Page 1 of 2
#1
So, I hope this doesn't seem too weird or just dumb, but how do you guys feel about songwriting?

Is it something that's of divine inspiration? Something you can't explain how it happened, something almost effortless or really complete before your started writing it.

Or is it a process that takes a long time to excavate and to full discovery and alot of hardwork and comes from your really focusing on idea and deliberately crafting your material.

For me, it's a bit of both. But I feel like I've come to realize that I don't know how to write a song. I mean, I understand what makes a song a song and theory and I can play, but unless it just happens, I couldn't write a song and put together something just for the sake of it.


I think music is something that differs from other arts, in that way. Anyone can paint a certain picture, of a tree or a building or whatever, and it's easy, because you have something viable to work with, even though it's still subjective. But then the other art that's of pure creation is different and less concrete in definition. But music is...different. You can have a form, but the melody and the harmony and rhythm are just measured differently, I think.
I guess it makes more sense to say, if we all painted a picutre of a tree, it would look different but it would still be a tree, but if we all wrote a song with the same 3 chords, they'd all sound different, even if you're in the same genre or style.

Obviously, hardwork is required in either approach, to either flesh out the idea completely on your own or to put in the hours to be good enough that the ideas don't have to struggle to come out.

What's your thoughts?
And we will weave in and out of sanity unnoticed
Swirling in blissfully restless visions of all our bleary progress
Glowing in radiant madness
#2
painting or drawing a specific object is the equivalent of learning a new song.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#3
I don't often get inspired. I sit and think and hash out what I want to write and then write it. It's not romantic, it's not interesting, but it's what I do. Wanting to write music comes from inspiration, which is always there. What to write is not an element of inspiration, it's an element of skill and knowledge.

Quote by TDKShorty
I guess it makes more sense to say, if we all painted a picutre of a tree, it would look different but it would still be a tree, but if we all wrote a song with the same 3 chords, they'd all sound different, even if you're in the same genre or style.



You said it before. Music and the other arts are different (all arts are different from one another) and it's pretty useless to try and draw connections between them.
#4
I have to write a song for my final and it's due tomorrow and I just have nothing. I mean no inspiration, nothing feels right or sounds good, and I'm worried haha. Because I can write, but I have nothing.

I don't remember which author said it, but "The author who wait's for the perfect condition to write, will never get anything done", and I agree with that

But I've also heard John Frusciante talk about to try and not force anything, you can't force music to happen just like you can't force time to change or happen any differently

So those are two valid ideas that I think songwriters should balance between
And we will weave in and out of sanity unnoticed
Swirling in blissfully restless visions of all our bleary progress
Glowing in radiant madness
#5
yeah but john frusciante sucks and has poor technique
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#6
Quote by Hail
yeah but john frusciante sucks and has poor technique

Don't we all.
And we will weave in and out of sanity unnoticed
Swirling in blissfully restless visions of all our bleary progress
Glowing in radiant madness
#7
I don't think there's anything mystical or special about writing music. It is a creative pursuit. That's it.


It's cool and fun, but it's not like we're closer to something mystical by writing music. Music is like all art; it should make you think. It should be presented. And everything else that comes with art.
#8
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I don't think there's anything mystical or special about writing music. It is a creative pursuit. That's it.


It's cool and fun, but it's not like we're closer to something mystical by writing music. Music is like all art; it should make you think. It should be presented. And everything else that comes with art.


I disagree. Maybe it's just personal, you know, and maybe "mystical" isn't the right word or whatever, but have you never just come across a song, as if it were already written?

I just can't deny that music isn't of a higher power, based on my experiences.
And we will weave in and out of sanity unnoticed
Swirling in blissfully restless visions of all our bleary progress
Glowing in radiant madness
#9
Quote by TDKshorty
I disagree. Maybe it's just personal, you know, and maybe "mystical" isn't the right word or whatever, but have you never just come across a song, as if it were already written?

I just can't deny that music isn't of a higher power, based on my experiences.

This kind of thinking cheapens music so much to me.
#10
Quote by TDKshorty
I disagree. Maybe it's just personal, you know, and maybe "mystical" isn't the right word or whatever, but have you never just come across a song, as if it were already written?

I just can't deny that music isn't of a higher power, based on my experiences.

And what makes it so you can't deny that?


I don't disagree with you (I'm a Messianic Jew, after all); I'm simply wondering about your logic on the matter.

Quote by jazz_rock_feel
This kind of thinking cheapens music so much to me.

Why? There's nothing to cheapen.
#11
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
This kind of thinking cheapens music so much to me.

How so?
And we will weave in and out of sanity unnoticed
Swirling in blissfully restless visions of all our bleary progress
Glowing in radiant madness
#12
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
This kind of thinking cheapens music so much to me.


well he's right. any symphony, any rock anthem, and multi-platinum album was dreamed up and shat out of riff raff's head before you were born.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#13
Quote by TDKshorty
How so?

Because it steals the work that I've put into my craft. It steals the work that Bach, Beethoven, Webern, Ligeti, Charlie Parker, MIles Davis and whoever-the-fuck-else put into their craft. It takes that work and puts it somewhere in the ether. I don't want anyone thinking that my music came from some outside force. It's mine. I wrote it. I worked for it and God can't have it.
#14
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Because it steals the work that I've put into my craft. It steals the work that Bach, Beethoven, Webern, Ligeti, Charlie Parker, MIles Davis and whoever-the-fuck-else put into their craft. It takes that work and puts it somewhere in the ether. I don't want anyone thinking that my music came from some outside force. It's mine. I wrote it. I worked for it and God can't have it.

The flaw in your thinking is that it doesn't steal your work. If we assume that the inspiration didn't come from your mind directly (and since humans are inspired by many things, it's unlikely the idea was 100% original), then your work to bring the idea to fruition still exists as a testament which points towards you. The same would also be true of any composer.

Edit:
Any amount of work done to bring about a musical piece stands or fall on its own, irregardless of the inspiration that resulted in said work.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 7, 2013,
#16
In my personal experience, the initial idea comes on in a sort of 'divine/spiritual' fashion. No, I'm not saying that I get down on my knees and pray until an idea hits me....but it just sort of comes about, and my brain tags it as a very good idea.

After that, I'll keep going with it, and I get sort of little hints as I'm going that I'm doing the right thing. I'll actually feel an elation in my heart when something comes out right. I can only describe it as getting high, but being completely coherent/clear-headed. It's like the world and my purpose in life comes into focus. It's just as much of a physical feeling as a mental one.

To describe the feeling more: It feels like when you truly fall in love with someone. Where your heart feels light, and good, and you feel like: "this is what's supposed to happen"

Example: I was drunk one night and got the idea to use the whammy bar as a rhythmic device. The first results were sloppy, but sounded kinda cool to me. I added the lead riff a few months later, and one day the words just flowed into my head. I had to race to write them down. The result can be heard here: Early Morning Sun . Skip to :47. I've since changed the intro so something far better, but haven't gotten around to recording it.
#17
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Because it steals the work that I've put into my craft. It steals the work that Bach, Beethoven, Webern, Ligeti, Charlie Parker, MIles Davis and whoever-the-fuck-else put into their craft. It takes that work and puts it somewhere in the ether. I don't want anyone thinking that my music came from some outside force. It's mine. I wrote it. I worked for it and God can't have it.

This.

I had and idea. I worked it out. I made it. There's no use getting bogged down in "spiritual" crap.

I find it interesting that other arts don't get this much of the "outside divination" treatment. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that music can be made up and shared on the spot, which doesn't happen to often with painting, writing or film.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
Last edited by rockingamer2 at May 7, 2013,
#19
Quote by rockingamer2
This.

I had and idea. I worked it out. I made it. There's no use getting bogged down in "spiritual" crap.

I find it interesting that other arts don't get this much of the "outside divination" treatment. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that music can be made up and shared on the spot, which doesn't happen to often with painting, writing or film.

Actually, they do. I recently took a "Philosophy of Art" course, which focused almost completely on visual arts such as painting, sculpture, etc. There were several philosophers who believed that either G-d or some other divine source or even that some force is what causes inspiration.
#20
I follow one of two routes to writing music;

1. Write 'till I drop. This is more of a practice to my mental ear, and the music itself is oddly twisted, because I usually ignore any kind of structure here. In general, this stuff kinda sucks.

2. I go to the quietest spot I can find (with my viola or guitar), and think. That's all it takes for something to pop up. If I get an idea, I try to replicate it on the instrument. If it sounds good, I'll start thinking about the next stuff more consciously, and write ideas as I go. Structure still needs work here, but in general, it sounds a lot better than anything from method 1.

Is it divine inspiration? No. It's my music, and mine alone. Other music may sound like it (haha, Beethoven's quartets), but my stuff is mine.
Join the 7 String Legion!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Messiaen is Magical


Official Approval
This message has been approved by:

Mister A.J.
Head of the Department of Redundancy Department
Mister A.J.
#21
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Actually, they do. I recently took a "Philosophy of Art" course, which focused almost completely on visual arts such as painting, sculpture, etc. There were several philosophers who believed that either G-d or some other divine source or even that some force is what causes inspiration.


Going on what you're saying here, and I have a post above that explains my personal experiences: I think true art comes from a part of the mind/consciousness that in our stage of development as a species that hasn't fully developed (in the context of evolution). We get tastes of it from many different artists and that's what progresses all art forms, but as a whole, and as a species we don't/can't understand it as a whole.

The whole divine aspect (speaking from an atheist's point of view) isn't exactly divine (but yet is, because I think part of the definition of divine is "perfect"), but something we have yet to figure out about humanity and consciousness. It's something that has to be classified as divine because we're so far away from understanding it. It's like going back 4000 years when the sun was a divine being (actually, if you research it, Christianity is actually a form of sun worship) because we wouldn't discover what it truly was for another (approx.) 3000 years.

I believe it's a hole in our understanding of human thought that may or may not be understood by science in our lifetime.

I think that part of it feeds off of what we're influenced by and the art we've experienced and how we've perceived it (even though we could never perceive it quite like any other individual (or even ourselves so many years from the first time we've perceived it) or with a combined form of perceiving it...like if we were almost hive minded and could perceive it from all perspectives). To add: time, emotional states, and overall brain development have a lot to do with how much we can perceive when looking/listening to a piece of art.

I also think that art is one of the most important advancements for our species because much of it requires almost all other forms of academia (literature, art, science, what-not) to flourish, and seems to be a way for us to advance our existence as a whole before we can fully explain/back it up with numbers and discoveries.

So TL;DR: Music, like any art form won't be truly conceivable until well past our time. Also, seems bold because it's a TL;DR, but art is totally "divine"

Also wanted to PS: Eric Johnson has said on multiple occasions (especially with Cliffs of Dover) that his musical inspiration came from some force that just showed him the music.
#24
It's difficult answering this or contributing to this as this subject has been breached before... a few months ago I think. I remember a lot of people disagreeing with it being anything divine or that the divine had anything to do with it. Oh yes, it was some guy/kid asking about a spiritual connection to music so I laid out a kabbalistic viewpoint (which was kinda out there anyway). I think that thread had the most respect to individuals and their viewpoints I've ever seen/read in MT. Metaphysics is hard to comprehend/accept sometimes (and its not an elite train of thought. Even caveman Bob can share in it).

All I can say is, from my own viewpoint... it's both spiritual and self made. Difficult to know where to draw the line between it. I agree with jazzrock that we put in the time, knowledge and effort to compose and nothing else can take credit for it. I also agree that it is divine/ether/universal force sent. Kind of a catch 22. I have my own beliefs and thats where its going to stay.

I'm not saying that one should wait for divine inspiration before writing cos thats bullshit. Only through writing do you alter your consciousness - some people see that as focusing intently and getting the job done, others see it as riding the universal wave of thought. Whichever works for you I guess.

If only there was someway to include the word modes then we can have a proper derailment.. you know, as it should be
Last edited by evolucian at May 8, 2013,
#25
I would say music is more like architecture than say painting. Themes are developed within the creation in a way that makes one coherent whole. Like in architecture there are sound principles that are generally adhered to whether the creator is aware of them or not.
#26
Quote by mjones1992
Going on what you're saying here, and I have a post above that explains my personal experiences: I think true art comes from a part of the mind/consciousness that in our stage of development as a species that hasn't fully developed (in the context of evolution). We get tastes of it from many different artists and that's what progresses all art forms, but as a whole, and as a species we don't/can't understand it as a whole....

I believe it's a hole in our understanding of human thought that may or may not be understood by science in our lifetime....

...I also think that art is one of the most important advancements for our species because much of it requires almost all other forms of academia (literature, art, science, what-not) to flourish, and seems to be a way for us to advance our existence as a whole before we can fully explain/back it up with numbers and discoveries.
What?

I want to say that I think it's awesome that you're thinking deeply about these kinds of things and searching for understanding. And that I just happen to disagree with most, if not all of your conclusions. But it seems you are taking the easy way out by arguing that we just can't understand it.

Art is a creative expression. There are those academics that want to put everything through an evolutionary standpoint. Doing so we can come to rational arguments about nearly any human endeavour but they also often miss some very important aspects about he subject being studied. However they can provide a lens through which we can explore the subject.

If we were to reduce music, and art, to an evolutionary point of view then in it's most elementary form it may simply come down to mate selection. We would view music pretty much the same way we would describe the song and dance rituals of the albatross in the Galapagos Islands or peacock's tail.

Such a view would describe our desire to pursue creative arts and to perfect them as stemming from a biologically programmed need to find a mate.

We could build on this further by including the idea that social cooperation is key to our survival. Appreciation of particular art forms are part of what bind us together and give the people of unique cultures and societies their identity. This is achieved as the art often shares particular stories, styles etc that we have developed a taste for through similar experiences or cultural upbringing. Identifying those with similar tastes in art provide us with a quick recognition of someone that we are likely to cooperate with effectively. This can also apply to subgroups within society.

Based on such an understanding of art one could argue that Great art goes beyond the bounds of a specific culture and unifies all people through empathetic appreciation. Such art could grow out of any culture but in order for it to be accessible to a wider range of people it would need to strike some kind of appeal/ empathetic response with people across cultures. That is it would at some level get to the core of what it means to be human - in some aspect. (not just what it means to be a human in a particular culture but an accurate portrayal of some kind aspect of what is often described as the human condition.)

Of course a respondent could argue against this with a single word...Bieber. There is an argument against this response that does not concede that popular art. Is necessarily great.

Anyway this is not necessarily what I believe but it is one way to discuss art as an evolutionary product.

Another argument might be to say that it serves no primary function and is simply a by product of our intelligence, creativity, problem solving, ability to think abstract thoughts, and other factors that provide us with a very useful evolutionary advantage.

It seems a cheap way out to say "It comes from a place that we can't understand yet, without trying to understand it. People didn't say - we can't understand the sun yet. They had all the capabilities and necessary faculties to understand it. They continued to come up with and refine their explanations until they got it right. If they simply put it off saying we aren't there yet but will be one day then they never would have got there. So it's not enough to say we aren't evolved enough to understand where art comes originates.

According to the two explanations I provided above we could elaborate on where art comes from:

According to the first explanation - Art comes from an expression/exploration of what it means to be a human being, either through investigating aesthetic beauty, the human condition, or whatever experiences, culture, or circumstance we can draw on from our life experience (which includes appreciation of other art).

According to the second explanation: Art is pretty much meaningless and is simply an exercise in creative thinking, problem solving, abstract thinking, observation, imitation etc etc.

So if we take the first explanation we can continue to build on that. Our inspiration comes from our life experience and our desire to share something about ourselves, to communicate and possibly identify like minded individuals. It could be further argued that that when we are unhappy with our work it may be a result of feeling that the art does not accurately communicate what we wanted it to due to some error or a lack of technical ability, and so we work on our technical skills so that we can more freely express our artistic ideas.

"God" or "It is beyond our understanding" are cheap answers that do nothing to further human understanding. Think about it thoroughly and try different lenses. Ask lots of questions and try to answer them. If you can then come up with a reasonable explanation then try to develop it then challenge it etc. If you can do this then you will ace your philosophy classes. If your answer relies on some "beyond" that lies outside our ability to understand you are likely to get a condescending reaction such as..."Speak for yourself buddy, if its beyond YOUR understanding sit back and let the big boys think about it for a while".
Si
#27
Well said old man
Admittedly I only skipped to the last paragraph which was very well written.
#28
Quote by 20Tigers

According to the first explanation - Art comes from an expression/exploration of what it means to be a human being,


That, taken to its extreme, actually IS God, in many spiritual traditions. Separating the concepts and dismissing God as a 'cheap' answer doesn't big-up your knowledge of Art, it just shows a serious lack of understanding of real spirituality.

If your answer relies on some "beyond" that lies outside our ability to understand you are likely to get a condescending reaction such as..."Speak for yourself buddy, if its beyond YOUR understanding sit back and let the big boys think about it for a while".


So, what it means to be human is fully within your understanding, is it?

The really good art always is beyond our understanding. To equate that with the divine is quite reasonable I think. Like trans-finite numbers, you just need a new terminology to continue to explore, and spirituality has been working on that for a long long time. There is nothing cheap or easy about working with things which defy analysis, whichever terms you use.

art and the divine have always been linked, because that which you are exploring and calling art is also known by other names, names you've rejected as meaningless religious words. And I bet you think religious people are closeminded too.
Last edited by innovine at May 8, 2013,
#29
Quote by 20Tigers
[Impressive text wall that I won't copy as to save space]

"God" or "It is beyond our understanding" are cheap answers that do nothing to further human understanding. Think about it thoroughly and try different lenses. Ask lots of questions and try to answer them. If you can then come up with a reasonable explanation then try to develop it then challenge it etc. If you can do this then you will ace your philosophy classes. If your answer relies on some "beyond" that lies outside our ability to understand you are likely to get a condescending reaction such as..."Speak for yourself buddy, if its beyond YOUR understanding sit back and let the big boys think about it for a while".


Awesome read. I really enjoyed your stab at this.

As far as evolution goes, you're right. A lot of it is rooted in biological mating protocol, and we could deduce that it's (art) nothing more than an extension of that, but I was trying to explain it using the evolution in our brains, and how that develops over time in regards to the whole species. We haven't mapped out brains yet (although I think I read that Obama started a brain-mapping initiative), but I'm sure that when we do we'll find that it's taken stages of development to get to how we are now (evident by the fact that there are parts of the brains that we don't use, however our ancestors did use them for something), and that we still have room to grow/change, and maybe can give us more of an understanding of where 'divine' inspirations really come from, although I think the main goal of that is to find ways to cure diseases and such.

I didn't mean to come off like I was saying that no one is capable of comprehending anything in art (and I'm sorry if it sounded that way). Sure, we can understand a lot about an artist's intentions and emotions from viewing a piece of art, and have emotions evoked from that, and even create inspiration within ourselves to create something different, but what I was trying to say was that we can't comprehend how everyone in the world would perceive a piece of art, or experience every emotion or create what I'll call a 'total inspiration' where one is able to look at a single piece of art and somehow be inspired to create infinite arts in every form.

So I guess my argument here is that we can't perceive everything yet (if we wanna go the super string theory route, we don't perceive all 11 dimensions), and therefore "don't/can't" understand everything in art, but I think one day we may get to that point, but I don't think that will be in our lifetime, or our greatgreatgreatgreat grandchildren's.

Also, I think you missed my point where I said that I'm an atheist (you said using 'god' was a cheap answer). I was trying to point out that science has a long way to go in understanding what creates these 'divine' inspirations that people have, not that the inspirations come from god. I guess I used divine loosely. My reasoning was that at it's core, the idea of god is that he's perfect, and divine, meaning of god (or actually "of the vine") would imply that divine can mean perfect in certain contexts.

Also, I never said we have to "give up" trying to understand. I was actually trying to point out that what we don't understand often gets labeled as god, and I think that we need to continue to pursue art forms if we want to advance our understanding of the world around us as well as our own consciousness. I was trying to say that art combines many forms of academia, and therefore is a tool to understanding what we don't know yet. I guess upon further thought, it'd be better stated that the two are intertwined (academia and art), and therefore would be a detriment to our species if we stopped practicing either of them.

Also, thanks for the advice in the last paragraph. I wasn't trying to make a multi-point analysis of the whole subject with my first post. It was actually more on the drunken rant side of things, and was kinda puked out in a few minutes. I guess you could call it a 'drunken-inspiration'. I guess I didn't come across as clear as I thought I was on that one. I've never taken a philosophy course btw (and probably never will). I just think a lot about this stuff when I'm out having a smoke, and the post was only meant express what I thought about it. I tried to use the words 'I think' as much as possible to make that clear.
#31
Quote by :-D
how are so many musicians so incredibly pretentious

your avatar is daedalus and that's wonderful, but i mean holy shit come on


Did it really come off that way? Sorry dude. I was just expressing my opinion on it. I wasn't trying to come off like I know a lot about it, or that anyone here isn't entitled to think otherwise. If it helps, next time you waste your time reading one of my text walls, replace the name 'mjones1992' with 'collegedropout'

It's just what made sense to me. Was it the length? that's what boredom and whiskey does to me. my bad...
#32
Quote by mjones1992
It's just what made sense to me. Was it the length?

Nope, it was probably the fact that your tone and overall argument were basically the equivalent of "hey, look how smart I am". Not trying to be a jerk, but come on, man.
#33
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Nope, it was probably the fact that your tone and overall argument were basically the equivalent of "hey, look how smart I am". Not trying to be a jerk, but come on, man.


Fair enough, although I really wasn't trying to go that route. Perhaps the whiskey...
#34
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Nope, it was probably the fact that your tone and overall argument were basically the equivalent of "hey, look how smart I am". Not trying to be a jerk, but come on, man.

He was giving his point of view and how he sees it, how it relates to him. In his follow up post, he was feeding off of yours and expanding his other post. It was his understanding of it and he shared it.

If you think that that post actually gives off a "hey, look how smart I am", please don't forget that you said my glancing at a chord dictionary gave me a basic aspect of theory yet you didn't want to expand on anything or give me the "golden keys".

Soooo, if you're going to judge it then rather not read his point of view.
#35
hahahaha did crazysam call somebody pretentious? how the hell does that work?
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#37
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
Last edited by Hail at May 8, 2013,
#38
Quote by Hail
hahahaha did crazysam call somebody pretentious? how the hell does that work?

Same way it works when you call me pretentious.
#39
Quote by innovine
Quote by 20Tigers

According to the first explanation - Art comes from an expression/exploration of what it means to be a human being,


That, taken to its extreme, actually IS God, in many spiritual traditions. Separating the concepts and dismissing God as a 'cheap' answer doesn't big-up your knowledge of Art, it just shows a serious lack of understanding of real spirituality.
Keywords there are "IN MANY SPIRITUAL TRADITIONS". The statement I made holds true, as you noted, in many spiritual traditions as the human condition is in their view ultimately spiritual in its essence.

However the statement I made also holds true for those that do not subscribe to any spiritual traditions since they would view the human condition differently.

Do you see how that works? By including reference to a particular spiritual tradition you limit your audience. The ability to investigate, discuss rationally, and explain things without reliance on belief in god to validate the answer does not diminish ones own spirituality.

Quote by innovine
Quote by 20Tigers
If your answer relies on some "beyond" that lies outside our ability to understand you are likely to get a condescending reaction such as..."Speak for yourself buddy, if its beyond YOUR understanding sit back and let the big boys think about it for a while".


So, what it means to be human is fully within your understanding, is it?
Ummm....are you serious????

I can honestly say with as much certainty as anyone can have about anything that the answer to that question is a most resounding YES!!

Being a self aware human is the only qualification anyone needs to be able to answer that in the affirmative. Anyone who answers no either is not a self aware human, is lying, or doesn't understand the question.

Quote by innovine
The really good art always is beyond our understanding. To equate that with the divine is quite reasonable I think.
Really good art is really good precisely because it is within our understanding.

Great art is a clear and powerful communication of the human experience. It is within the understanding of anyone who wishes to see it.

If it were beyond our understanding then it could not communicate anything to us and we would not appreciate it. Consequently such art would not be considered good art.

For art to be effective the ability to understand it is essential. Some art requires certain qualifications in order to understand it such as a specific cultural heritage, religion, education, or life experience. To understand other art we need only to be human, that art is often considered among the best.

Despite art being within our understanding your second statement is also flawed.

It is in fact NOT reasonable at all to conclude something to be divine on the basis that it is beyond our understanding (and that is pretty much exactly what you said). It not only cheapens the pursuit of human knowledge it cheapens the divine.

And I bet you think religious people are closeminded too.
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. But for the record: some religious people are close minded, some non religious people are close minded. It's really not relevant at all.
Si
#40
I don't want to just abandon my thread to you heathens

If I have a piece of music I wrote, I'm going to say that I wrote it, but it's not a whole belief, because I believe it was created and received simultaneously, that it had been created before and I just discovered it and was able to put it into a tangible form that we see as music.

I do believe that no one, other than ourselves can take credit for the hard work put into learning an instrument and the refining a song. That's our right

I just can't understand, based on my experiences, how any could think that there's not another dimension to music. When I listen to or play music and it's right, the feeling is unexplainable, it's perfection and enlightenment.

There are times though when it isn't that, and it's rough and just normal, and I do think songwriting sometime falls under that, certainly, and that's where you get music that's not as good as other music.

I guess what I'm saying, that just because music is a spiritual device, doesn't mean it is always.


Have none of you guys ever just discovered a song or gone to another level (way beyond your level) of playing or state of mind when playing music?
And we will weave in and out of sanity unnoticed
Swirling in blissfully restless visions of all our bleary progress
Glowing in radiant madness
Page 1 of 2