For me it must be original within its own frame of reference...
...must be technically sound (must include musical difficulty and player skill)...
must have definitive intentions (e.g. to portray a certain message, or display creative exploration of a certain musical or recording technique)
...and above all it must utilise the compositional skills of subtlety.
why should music be referential? and what do you mean by with it's own frame of reference? in terms of genre's, there enough out there that either sits so far to one side of a genre it's irrelevant, or is unrecognisable.
there's plenty of good music written by people who cannot compete with clinicians or even those who blag it. also, what about the bed-room producers? they may not be able to play *anything* but create amazing soundscapes
why? i've written hours worth of intention-less music, and hours of music with intent. one should not disregard the other, as music is art, and should be accepted for what it is, not what it's supposed to be or what it's supposed to portray.
this said, i DO like to explain my music and my methods, but this is more from a journalistic p.o.v
see point 2. listen to kid 606, he goes from beautiful ambient sound-scapes to bollocks-out dancefloor techno, back to flying lotus style glitchy weirdness to breakcore. there's little subtly.
No effect!? you sure? In some respects, music (for the most part) is a sort of psychological exploitation where the mechanical utilisation and application of rules is the magic that pulls on your heart strings.
Music is a very deliberate and controlled thing, composition wise.
1/ music should not be defined or constrained by genre... something's either good or it isn't. for instance, i like dub step, but not all dub step, in fact it's getting worse from the spread of your archetypal 'how do i sound like [insert name here]' bunch of questions on forums. however, as a rule i'd say i don't like manufactured pop, but there's odd songs out there [names not to be mentioned] so although genre is something i use everyday to justify music i make [and i make music to try and un-justify genre...] as a point of reference it's fine, but it's irrelevant in terms of aesthetics IMHO
2/ i disagree with originality being a 'nonsense concept' but seeings as arts are subjective, the term can be diluted. i think xyz may be hugely original but person b may disagree, therefore even an academic argument is pointless. should somone's opinion count more if they're a musician or have studied music? [i can musically snobby which i am trying avoid]
3/ hearing a record and liking it tells you little of the player's skill. obviously if it's some virtuoso shred masterpiece then you're going to bet it's by some genius. but it can go either way. plenty of 'well played' music is dull, and something performed well can be done by a charlatan or something can be made to sound good by a total idiot. this should be removed from an argument into the quality of music
4/ credit given where credit is due - that's a funny one. this isn't PART of the composition though is it? the is linear notes? and the argument of having two arbitrary sounds can work either way. i bet you some of the [looking for word other than 'best'] most innovative music has engulfed this technique.
5/ "I probably won't enjoy them [him] that much then" - on the contrary... it's right up your street. what i like about kid 606 is there's none of the cliquiest bull**** associated with music. there's sarcasm an humour but also beauty and deep thought. i'll file-share an compilation with you later [oh **** please no-one tell the FBI!]
You reflect my sentiments; I am most interested in the relationship between musician and instrument (albeit a computer, oboe or voice.) It is skill forged through familiarity, time and effort. That is perhaps most appealing of all to me.
i must disagree, music is by definition the rythmical adaptation of poetry, and i personally dont care how many times you can cram the words darfur, draft, and aids into a song, if it is written in a manner more befitting a teenager, or unintentionally lacking in the melody section, or performed with no skill, it descends from the noble title of music into simple rythmic expression
yes i know the two sound similar but there are differences, but they are separated by one quality...skill
Music does not require poetry.
I agree, to some extent, with your argument regarding skill. But faced with so many examples of musical brilliance coming from remarkably unskilled musicians, the generalization loses significance. Sometimes the simplest rhythms are the most effective. Consider the first track on Sublime's 40oz to Freedom. Or just about every Buddy Holly and Robert Johnson song.
Not having formal musical qualifications certainly does not imply lack of skill! Many musicians from tribal backgrounds are extremely skilled, they often start playing at an early age and it is their major professionion.
The two you quote were engaged in music making for most of their time, they were certainly skilled. However, music industry moguls who put together pop music bands from a few pretty faces are not creating "skilled" musicians. It is a marketed product like toilet paper (but not as useful).
you misunderstand me, i was not implying that one needed a formal musical training or background in order to create music, i simply stated that it required a certain amount of technical skill with some instrument (be it guitar, clarinet, or your own voice), as well as a certain lyrical proficiency that is beyond most members of the society we live in.
I am not claiming that all music has to be in elizabethan english and iambic pentameter, i simply note that music cannot subsist on melody alone and requires lyrical poetry