Mixes: art or product

[Radiophonic]

I'm suprised that this thread caught so much interest. It is going in directions I have not expected it to go, and I don't feel like I have anything to add, but I'm defintely reading.

Whether IQ measures anything meaningful about intelligence is, as you say, a much debated question. But there’s very good evidence that a high IQ score protects you from an early death, so it’s definitely good for something.

I believe the US military has concluded that if you have an IQ under 85, you are causing more trouble than you are a benifit for any work. Also interesting is to look at average the IQ of different places and comparing them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq

Doesn't prove causation, but the corrolation is at least an indicator.

[shufflebeat]

Humans feel the need to print their personalities and ideas on everything they do, why?

My cat does that, not nice. Other cats seem to get it, unfortunately.

[shufflebeat]

Also interesting is to look at average the IQ of different places and comparing them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq

Doesn't prove causation, but the corrolation is at least an indicator.

It may indicate that whoever designed the IQ test wasn't aware of the social and cognitive skills required to prosper in Africa.

[Radiophonic]

Humans feel the need to print their personalities and ideas on everything they do, why?

My cat does that, not nice. Other cats seem to get it, unfortunately.

Hm... Territorial behavior and mating call?

[Radiophonic]

Also interesting is to look at average the IQ of different places and comparing them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq

Doesn't prove causation, but the corrolation is at least an indicator.

It may indicate that whoever designed the IQ test wasn't aware of the social and cognitive skills required to prosper in Africa.

I agree. To prosper in africa from an evolutionary perspective may not be as tied to IQ compared to populations that had to survive harsh winters? (Just speculation on my part) I have no doubt that the most capable people to prosper under the conditions in africa are those who live there today, although foreign influence distorts things.

EDIT: Just to be clear. What I meant by comparing them was comparing them on different factors for example mortality, crimerate (for example murder) etc. Did that many years ago, but can't remember the details.

EDIT2: To contribute something more on topic:
In a certain context it might be the right choice from an artistical perspective to do performances in one take. This can be more demanding on the performer and the performer might need to spent more time practicing. If you are concerned with creating a result quickly, it might be advisable to do takes part by part. But then you end up with a collage of performances rather than one performance, which might not be the best fit for the artistic vision. This is a critical point where the context would set the priority, art or product.

[Drew Stephenson]

In a certain context it might be the right choice from an artistical perspective to do performances in one take. This can be more demanding on the performer and the performer might need to spent more time practicing. If you are concerned with creating a result quickly, it might be advisable to do takes part by part. But then you end up with a collage of performances rather than one performance, which might not be the best fit for the artistic vision. This is a critical point where the context would set the priority, art or product.

Good effort at getting back on topic!
In this case the other factor that comes into play is budget. And I don't think you can really have the art/product conversation without adding the a cost/time angle to it.

[Watchmaker]

EDIT2: To contribute something more on topic:
In a certain context it might be the right choice from an artistical perspective to do performances in one take. This can be more demanding on the performer and the performer might need to spent more time practicing. If you are concerned with creating a result quickly, it might be advisable to do takes part by part. But then you end up with a collage of performances rather than one performance, which might not be the best fit for the artistic vision. This is a critical point where the context would set the priority, art or product.

This is a great point that I struggle with a bit. Certainly in composed music, the creator tries to communicate an inner perception to a broad group of performers whose task it is to perform flawlessly - which component is art? Can a great piece played in a perfunctory manner still be deemed art?

Is it necessary that the composer's inner "vision" be articulated in a single master performance? Live in person I think undoubtedly, but the studio provides ways and means to a vastly different set of possibilities and perhaps constructing incrementally is better suited to the final product? (there's that word again). Or a combination of killer drum tracks overlaid with endless guitar overdubs and punch ins is the way to art?

Also, in Jazz, by definition consummate performance vis improvisation in the moment IS the art itself, i.e. not only prodigal technical virtuosity, but virtuoso improvisation is prerequisite to a jazz piece rising to the level of art.

Kanye, on the other hand (I'm a card carrying member of the Bash Kanye club)relies on MIDI scripted performances in addition to the hire of virtuoso performers to ensure a consistent experience. Although I dislike his work intensely, I would posit that to achieve his sound requires an incremental comping approach to get it right in the studio. (Massive assumptions on my part here)

Also, long winded bastard that I am, I think about studio recording as separate from performance in the same way that writing is distinct from performance. Both are skills that inform the final product whether it be art or entertainment or propaganda.

As you say...it's contextual.

[FrankF]

Kanye, on the other hand (I'm a card carrying member of the Bash Kanye club)

I thought they'd run out of cards yonks ago!

[RichardT]

Also interesting is to look at average the IQ of different places and comparing them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq

Doesn't prove causation, but the corrolation is at least an indicator.

It may indicate that whoever designed the IQ test wasn't aware of the social and cognitive skills required to prosper in Africa.

Probably unconscious bias in those who defined the test towards their own culture. It’s well known that IQ tests give higher scores when those sitting them share cultural references with the setters.

[RichardT]

Until recently, the only way to deliver a musical piece was as a complete live performance. It’s only since multi-tracking and pre-recording became possible with tape recording that there has been any alternative. I guess we’re talking about IRCAM and Les Paul as pioneers here.

So now we have choices that previous composers and performers never had.

It’s a new way of working that makes composing and recording closer to painting. On the plus side, it gives composers a way to produce work exactly as they want it, without it being interpreted, possibly wrongly, by others. Over time, I think the quality of virtual instruments will grow, as they start to incorporate performance aspects, and it will be possible to create great performances this way.

On the other hand, involving other people to play music can take it to a different level of quality.

[Radiophonic]

And I don't think you can really have the art/product conversation without adding the a cost/time angle to it.

I could not agree more. Art these days does not get the budget it deserves. I am at awe of the lack of rescources dedicated to high budget art production. Would love to your thoughts on this.

Certainly in composed music, the creator tries to communicate an inner perception to a broad group of performers whose task it is to perform flawlessly - which component is art? Can a great piece played in a perfunctory manner still be deemed art?

Depending on the piece I would call it art, the performance itself becomes a craft. If a flawless execution is what the artistic vision requires to be realised, it can' t be done any other way. I remember a artistic performance (unfortunatly I dont remember the title) and the concept was music from machines for machines. It was a performance of 3 pianoroll controlled pianos playing in sync at maximum velocity. This could not have been realized with humans.

Is it necessary that the composer's inner "vision" be articulated in a single master performance? Live in person I think undoubtedly, but the studio provides ways and means to a vastly different set of possibilities and perhaps constructing incrementally is better suited to the final product? (there's that word again). Or a combination of killer drum tracks overlaid with endless guitar overdubs and punch ins is the way to art?

It completle depends if the idea of a collage of performances hurts the artistic vision, imo. Some heavy metal styles benifit from the idea, that the guitarist did play the hole thing in one take. It might be expected of the player to have the skill to pull that of, and that performance aspect becomes part of the art.

Also, in Jazz, by definition consummate performance vis improvisation in the moment IS the art itself, i.e. not only prodigal technical virtuosity, but virtuoso improvisation is prerequisite to a jazz piece rising to the level of art.

Yes, the concept here is to caputre a moment. I remember a guitarist I know commenting on a live performance, that he believed to have been improvised, as he later learned it was pre written he was quite disappointed. The realness is an important factor, whether or not the listener can tell the difference. And this very difference contrasts the product approach from the art approach, imo.

Also, long winded bastard that I am, I think about studio recording as separate from performance in the same way that writing is distinct from performance. Both are skills that inform the final product whether it be art or entertainment or propaganda.

I agree, studio and live performances are very different in their nature. I often hear from bands that they want to sound in the studio like they do live. I do get what they mean, and in many cases I agree that the spirir of their live performance should be respected, but I dont like the dogma it may come with.

[shufflebeat]

Also interesting is to look at average the IQ of different places and comparing them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq

Doesn't prove causation, but the corrolation is at least an indicator.

It may indicate that whoever designed the IQ test wasn't aware of the social and cognitive skills required to prosper in Africa.

Probably unconscious bias in those who defined the test towards their own culture. It’s well known that IQ tests give higher scores when those sitting them share cultural references with the setters.

I couldn't find the doc I was looking for but this history of 𝑥/Binet tests isn't too far off:

https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of ... ng-2795581

The upshot of this, which I suggest is relevant to the "nature of art" discussion is; if you want to have a useful IQ test you'll have to decide on a definition of intelligence, most of them are easy to pull apart, and you'll probably end up with something localised for prevailing requirements, i.e., why would someone learn how to do mental arithmetic when they have access to calculators? (If this is included then I win in my house).

So - I suggest we are motivated to make art by the same biological drivers (translated into social drivers) as drive us to be economically successful. We each express those drivers in differing ratios, hence Thelonius Monk and The Monkees. You get to choose where you are on the spectrum.

[Radiophonic]

Over time, I think the quality of virtual instruments will grow, as they start to incorporate performance aspects, and it will be possible to create great performances this way.

Yes, there is certainly potential for improvement. I personally use virtual instruments only for very specific usecases. I find them very uninspiring. How much of this is lack of the feeling of controlling a 'machine'(like a piano or organ) or a piece of gear, but Im certain that is a factor. The physical handsom nature. But i am curious how things will develope in the virtual realm of instruments.

[Drew Stephenson]

My very limited experience of virtual instruments suggests that so much of their realism depends on the time taken to manually programme in those human touches. If, like me, you haven't got a clue where to start on this, then you just select a string bank, choose legato, and bury it in the mix as a pad.
Smarter people who understand how the instruments are actually played in real life can take that knowledge and transform that same set of samples into something far, far more credible.

[Radiophonic]

Also interesting is to look at average the IQ of different places and comparing them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq

Doesn't prove causation, but the corrolation is at least an indicator.

It may indicate that whoever designed the IQ test wasn't aware of the social and cognitive skills required to prosper in Africa.

Probably unconscious bias in those who defined the test towards their own culture. It’s well known that IQ tests give higher scores when those sitting them share cultural references with the setters.

I couldn't find the doc I was looking for but this history of 𝑥/Binet tests isn't too far off:

https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of ... ng-2795581

The upshot of this, which I suggest is relevant to the "nature of art" discussion is; if you want to have a useful IQ test you'll have to decide on a definition of intelligence, most of them are easy to pull apart, and you'll probably end up with something localised for prevailing requirements, i.e., why would someone learn how to do mental arithmetic when they have access to calculators? (If this is included then I win in my house).

So - I suggest we are motivated to make art by the same biological drivers (translated into social drivers) as drive us to be economically successful. We each express those drivers in differing ratios, hence Thelonius Monk and The Monkees. You get to choose where you are on the spectrum.

I think an underlying assumption in discussions about IQ is the capability of a populations to build and maintain civilisation and this is closely tied to being able to create "high art" as you see it in peak civilisational states (the greek and roman empire for example). I do believe to accumulate high IQ people in an area would not lead to a functional civilisation, as some might assume. The creation of civilsation requires a spectrum of people with different characteristic, however, not random.

What IQ is useful for, whether or not it describes anything real at all, is it correlates with several factors and therefore can be used as an indicator for how functional a certain population is (order, productivness, etc)

[Radiophonic]

My very limited experience of virtual instruments suggests that so much of their realism depends on the time taken to manually programme in those human touches. If, like me, you haven't got a clue where to start on this, then you just select a string bank, choose legato, and bury it in the mix as a pad.
Smarter people who understand how the instruments are actually played in real life can take that knowledge and transform that same set of samples into something far, far more credible.

What I did is, automation on various parameters producing quick and tiny movments of a random nature to make it sound more alive. That worked. It is quite a bit of work but it can make a huge difference. What is a big obsticale is that a lot of plugins do not like this kind of movement making everything sound worse. I think alot of softsynths are too presice/static on alot of parameters, making them rather flat/dimensionless.

[Watchmaker]

Inappropriate comments deleted - HR

IQ tests suffer greatly from hidden biases and, as pointed out, somewhat lacking definitions of intelligence. This is exacerbated by the fact that there are numerous types of intelligence, athletic, emotional, sexual, heuristic, artistic, social, political, predatory, etc. Any given human will score variously along a number of continua, and which continua are weighted as indicating "intelligence" in any given study often says more about the researcher than the subject...or the topic!

But I'm curious, what's the tie in between putative IQ and art or product? Did I miss that?

[Radiophonic]

But I'm curious, what's the tie in between putative IQ and art or product? Did I miss that?

I do think (im not educated on this), every IQ test measures the capability of an indivdual to think in abstractions. The ability to think in abstractions is a requirement to conceptionalise, which is the basis of art creation I would argue.

[Martin Walker]

My very limited experience of virtual instruments suggests that so much of their realism depends on the time taken to manually programme in those human touches. If, like me, you haven't got a clue where to start on this, then you just select a string bank, choose legato, and bury it in the mix as a pad.
Smarter people who understand how the instruments are actually played in real life can take that knowledge and transform that same set of samples into something far, far more credible.

^^^^ +1 to this info from Drew

Some of my most convincing virtual instruments came from a physically modeled plucked instrument (AAS String Studio) to which I added a handful of automation tracks tweaking various of its parameters in real time, so that every note sounded at least slightly different, just like an acoustic instrument.

It's rewarding, but a lot of work!

[Arpangel]

Over time, I think the quality of virtual instruments will grow, as they start to incorporate performance aspects, and it will be possible to create great performances this way.

This isn’t consistent over time, now, we "think" we have come a long way, but in reality, little real progress has been made in the performance aspect of instruments.

On the other hand, involving other people to play music can take it to a different level of quality.

Depends who you are, I’ve tried all my life to play and work with others, even though it’s been enjoyable "sometimes" mostly it’s been a total failure, I can count the pieces I’ve made with others on the fingers of one hand that to me, have been any good, they have to be stupendous to make me think of them as being worthwhile.
I’m a solo musician, I try and kid myself I’m not sometimes, but I now realise that’s totally pointless.

[RichardT]

My very limited experience of virtual instruments suggests that so much of their realism depends on the time taken to manually programme in those human touches. If, like me, you haven't got a clue where to start on this, then you just select a string bank, choose legato, and bury it in the mix as a pad.
Smarter people who understand how the instruments are actually played in real life can take that knowledge and transform that same set of samples into something far, far more credible.

^^^^ +1 to this info from Drew

Some of my most convincing virtual instruments came from a physically modeled plucked instrument (AAS String Studio) to which I added a handful of automation tracks tweaking various of its parameters in real time, so that every note sounded at least slightly different, just like an acoustic instrument.

It's rewarding, but a lot of work!

In some ways it would be easier to use real musicians!

[Radiophonic]

Depends who you are, I’ve tried all my life to play and work with others, even though it’s been enjoyable "sometimes" mostly it’s been a total failure, I can count the pieces I’ve made with others on the fingers of one hand that to me, have been any good, they have to be stupendous to make me think of them as being worthwhile.
I’m a solo musician, I try and kid myself I’m not sometimes, but I now realise that’s totally pointless.

Interesting. May I ask what kind of music you make? I find the abscense of other musician to be a unique challenge. Playing together you immediatly get the full picture. On your own you got to put all pieces together first to check whether or not they work well together. To an large extend I can predict this, but there are suprises. I would love to hear how you ate doing this. Midi? Demos? Only one instrument+vocals?

In some ways it would be easier to use real musicians!

This is true in my experience. I am always trying to get virtual instruments to do what the real life counterpart would do. Otherwise it very often sits rather awkwardly in the mix. Getting that right is a challenge, and I do believe a good direction for virtual instruments would be modeled instruments with randomness programmed in. Sampled instruments can work well but recording instruments yourselfs you can make sure they fit the whole.

[Martin Walker]

My very limited experience of virtual instruments suggests that so much of their realism depends on the time taken to manually programme in those human touches. If, like me, you haven't got a clue where to start on this, then you just select a string bank, choose legato, and bury it in the mix as a pad.
Smarter people who understand how the instruments are actually played in real life can take that knowledge and transform that same set of samples into something far, far more credible.

^^^^ +1 to this info from Drew

Some of my most convincing virtual instruments came from a physically modeled plucked instrument (AAS String Studio) to which I added a handful of automation tracks tweaking various of its parameters in real time, so that every note sounded at least slightly different, just like an acoustic instrument.

It's rewarding, but a lot of work!

In some ways it would be easier to use real musicians!

In general I agree, but in this case it was a physically modeled instrument that didn't exist in real life, and it was an interesting exercise to see if I could make it sound 'real'. It's the main plucked instrument in this track if you fancy a listen:

https://yewtreemagic.bandcamp.com/track/alchemy

Martin

[Watchmaker]

But I'm curious, what's the tie in between putative IQ and art or product? Did I miss that?

I do think (im not educated on this), every IQ test measures the capability of an indivdual to think in abstractions. The ability to think in abstractions is a requirement to conceptionalise, which is the basis of art creation I would argue.

Well, this seems a bit redundant to me. The ability to think in abstractions is pretty much a universal human capacity. To the extent that one human can measure another's abstractive ability implies that the measurer is capable of abstraction to the point of objectivity. I would not conclude that any human cohort has reached that stage of cognitive ability. I dunno how much science you read, or how far into methodology you go when you do, but in general, much of what gets passed of as science is pretty pathetic.

While there's a massive amount of "science" on abstract thinking, from a multitude of disciplines, I think one of the show stoppers with making pronouncements about some sort of objective conclusion is the apparent fact that reality occurs in the perceivers mind. This is a profound abstraction! If two minds are not possessed of a similar set of referents, how do you construct a meaningful way to determine which one has a greater capacity for abstraction?