No progress is not necessarily indicative of no progress.

I think I now know how I want to play the guitar (actually I think I might want to play the banjo!?!!) but I realise that to achieve this I have to get my right thumb working independently of the rest of my fingers pumping out the bassline regardless of what’s on top. A bit like drummers having to break millions of years of evolution getting the myriad of cells comprising our bodies working as one in order to get their limbs all working individually. (Hence the ridiculous and involuntary faces formed as they play … it’s not as easy as it may look). While what I am attempting is not in that league it is requiring lots of frustrating (for myself and for those in hearing range) basic practice … however it does feel great when I come close to pulling it off. I just need now to move from basic to musical.

What are the non-musical ideas, subjects and images that guide my creative journey? What do I want my music to say, what picture do I want it to paint? Do I want to change the world (universe) or just record it?

Here is a list of inspiration and influence. Some of these are sources of potential inspiration others the inspiration itself. There is a lot of overlap between some while others may be mutually exclusive. These are the things I think about when I think about writing music, to varying degrees and in no particular order:

Desolate Landscapes
Literature
Politics
Science and Engineering
Industry
Post-humanism
A Simpler Time
Love

I will discuss each in more detail in future posts.

So, all this wittering about the four humours of music, was there any point to it … or was I just procastinating, musing about music instead of getting my lazy arse into gear and actually creating some?

Well, probably the latter if I’m being honest but I’d like to see it as an attempt to nail down the personality of music, what makes a particular piece of music great … regardless of genre or cultural background … and what sort of personality do I want to give my own music? (Assuming that I do, eventually, get my lazy arse into gear.) Is it even possible to give your own music a personality or is that something that is dependant on the listener to create? Schrödinger’s bangin’ choon as it were.

I think I’m getting pretty close with my four humours to descibe music of all types … although I am aware that there’s a whole load of vagueness and contradications … and muddledness … and bits missing … and it’s a long way from anything other than thinking aloud. (As this is based on the, black bile and so on, four humours of temperament it may be a closer analogy than I give myself credit for.)

Anyway, what have I learnt?:

The nature of a piece of music depends on the levels of four humours contained within.

The mathematics and neurophysiology humours describe the low-level nature of the music itself, they are not mutually exclusive and it is perfectly possible for a piece of music to have high levels of both, (although this is rare), or low levels of both (such a piece of music would be a not good piece of music and this is, unfortunately, quite common). Having a high level of at least one is necessary (it doesn’t matter which) for a piece of music to be any good. I don’t think it is something a creator can plan, and generating music with a suitably high level is probably down to that hard to describe, mythical attribute, talent. As an example of this, a piece of music with a high level of mathematics humour would be highly technical (not necessarily meaning lots of notes per minute) but attempting to create something highly technical without the necessary talent will result in noodling and a low level of the mathematics humour. Trying to create a high level of the neurophysiology humour without the necessary talent is similarly doomed to failure. Although the necessary talent in each case could be different, a musician could easily have the talent to create music with a high level of either humour but not the other.

The impressionism and literalism humours concern the interpretation of the music, and how much the interpretation is down to the performer/creator and how much is down to the listener. Unlike the previous two humours these are mutually exclusive and instead of having an absolute level of each a piece of music has a proportion of each … as the level of the literalism humour goes up the level of the impressionism humour goes down. And vice versa. Initially I thought that a piece of music that is music for the sake of music, e.g. a classical study, or music that is purely functional such as modern dance music would be missing these humours altogether but instead I now think this could count as very high proportion of the literalism humour. Unlike the mathematics and neurophysiology humours the relative levels of the impressionism and literalism humours do not affect the quality of the music, instead what’s important here is that these humours are about the interpretation of the music and, when it comes down to it, their relative levels comes down to the listener.

So where does this leave my music?:

Do I have the talent to create a high level of the mathematics or neurophysiology neurons or am I damned to a future of noodling? Hell, who cares, there are worse fates.

The final of the four humours of music. The literalism humour like, the impressionism humour, defines what a piece of music says and how it says it. Unlike the impressionism humour, the meaning of music with a high level of the literalism humour comes directly from the creator rather than the listener. The most obvious way a creator provides this meaning to a piece of music is with lyrics which guide the listeners mind in a certain direction. More so than an instrumental piece where more is left to the imagination of the listener. However, even providing a title pushes the creator’s thinking into the mind of the listener. For example calling an instrumental piece “The Forest” will have the listener thinking about a forest and trying to attach the mental images the have of a forest to the music, if the piece was untitled who knows where the listener’s mind would go. Even classical titles such as “Study in …”, “Prelude”, “Variations on a theme of …” tell the listener what the piece is about, what to expect and what to take from the music.

Of course an imaginative listener may throw the creators instructions away and come up with some completely different interpretation whereby the levels of the literalism humour and impressionism humour in the music would shift in favour of the impressionism humour.

The level of the literalism humour in a piece of music determines how much of the meaning of the music comes from the creator.
The level of the impressionism humour in a piece of music determines how much of the meaning of the music is generated by the listener.

Even in music with lyrics, written in a language in which you are fluent, whose meaning may at first look obvious, there is always room for interpretation.

The levels of these humours in a piece of music therefore depend on both the creator and listener and are not fixed, varying with mood and each listen/performance.

Whereas the levels of the mathematics and the neurophysiology humours in a piece of music are a result of the music and it’s performance, can’t be consciously altered or planned and are musical genre and cultural tradition independent, the impressionism and literalism humours are a result of the conscious thinking of the artiste … what the music is trying to say, if anything, and how is it trying to say it. As a result there can be differences in the level of these humours based on the ear of the listener, musical preferences and tastes and cultural background.

Music can deliberately be free of any of the impressionism humour or literalism humour, if it is a piece of music for music’s sake, say a classical study, or if it is a wholely functional piece of music, purely for dancing or marching to for example. This does not mean it is not enjoyable or worthwhile simply listening to such music for pleasure. Alternatively music can appear to a listener to be free, or have low levels, of these humours because the listener doesn’t get what the performer(/composer) is trying to say with the music; either because they don’t find the music appealing to their personal taste or because they are from a different cultural tradition and simply don’t get it. In the case of the latter, again, this does not mean it is not enjoyable or worthwhile simply listening to such music for pleasure. In the case of the former it’s always worth having a listen anyway, tastes change and can be acquired.

The impressionism humour of music is it’s picture painting aspect, when you listen to it what images form in your head. Like impressionism in art more generally, this does require some imagination in the ear of the beholder. It is the picture painted by the music itself, not by any lyrics there may be … the vocalisation of those lyrics can contribute to the picture painted by the impressionism humour but it does not matter if you can’t understand the actual words.

The picture painted and the level of the impressionism humour in a piece of music is indirectly a result of the conscious efforts of the performer/composer in creating it but directly a result of the ear and mind of the listener. The creator may or may not have had a specific picture in mind in creating the piece of music, the listener may form a similar image, may form a completely different image or may form no image at all. It doesn’t matter and it’s down to the listener.

The aspect of music that affects the subconscious. The aspect of music that makes you tap you feet despite your best efforts not to, makes you want to dance, makes you want to fuck, makes you play air guitar although you really, really know you shouldn’t, makes you smile, makes you cry without being able to say why.

The aspect of music that takes control of your body away from your higher mental funtions.

It can’t be analysed, the same notes can be played in the same order, with the same timing by someone else (or by the same performer at a different time) and it not have the same effect, not have the same level of the neurophysiology humour … and it can’t be planned, can’t be written into your music. It’s simply there or it’s not.

A high level of the neurophysiology humour is in general what determines whether a piece of “popular” music or piece of folk music turns you on or turns you off. If a piece of music has a high level of the mathematics humour then the neurophysiology humour is not essential for the piece to be interesting, enjoyable, valid and great. It should also be noted that the mathematics humour and the neurophysiology humour are not mutually exclusive … although it is a rare, precious and beautiful thing if a piece of music has a high level of both.

Lyrics themselves do not contribute to the level of neurophysiology humour in a piece of music (poetry without music I think probably has it’s own set of humours, similar but not the same), but the music can infuse the lyrics with this humour. Words put together that and taken by themselves may be trite or nonsense suddenly become beautiful, deep and moving when put into their musical context.

The neurophysiology humour and the mathematics humour together form the musical genre and, indeed, culturally independent basis of music. The fundamental, low-level attributes that music from all cultural traditions and from all schools of artistic philosophy have. The aspects that make music a universal human experience.

The aspect of music you appreciate consciously, that you have to think about and analyse to admire.

Music with a high concentration of the mathematics humour is music for the sake of music itself. Examples would be classical studies or “variations on a theme of …” type pieces. Not music that’s trying to tell a story or paint a picture, not music that’s meant to make you dance or elicit an emotional response but music where if you really listen, sit back and think about it you can still think “wow, that’s really clever, possibly even beautiful”.

I think Jazz music would be another example of music with a high level of the mathematics humour, only, unlike classical music, at it’s best the mathematics humour is submissive to the neurophysiology humour, although, maybe, only just.

Clever lyrics could also be an indication of a higher level of the mathematics humour … even if they don’t actually mean anything. Lyrics that don’t necessarily make you burst into tears, or laugh, or smile, or get angry, or …, although they could, but lyrics where, again if you sit back and think about them strike you as clever.

Music with a high concentration of the mathematics humour will probably be very technical but does not relate only to western music theory.

Just as it used to be believed that human moods, emotions and behaviours were caused by the combination and proportions of body fluids (the humours) – blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm – leading to the four temperaments – sanguine, choleric, melancholic and phlegmatic – I think all music is the combination of four musical humours the proportions of which in any piece of music or performance determine the effect it has on us, whether it is a piece to be appreciated consciously or subconsciously, something that can be analysed or not.

These humours describe music at a more basic yet more holistic level than a description based on different musical genres, keys, tempos, dynamics and so on.

These four humours are:

1)Mathematics*
2)Neurophysiology*
3)Impressionism*
4)Literalism*

In future posts I will describe what I mean by these.

*I know that I have misappropriated some/all of these words … but I know what I’m trying to say.

The Leader For Tomorrow Is Your’s Today
Finally Gotcha Psyched for a police state
- Full Metal Jackoff by Jello Biafra with D.O.A.

Jello Biafra is another who has written many unbelievably good lyrics through the years, although again most would require more than two lines to demonstrate (and there was a max two lines constraint in compiling this list of favourite lyrics). I’ve said in a number of these posts that all art is pointless, if it is not pointless it’s not art, it’s engineering. This lyric is, maybe, a good demonstration of this. I mean, this song is twenty years old now and although the names may have changed it is, scarily and depressingly, probably more true and more relevant now than it undoubtedly was when it was written.

Protest songs should not have a timeless relevance, yet so, so, often they do.

Surely if music had any real power songs like this would have kicked people into creating a better society by now.

… but am I being too harsh? Afterall I’ve listed this as being one of my ten favourite lyrics and yet have just blasted it for having failed in it’s goal. Why do I love this record so much and listen to it so often? Is it because it helps open my eyes to the nature of our society? Is it because it gets me angry that these lyrics are still/more relevant today? Is it because it gets me angry at myself for being so apthetic and encourages me to try and change things? Is it because it gives me hope for humanity, that there are people out there not willing to let our rulers simply get away with it? IS it because it makes me think?

Pointless?

Hell, I love engineering too.

Our progeny will raise a can,
Here’s to where it all began
- There Is No Ending by Arab Strap

Arab Strap wrote a lot of great lyrics, most require more than two lines to capture though … and the two lines max constraint was important to the ten favourite lyrics challenge all those many moons ago that led to these posts. Thinking about Arab Strap’s songs today I have a strong suspicion, have almost convinced myself, that they could all be tales of classical mythology updated for contemporary times. That they are, probably, not doesn’t matter, they could be. (Whether this says something about the genius of Arab Strap or the genius of classical mythology … or whether I’ve just suffered a fit of dribbling pretension … I’m not sure.) Whatever, I am sure Arab Strap have written some of the greatest love songs of all time, rarely obviously so which of course makes them even greater. You will just have to listen to discover what I mean. This appeals to a hopeless romantic like myself (emphasis on hopeless).

This particular lyric is a good example of what made Arab Strap great. A song about love, optimism, and happiness (it is from their final album which is decidedly, although everything is relative, upbeat and happy) between imperfect being, imperfection doesn’t matter. This image of descendants way down the line raising a toast to love as the sun swells up to destroy the earth is uplifting, but, what’s this, not a “toast” or “glass” or even “drink” but a “can” … ordinary people being intensely ordinary as the world burns.

(Of course “can” is used because of the rhyme but it creates a much more moving image because of it’s day to day ordinariness. It’s not about some perfect mythical beings in a romantic fairytale but ordinary, normal, imperfect humans living a romantic, close as it’s going to get to a, fairytale. A great example of how the constraints of music/poetry can produce a much greater image than perhaps another, more obvious, choice of word would do.)