structure? But that’s not the appropriate place for “rhythm guitar improvisation”. The appropriate place for rhythm guitar improvisation is in the context of song writing.
What is song writing? At its core, from a purely music (not vocal or lyric) perspective, it is the creation of new musical concepts, primarily a chord structure with melody. Improvisation on lead guitar is synonymous with spontaneous creation of melody. And where the improvisation on rhythm guitar comes into the picture is in the spontaneous creation of those chord structures. And that’s the role of improvisation on rhythm guitar: spontaneous creation not only of the chord structures, but also the underlying rhythmic pattern that drives them.
When I pick up a guitar to write a new song, It’s obvious to me. Song writing at it’s core is improvisation on rhythm guitar.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Music Creativity - A Simple Analysis
Recently I took a look at a popular rock album from long ago, Led Zeppelin's debut album, and also a rock album from more current times, Nickelback's "Dark Horse", and I compared them on a simple attribute: song length. The only reason I picked these two albums, is because they both came up in a random conversation, and they are both best selling rock acts of their time.
What grabbed my attention, as I held one CD in each hand from different eras of rock, was the fact that the 11 songs on Nickelback's "Dark Horse" range in length from 3:28 to 4:34. On the other hand, the Led Zeppelin album contains 9 songs that range in length from 2:13 to 8:28. Here's graph of the distribution of relative song lengths on these two popular rock albums from different eras.
This was a shocking revelation to me. Although this is far from a scientific analysis of how rock song lengths have varied over the years, it is still insightful. And, to me, it's an important indicator of how creative (or not) the two bands are in their song compositions.
This simple analysis begs the questions....how creative is the music you listen to (or write)? How many things stay the same, from song to song to song? How much is your music taste (from the standpoint of a listener or a song writer) locked in to the "same old same old"?
In this analysis, I measure one attribute: song length. There are many attributes of songs. But how many aspects of your songs are the same? The same style? The same verse/chorus/verse/chorus formula? The same key? The same tempo? The same 4/4 pattern?
I took a brief look at two representative albums and at one single aspect of their respective songs, the length. Obviously, songs can be measured on many different levels. Song length is just one of them. There are obviously many other important aspects of music. Hopefully, you'll start thinking about all the other aspects of music, too. Creativity is all about breaking boundaries, exploring new territory. It's not about doing the same old, same old. If you're listening to (or writing) songs of a similar length, then you've got your music blinders on. Open up. Think beyond the typical song structures. Don't get trapped in the same old, same old. Think beyond the boundaries.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
What grabbed my attention, as I held one CD in each hand from different eras of rock, was the fact that the 11 songs on Nickelback's "Dark Horse" range in length from 3:28 to 4:34. On the other hand, the Led Zeppelin album contains 9 songs that range in length from 2:13 to 8:28. Here's graph of the distribution of relative song lengths on these two popular rock albums from different eras.
This was a shocking revelation to me. Although this is far from a scientific analysis of how rock song lengths have varied over the years, it is still insightful. And, to me, it's an important indicator of how creative (or not) the two bands are in their song compositions.
This simple analysis begs the questions....how creative is the music you listen to (or write)? How many things stay the same, from song to song to song? How much is your music taste (from the standpoint of a listener or a song writer) locked in to the "same old same old"?
In this analysis, I measure one attribute: song length. There are many attributes of songs. But how many aspects of your songs are the same? The same style? The same verse/chorus/verse/chorus formula? The same key? The same tempo? The same 4/4 pattern?
I took a brief look at two representative albums and at one single aspect of their respective songs, the length. Obviously, songs can be measured on many different levels. Song length is just one of them. There are obviously many other important aspects of music. Hopefully, you'll start thinking about all the other aspects of music, too. Creativity is all about breaking boundaries, exploring new territory. It's not about doing the same old, same old. If you're listening to (or writing) songs of a similar length, then you've got your music blinders on. Open up. Think beyond the typical song structures. Don't get trapped in the same old, same old. Think beyond the boundaries.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Song DNA?
Simon Hooper of CNN published an interesting article this morning, titled "Scientists study DNA of perfect pop song". The article describes research into “sticky music” (or “ear worms”) in other words songs that are likely to get stuck in your head.
The research is fascinating from a couple of different angles. One aspect concerns how the brain processes music. But another angle of the research is aimed at being able to pinpoint the characteristics of a particular song that are likely to make it “sticky music”. The research, being conducted at the University of London, has produced findings that suggest “stickiness results from a particular balance of certain pitch intervals and particular rhythmic structures.” But the research goes further than this, quantifying that statement to the point that the researchers can predict with 75% accuracy whether a song is likely to be an ear worm or not.
As a song writer, a musician, and an avid music consumer, I am fascinated by these results. What does this all mean? I have great hopes and great fears about this evolving ability to identify the characteristics of a song that will make it “sticky” to the listener. In the next few paragraphs, I’ll address both my fears and my hopes for this new frontier of music technology.
My fears center around the music business that is already way too concerned with music as a business as opposed to music as an art form. As the title of the CNN article implies, if scientists can figure out the “DNA” of the perfect pop song, then we can expect decades of songs tailored to sell to the masses, tailored to get stuck in our heads. The downside is probably obvious. How many times do you enjoy those ear worms that get stuck in your head? For me, more often than not, ear worms are annoying, not soothing. And although I can imagine record execs and music biz accountants foaming at the mouth at the possibility of technology that can produce pop songs that are guaranteed to get stuck in your head, I can’t imagine that many artists will want their work to be crafted by producers to end up as annoying ear worms in large portions of the population. Of course, I can see how corporations will latch onto the technology for commercial jingles and the like. But I can’t see how any artist who is serious about their song writing craft (as opposed to their popularity) would consciously decide to write songs likely to become ear worms.
To sum up my fears, let me explore the obvious analogy of biological DNA. Instead of “DNA of the perfect pop song” let’s consider what society would be like if we discovered the perfect human biological DNA. I would venture to guess that the diversity of the human population would dramatically decrease, as parents rush to produce offspring that have this “perfect DNA”. And, this is my primary fear with music as well. If the music industry adopts these scientific findings to mass produce “sticky music”, I fear music will suffer from a lack of diversity. I fear that musicians won’t be as creative. Instead, they’ll follow the formula (even more than they do now). The result will be devastating to those of us who enjoy the diversity, creativity, and new horizons of recording artists who venture into new territory. Music as a business will flourish. Music as an art form will struggle to survive. And it may even backfire on the music industry, as consumers stop consuming those songs that are at first catchy, but end up as annoying ear worms.
My hopes for this technology, on the other hand, is that this research will lead to a better understanding of how the human brain processes and reacts to various characteristics of music: how frequency, and intervals, and dynamics, and various rhythms all combine to affect the most unique aspect of humans, our minds. I believe that the more we understand this, the more music can be used for constructive purposes, like stress reduction and performance enhancement (think of students who listen to music while studying or athletes who listen to music before a game). And these potential benefits of a scientific understanding of how music affects our brains will significantly outweigh any corporate over-use of the technology for profit (that ends up annoying consumers in the form of exposure to an exponential increase in ear worm inducing music).
But I have one more hope that blooms from my experience as a song writer and musician. Since the research has produced a formula that is 75% accurate at predicting the “ear-worminess” of a song, my hope is that more song writers will rebel against the music creation process being reduced to a recipe. As a song writer, I have found a great deal of satisfaction and reward (and surprisingly good music) by consciously breaking the typical song writing formulas. The most common song-writing formula in popular music is the verse/chorus/bridge format. And, of course, this new “pop song DNA” research has the potential to make such formulas even more specific. But the more formulas used to write music, the less creativity involved. I’m sure a significant number of recording artists will respond by using the formula as a means to increase profit. But I’m also sure that there will be a significant number of recording artists and musicians who will respond to the corporate pressure to be more formulaic, by rebelling, by making choices that go against the formula, by pushing the boundaries, and by exploring new musical territory. In short, my hope is that the more music gets reduced to a formula, the more artists will actively search for ways to emphasize the creative, artistic aspects of music, and down play the formulas. I’m hoping the move towards more “formula-based” music creates a rebellion among musicians that actually sends the music-making trend in the other direction.
Since we’re combining the topics of science and music (DNA and songs), let me end with another scientific analogy: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton’s third law of motion). It is my hope that song writers and musicians react with an equal and opposite reaction to the evolving formulas that characterize “sticky music”. Such a backlash against formula-driven music could be a great boon for our society’s diverse musical landscape, and could lead to exploration of exciting new musical territory.
I’ll leave you with an example of breaking song formulas, with a link to a song that does so. This song, called “Fire in Shadows”, was written and recorded a couple of years ago by a rock band that I was leading at the time. This song has an interesting story. At the time, this band had a CD out that got a good bit of radio airplay in the Denver area. But this particular song was rejected by the DJ’s, because (as they explicitly told us) it does not follow the typical verse/chorus formula. Instead, this song starts relatively tame, builds to a single climax, and comes back down from there, with no definable “chorus”. As song writers, we are proud of this composition. And our fans appreciated this tune…it was one of our most popular when it was played live. And many fans told me it was a staple on their music favorite lists on their mp3 players. So it was popular with fans, but totally rejected by “the formula based industry” of the music business. I’m proud of the creativity. And I hope more musicians and song writers follow this vein of creativity, instead of the “formulas” that are becoming more prevalent in the industry.
Here’s the link to the song: "Fire in Shadows" by All7Said.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
The research is fascinating from a couple of different angles. One aspect concerns how the brain processes music. But another angle of the research is aimed at being able to pinpoint the characteristics of a particular song that are likely to make it “sticky music”. The research, being conducted at the University of London, has produced findings that suggest “stickiness results from a particular balance of certain pitch intervals and particular rhythmic structures.” But the research goes further than this, quantifying that statement to the point that the researchers can predict with 75% accuracy whether a song is likely to be an ear worm or not.
As a song writer, a musician, and an avid music consumer, I am fascinated by these results. What does this all mean? I have great hopes and great fears about this evolving ability to identify the characteristics of a song that will make it “sticky” to the listener. In the next few paragraphs, I’ll address both my fears and my hopes for this new frontier of music technology.
My fears center around the music business that is already way too concerned with music as a business as opposed to music as an art form. As the title of the CNN article implies, if scientists can figure out the “DNA” of the perfect pop song, then we can expect decades of songs tailored to sell to the masses, tailored to get stuck in our heads. The downside is probably obvious. How many times do you enjoy those ear worms that get stuck in your head? For me, more often than not, ear worms are annoying, not soothing. And although I can imagine record execs and music biz accountants foaming at the mouth at the possibility of technology that can produce pop songs that are guaranteed to get stuck in your head, I can’t imagine that many artists will want their work to be crafted by producers to end up as annoying ear worms in large portions of the population. Of course, I can see how corporations will latch onto the technology for commercial jingles and the like. But I can’t see how any artist who is serious about their song writing craft (as opposed to their popularity) would consciously decide to write songs likely to become ear worms.
To sum up my fears, let me explore the obvious analogy of biological DNA. Instead of “DNA of the perfect pop song” let’s consider what society would be like if we discovered the perfect human biological DNA. I would venture to guess that the diversity of the human population would dramatically decrease, as parents rush to produce offspring that have this “perfect DNA”. And, this is my primary fear with music as well. If the music industry adopts these scientific findings to mass produce “sticky music”, I fear music will suffer from a lack of diversity. I fear that musicians won’t be as creative. Instead, they’ll follow the formula (even more than they do now). The result will be devastating to those of us who enjoy the diversity, creativity, and new horizons of recording artists who venture into new territory. Music as a business will flourish. Music as an art form will struggle to survive. And it may even backfire on the music industry, as consumers stop consuming those songs that are at first catchy, but end up as annoying ear worms.
My hopes for this technology, on the other hand, is that this research will lead to a better understanding of how the human brain processes and reacts to various characteristics of music: how frequency, and intervals, and dynamics, and various rhythms all combine to affect the most unique aspect of humans, our minds. I believe that the more we understand this, the more music can be used for constructive purposes, like stress reduction and performance enhancement (think of students who listen to music while studying or athletes who listen to music before a game). And these potential benefits of a scientific understanding of how music affects our brains will significantly outweigh any corporate over-use of the technology for profit (that ends up annoying consumers in the form of exposure to an exponential increase in ear worm inducing music).
But I have one more hope that blooms from my experience as a song writer and musician. Since the research has produced a formula that is 75% accurate at predicting the “ear-worminess” of a song, my hope is that more song writers will rebel against the music creation process being reduced to a recipe. As a song writer, I have found a great deal of satisfaction and reward (and surprisingly good music) by consciously breaking the typical song writing formulas. The most common song-writing formula in popular music is the verse/chorus/bridge format. And, of course, this new “pop song DNA” research has the potential to make such formulas even more specific. But the more formulas used to write music, the less creativity involved. I’m sure a significant number of recording artists will respond by using the formula as a means to increase profit. But I’m also sure that there will be a significant number of recording artists and musicians who will respond to the corporate pressure to be more formulaic, by rebelling, by making choices that go against the formula, by pushing the boundaries, and by exploring new musical territory. In short, my hope is that the more music gets reduced to a formula, the more artists will actively search for ways to emphasize the creative, artistic aspects of music, and down play the formulas. I’m hoping the move towards more “formula-based” music creates a rebellion among musicians that actually sends the music-making trend in the other direction.
Since we’re combining the topics of science and music (DNA and songs), let me end with another scientific analogy: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton’s third law of motion). It is my hope that song writers and musicians react with an equal and opposite reaction to the evolving formulas that characterize “sticky music”. Such a backlash against formula-driven music could be a great boon for our society’s diverse musical landscape, and could lead to exploration of exciting new musical territory.
I’ll leave you with an example of breaking song formulas, with a link to a song that does so. This song, called “Fire in Shadows”, was written and recorded a couple of years ago by a rock band that I was leading at the time. This song has an interesting story. At the time, this band had a CD out that got a good bit of radio airplay in the Denver area. But this particular song was rejected by the DJ’s, because (as they explicitly told us) it does not follow the typical verse/chorus formula. Instead, this song starts relatively tame, builds to a single climax, and comes back down from there, with no definable “chorus”. As song writers, we are proud of this composition. And our fans appreciated this tune…it was one of our most popular when it was played live. And many fans told me it was a staple on their music favorite lists on their mp3 players. So it was popular with fans, but totally rejected by “the formula based industry” of the music business. I’m proud of the creativity. And I hope more musicians and song writers follow this vein of creativity, instead of the “formulas” that are becoming more prevalent in the industry.
Here’s the link to the song: "Fire in Shadows" by All7Said.
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Speak Music
There was a fascinating article in the Seattle Times this week: "Medical: Music gets tuned to our moods" by Lee Bowman, Seattle Times (Wednesday October 13). The article is about research being conducted by music psychologists and audio engineers at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. The objective of this research is to understand how music communicates emotion. And by the terminology "understand", I mean understand to the point of being able to prescribe certain music to alleviate symptoms of ailments ranging from depression to Alzheimer's. The research seeks to understand music's ability to communicate emotion to the point of "developing a mathematical model that a computer program could use to identify musical pieces designed to influence individual moods and alleviate particular problems."
Wow! Science is amazing!
I was interested in this article from several aspects, but primarily as a musician. This article describes research into music's impact on the listener. But what does it mean for those of us who are musicians? If these scientists are proving definitively how music communicates emotion, what are the implications for those of us who create music? This topic begs us to look at music as a language, a formal method of communication.
Written language is good for communicating facts. Music, as this research is proving, is better at communicating emotion. As a real world example of this, consider love scenes in movies. In love scenes, there's typically a song playing, instead of a sports-like play-by-play verbal language description of what's happening on screen. It's also why there are thousands, if not millions, of songs about love but not many songs about, say, recipes. Recipes don't include much emotion. A recipe for meatloaf contains a lot of facts, and some information and instructions. But little emotion. That's why there aren't many songs about meatloaf recipes. Written word is good for communicating facts, but music is the language of emotion.
To communicate in the language of music, we use notes and chords like letters and words are used in the English language. In written language, individual words aren't as important as the meaning conveyed by a phrase of words. And looking at music from this perspective, I suggest that as musicians, we should focus more on the emotion communicated, as opposed to the specific notes that are part of that communication. Your mental activity as you play, should be like your mental activity when you are having a conversation. When you talk, you are usually not focused on individual words, as much as the ideas in your head that you are trying to communicate. When you play or perform, you should concentrate more on the communication of the mood or emotion, than on the individual notes. Pay more attention to the groove, and the feel, than anything else. Locked into the groove, missed notes are hardly noticed. But if you play by focusing on the notes, and you happen to miss one, it can throw off your timing, and the groove is lost, and potentially the next few notes as well as you try to get back on track.
I have applied this perspective on music to my live performances, with amazing results. When I used to perform live, I'd concentrate on the notes of the guitar lines, or vocal lines, or the chords I was playing. The important concept here is that I was focusing on notes and chords (that are made up of notes). But now, I focus more on the aspects of my performance related to the communication of emotion. I concentrate on the feel, the groove. Notes are one only one small fraction of that. But there are so many other aspects of the communication: dynamics, tone, rhythm, crisp distinctions between staccato and legato phrases. It's attention to the detail of all these other aspects of the sounds I'm using to communicate that dominates my on-stage attention. And my playing and my performances have improved dramatically because of this re-directed focus.
This new focus is an easy thing to incorporate into your playing, no matter what your current level of ability, because we all have this in-born ability. To illustrate, think about communicating an emotion with your voice, but with no words. All of you could do this, with a cry, a laugh, a scream, a moan, a sigh, a cough, etc. In other words, with nothing but non-verbal sounds, you can easily communicate emotion. Making sounds to communicate with an instrument is not much different than making sounds with your voice in this respect. As a human, you instinctively feel the emotion associated with certain aspects of sound. A sudden loud noise will evoke an emotion of fright in most mammals. Communicating with sound is natural and in-born. Connect with that aspect of your humanity as you play and perform.
No matter what your level of technical ability as a musician, from seasoned pro, to someone just thinking about starting to take lessons, my advice for you to elevate your playing, is to focus more on communicating emotion with sound, rather than focusing on simply playing the notes. Concentrate on the feel and the groove, and how it communicates. Again, music is the language for communicating emotion. So treat it like a language. Learn to "speak music".
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Wow! Science is amazing!
I was interested in this article from several aspects, but primarily as a musician. This article describes research into music's impact on the listener. But what does it mean for those of us who are musicians? If these scientists are proving definitively how music communicates emotion, what are the implications for those of us who create music? This topic begs us to look at music as a language, a formal method of communication.
Written language is good for communicating facts. Music, as this research is proving, is better at communicating emotion. As a real world example of this, consider love scenes in movies. In love scenes, there's typically a song playing, instead of a sports-like play-by-play verbal language description of what's happening on screen. It's also why there are thousands, if not millions, of songs about love but not many songs about, say, recipes. Recipes don't include much emotion. A recipe for meatloaf contains a lot of facts, and some information and instructions. But little emotion. That's why there aren't many songs about meatloaf recipes. Written word is good for communicating facts, but music is the language of emotion.
To communicate in the language of music, we use notes and chords like letters and words are used in the English language. In written language, individual words aren't as important as the meaning conveyed by a phrase of words. And looking at music from this perspective, I suggest that as musicians, we should focus more on the emotion communicated, as opposed to the specific notes that are part of that communication. Your mental activity as you play, should be like your mental activity when you are having a conversation. When you talk, you are usually not focused on individual words, as much as the ideas in your head that you are trying to communicate. When you play or perform, you should concentrate more on the communication of the mood or emotion, than on the individual notes. Pay more attention to the groove, and the feel, than anything else. Locked into the groove, missed notes are hardly noticed. But if you play by focusing on the notes, and you happen to miss one, it can throw off your timing, and the groove is lost, and potentially the next few notes as well as you try to get back on track.
I have applied this perspective on music to my live performances, with amazing results. When I used to perform live, I'd concentrate on the notes of the guitar lines, or vocal lines, or the chords I was playing. The important concept here is that I was focusing on notes and chords (that are made up of notes). But now, I focus more on the aspects of my performance related to the communication of emotion. I concentrate on the feel, the groove. Notes are one only one small fraction of that. But there are so many other aspects of the communication: dynamics, tone, rhythm, crisp distinctions between staccato and legato phrases. It's attention to the detail of all these other aspects of the sounds I'm using to communicate that dominates my on-stage attention. And my playing and my performances have improved dramatically because of this re-directed focus.
This new focus is an easy thing to incorporate into your playing, no matter what your current level of ability, because we all have this in-born ability. To illustrate, think about communicating an emotion with your voice, but with no words. All of you could do this, with a cry, a laugh, a scream, a moan, a sigh, a cough, etc. In other words, with nothing but non-verbal sounds, you can easily communicate emotion. Making sounds to communicate with an instrument is not much different than making sounds with your voice in this respect. As a human, you instinctively feel the emotion associated with certain aspects of sound. A sudden loud noise will evoke an emotion of fright in most mammals. Communicating with sound is natural and in-born. Connect with that aspect of your humanity as you play and perform.
No matter what your level of technical ability as a musician, from seasoned pro, to someone just thinking about starting to take lessons, my advice for you to elevate your playing, is to focus more on communicating emotion with sound, rather than focusing on simply playing the notes. Concentrate on the feel and the groove, and how it communicates. Again, music is the language for communicating emotion. So treat it like a language. Learn to "speak music".
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Music, Food, and the Concept of Quality (or "Lady Gaga & the Big Mac")
What do Lady Gaga and the Big Mac have in common? The mind wanders at the bizarre comparison. Is it the fact that they both are known to be seen in public with slabs of meat on them? ;-) Stepping back and looking at the comparison more broadly, what do music and food have in common? They both have the ability to delight (or rebuke) the senses. Food is obviously judged primarily on how the taste is perceived. And each one of us typically judges music by how the sound is perceived. Of course, both are subjective, based on the preferences of the observer. But on a larger scale, as a society, we treat music and food quite differently in how we deem something to be “good” or of high quality.
Let’s start with a look at how we evaluate the quality of food. If I asked you “What’s the best hamburger in the world?” would the Big Mac be at the top of your list? Probably not. The Big Mac may be the best selling hamburger in the world, but in the world of food, the quality of the product is not judged based on the quantity of sales. Sure, when you watch the Food Network and its cooking competitions, things other than taste come in to play, qualities like presentation. But "gross sales" is rarely considered the best measure of the quality of food. What matters most is how we (or the judges) perceive the food with the taste buds, and the quality of that sensation.
But the way our society evaluates music is just the opposite. In the world of music, “best selling” is more often than not, the measure of quality. The Billboard music charts are a prime example. In the food world, no one would confuse “best selling” with “best tasting”. Why, then, is the music world so centered around the concept of “best selling = best”? I’m sure it has to do with the fact that the world of music, as most fans know it, is really not “music” but the “music business”. And in the world of the music business, the concept of “best selling” does make sense. But let’s not confuse “good music business” with “good music”.
As a matter of fact, when you think about food and the concept of popularity, the concept of “bland” comes into play. What’s the best-selling flavor of ice cream? Vanilla. But, surely most of you have a favorite flavor of ice cream that’s more flavorful than plain vanilla. And the more I explore music, the more I come to the same conclusion: if it’s popular, it’s probably bland in a lot of ways. I like my food flavorful, not bland. Hot and spicy is my all-time favorite. But that would never be best-selling. And I’ve come to realize that my taste in music is the same way. What I’ve come to truly enjoy and appreciate would never be the most popular, because it’s not watered-down and bland enough. It’s rich and flavorful.
In the old days, primarily before the Internet, folks found out about music from corporations: the ones who determined what music to put on the radio, on television, and in your nearby stores. It was the music business that supplied the music buffet for most music enthusiasts. But we live in a different world, now. Record labels are struggling (as any outdated entity should), because we no longer need corporations to get our music. We have the Internet as our primary source of music now. Sure, there are some corporations behind that, too. But more importantly, there's an enormous amount of independent artists making music available to the general public now.
But here’s the problem: even though we have a new source of music, we tend to still use popularity of music as the primary measure of quality. Instead of “best selling”, now we tend to use metrics like “most downloaded”. But it’s still quantity that drives our perception of quality.
What’s my point? Now is the time to stop measuring the quality of music by its popularity. That’s what Lady Gaga and the Big Mac have in common: they are both popular and "best-selling" in their attempts to appeal to our senses. But again, “best-selling” applies more to business than to the true quality of the product. And more often than not, it also implies “bland”.
So how do we determine what’s the best music? What’s a better measure of quality than sales? Your opinion is all that truly matters. When you go to a restaurant, do ask what item is the best seller? Probably not. You read the selections, and choose based on your appetite at the moment. The concept of “best-selling” or popularity doesn’t even come into play. Treat your music the same way. Don’t buy into the fact that something is “good” just because it has a lot of sales or downloads (or “bad” because it doesn’t). Make your choices based on your appetite at the moment, from the vast menu of music on the Internet. It shouldn’t matter if the artist has a billion downloads or a single download. If it fits your mood at the moment, that’s all that matters. Treat your music like you treat your food…who cares about popularity or sales or downloads? Who wants vanilla when you have all those flavors to choose from? Your appetite is all that truly matters. Bon appétit!
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Let’s start with a look at how we evaluate the quality of food. If I asked you “What’s the best hamburger in the world?” would the Big Mac be at the top of your list? Probably not. The Big Mac may be the best selling hamburger in the world, but in the world of food, the quality of the product is not judged based on the quantity of sales. Sure, when you watch the Food Network and its cooking competitions, things other than taste come in to play, qualities like presentation. But "gross sales" is rarely considered the best measure of the quality of food. What matters most is how we (or the judges) perceive the food with the taste buds, and the quality of that sensation.
But the way our society evaluates music is just the opposite. In the world of music, “best selling” is more often than not, the measure of quality. The Billboard music charts are a prime example. In the food world, no one would confuse “best selling” with “best tasting”. Why, then, is the music world so centered around the concept of “best selling = best”? I’m sure it has to do with the fact that the world of music, as most fans know it, is really not “music” but the “music business”. And in the world of the music business, the concept of “best selling” does make sense. But let’s not confuse “good music business” with “good music”.
As a matter of fact, when you think about food and the concept of popularity, the concept of “bland” comes into play. What’s the best-selling flavor of ice cream? Vanilla. But, surely most of you have a favorite flavor of ice cream that’s more flavorful than plain vanilla. And the more I explore music, the more I come to the same conclusion: if it’s popular, it’s probably bland in a lot of ways. I like my food flavorful, not bland. Hot and spicy is my all-time favorite. But that would never be best-selling. And I’ve come to realize that my taste in music is the same way. What I’ve come to truly enjoy and appreciate would never be the most popular, because it’s not watered-down and bland enough. It’s rich and flavorful.
In the old days, primarily before the Internet, folks found out about music from corporations: the ones who determined what music to put on the radio, on television, and in your nearby stores. It was the music business that supplied the music buffet for most music enthusiasts. But we live in a different world, now. Record labels are struggling (as any outdated entity should), because we no longer need corporations to get our music. We have the Internet as our primary source of music now. Sure, there are some corporations behind that, too. But more importantly, there's an enormous amount of independent artists making music available to the general public now.
But here’s the problem: even though we have a new source of music, we tend to still use popularity of music as the primary measure of quality. Instead of “best selling”, now we tend to use metrics like “most downloaded”. But it’s still quantity that drives our perception of quality.
What’s my point? Now is the time to stop measuring the quality of music by its popularity. That’s what Lady Gaga and the Big Mac have in common: they are both popular and "best-selling" in their attempts to appeal to our senses. But again, “best-selling” applies more to business than to the true quality of the product. And more often than not, it also implies “bland”.
So how do we determine what’s the best music? What’s a better measure of quality than sales? Your opinion is all that truly matters. When you go to a restaurant, do ask what item is the best seller? Probably not. You read the selections, and choose based on your appetite at the moment. The concept of “best-selling” or popularity doesn’t even come into play. Treat your music the same way. Don’t buy into the fact that something is “good” just because it has a lot of sales or downloads (or “bad” because it doesn’t). Make your choices based on your appetite at the moment, from the vast menu of music on the Internet. It shouldn’t matter if the artist has a billion downloads or a single download. If it fits your mood at the moment, that’s all that matters. Treat your music like you treat your food…who cares about popularity or sales or downloads? Who wants vanilla when you have all those flavors to choose from? Your appetite is all that truly matters. Bon appétit!
Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
