Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

Blushing Satellite - High


Recommended Posts

Hiya fellas,

 

About a year ago, a local musician got in touch with me to be part of a project called "Blushing Satellite" that was about making music with an intent to heal - more so from a spiritual/therapeutic standpoint. A year later, after an amazing journey with these incredible musicians who I've got to know dearly, we finally finished the album due to be out on the 25th. I'm also working with the same bunch of musicians for my singer-songwriter EP to be out later this year. Anyways, this song called "High" is one of my favorites off the album and it's really got some groove going. Being part of a band completely contrasting my personal songwriter career that's going strong has allowed me to learn and become a much better musician. Plus I've gotten to really explore the corners of myself as a singer and songwriter to find what's there!

 We got a couple of artists to work on this great video as well which I wanted to share with you guys. 
 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a sound / feel, that reminds me of a slow Jamiroquai.

 

My only real constructive comment would be to reinforce the connection between the music and the imagery. It could certainly be stronger, or more obvious. Other than that, the quality is all there in both image and music. Good job Blushing Satellite:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, john said:

There's a sound / feel, that reminds me of a slow Jamiroquai.

 

My only real constructive comment would be to reinforce the connection between the music and the imagery. It could certainly be stronger, or more obvious. Other than that, the quality is all there in both image and music. Good job Blushing Satellite:)

Thanks John!

 

Since most of the music falls on the psychedelic side of the influence, Rama wanted it fairly abstract but I hear you on that bud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstract is one thing, but it is the connection between the music and what you are viewing in abstract. For example, a cartoon plumber is an abstraction of a real plumber. A Picasso portrait of a woman is an abstraction of a specific woman, and she in turn could be viewed as an abstraction of all women.

 

Abstraction is a view of something from a step, or several steps away. A layer above. It is what makes the difference between an abstract portrait, and just some meaningless lines and pretty colours.

 

High can be taken and interpreted many ways. Abstracted in many ways. The video has some loose connections, but for me it tends to fall on the "pretty images with coloured lines" end of the scale, whereas, it's impact could have been more meaningful with some thought of the abstraction. Success in music, as measured by the popularity of a song, is all about connection between the listener, the song and the performer. Images can either strengthen that connection, weaken that connection, compliment that connection, or be ambiguous. Something can be very abstract and yet be any of those.

 

I don't mean to dwell on the negative point, for what is overall, very good. I am just clarifying the point based on your 'abstract' comment. If Rama is not an experienced visual artist, never mind someone who combines the two, the need for meaning and connection at all levels, in order to have strong meaning and connection for the listener or viewer, is easily overlooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, john said:

Abstract is one thing, but it is the connection between the music and what you are viewing in abstract. For example, a cartoon plumber is an abstraction of a real plumber. A Picasso portrait of a woman is an abstraction of a specific woman, and she in turn could be viewed as an abstraction of all women.

 

Abstraction is a view of something from a step, or several steps away. A layer above. It is what makes the difference between an abstract portrait, and just some meaningless lines and pretty colours.

 

High can be taken and interpreted many ways. Abstracted in many ways. The video has some loose connections, but for me it tends to fall on the "pretty images with coloured lines" end of the scale, whereas, it's impact could have been more meaningful with some thought of the abstraction. Success in music, as measured by the popularity of a song, is all about connection between the listener, the song and the performer. Images can either strengthen that connection, weaken that connection, compliment that connection, or be ambiguous. Something can be very abstract and yet be any of those.

 

I don't mean to dwell on the negative point, for what is overall, very good. I am just clarifying the point based on your 'abstract' comment. If Rama is not an experienced visual artist, never mind someone who combines the two, the need for meaning and connection at all levels, in order to have strong meaning and connection for the listener or viewer, is easily overlooked.

 
Agreed. Though I ain't involved in how the video was made or directed or how Rama communicated with the artists that made the video, I can say that there are a few abstract messages that one might not catch simply because the viewer is unaware of the connection or background. I'm sure there are thousands of people who fall under the category where they look at an 'abstract' painting that would be valued at millions of dollars (not saying money decides artist value but to say that it could be revered) for its artistic value and say - "this doesn't make sense at all". lol Which is okay. And it certainly shouldn't stop the artist from producing such works. Abstraction is relative. If the abstraction was obvious in its association, then it wouldn't be abstract. I'm not disagreeing with your point at all though, in fact I might be reinforcing it more. :)

In this video, the appearance of the two birds at the end, the peacock feather, a few shots in specific relate to Krishna and his story, the Indian mythological God who as a kid was a very naughty, playful fella. And the song sort of draws the influence that you need to get the inner "Krishna" out of you and let the innocence take over your life. Now, I'm sure unless the viewer is aware of the Indian mythology, those specific shots would also be seen as "pretty images with coloured lines" along with all the other shots which might as well be "pretty images with coloured lines" leading to further ambiguity. But I just wanted to clarify myself about what I meant by the abstract comment. It was not to say or mean that my definition of abstract is a collage of pretty images and graphics without substance to it. That's like the students I've had at my songwriting courses in the past simply writing lines with an intent to randomly rhyme before having anything to express and then say "that's my way of writing, I'm still expressing what I want to say". lol

 

In fact, I'm sure Rama would be able to draw many more such instances of what he's trying to express which I would have no idea of because I'm simply not a religious guy despite delving in a bit of non religious spirituality.

With that being said, I think we do need a community of artists collaborating with each other with a sense of direction that you explained of ; where an artist and a musician can sit together, communicate ideas and intents and try to find a common place in their respective art and superimpose the two. Which would greatly help bridge the gaps between the two skills and produce a piece of art which is cohesive in its visuals as well as what the music is trying to express - even in abstraction. Whether it be musicians and visual artists, film makers and actors, or what not.

 

All good stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mahesh, I kind of agree with John on this one. It is fine watching a video if you know what the person is trying to achieve, but that would be a small minority of who you should be trying to sell your music to. For me I watched a lot of lovely visuals of locations, with some disjointed art. Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the art part and felt the video would have been better, or even stronger for just having the art as the visuals, they could still incorporate the message you were all trying to get over in the music. As I say, the art was a pleasant surprise and I would definitely think about using the artists for further endeavours.

 

I think John hit the nail on the head re it sounding a bit like Jamiroquai and since I really can't stand the man or his music, I am not the best person to comment on this song. I personally don't feel it's as strong as your other music and didn't feel the vocals blended with the song, again, I am probably the wrong person to comment on this, so please don't take it the wrong way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Richard Tracey said:

Mahesh, I kind of agree with John on this one. It is fine watching a video if you know what the person is trying to achieve, but that would be a small minority of who you should be trying to sell your music to. For me I watched a lot of lovely visuals of locations, with some disjointed art. Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the art part and felt the video would have been better, or even stronger for just having the art as the visuals, they could still incorporate the message you were all trying to get over in the music. As I say, the art was a pleasant surprise and I would definitely think about using the artists for further endeavours.

 

I think John hit the nail on the head re it sounding a bit like Jamiroquai and since I really can't stand the man or his music, I am not the best person to comment on this song. I personally don't feel it's as strong as your other music and didn't feel the vocals blended with the song, again, I am probably the wrong person to comment on this, so please don't take it the wrong way.

No worries at all Richard! It's all good and healthy discussion we are meant to have here on these boards.

I agree with John and resonate with his point as well. All that he's mentioned is important points to remember and consider. I was clarifying regarding any misconception of my personal idea of abstraction. In terms of the video, how it was made and what went on in between the making is out of my boundaries. 

But that brings me to an interesting point, how far in the creative process would you want to include the audience and how it is perceived over what you want to express as an artist purely. I know the answer to it. It relates to how efficiently or successfully you'd want to make a career or living out of music. You cannot deny for one bit how you want to present a piece of art to the audience and how well in order to "sell" or be profitable or be efficient.  But I'm sure there is a grey line where it might step into the core of the creative process so much that you lose the emotion behind it. It's to find a balance. 

 

With this video, there are many messages and references but as you mentioned it is a small minority who'd pick that up. Rama, whose band this is, is a weird guy. (A good hearted one). What the audience wants or would relate to best isn't in his priorities as much as what he wants to express. He isn't looking to make any money out of the album in itself though we will be playing gigs that will help all of us earn some money doing what we love. He intends to donate all the money that is to be earned, if any, from the album sales to a charity. He spent thousands of dollars on this project to just be in that creative process for his own spiritual/personal reasons. And he does intend for the music to have an intent of healing. 

So it's a weird and wonderfully ego-less (and I mean ego in a spiritual way and not in an insulting way) journey that I was part of with these incredible musicians. I learnt much about life and music from it for which I'm thankful for and I'm applying it with my own music. In fact, it has changed my life as a musician after Songstuff. Which is awesome. 

I'm a huge fan of Jamiroquai btw! So no comments there. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes down to layers of meaning, and who Rama wants to communicate with. For example, is this music and the video solely for Indians and followers of Krishna? If the answer is yes, all well and good. If he would like it to go beyond those listeners, then perhaps accommodating a means of connection for them too might be helpful.

 

As a general point, abstraction can be thought of as "represents" or "is representative of", also "is a type of". For example, a stool and a chair can both be abstracted as a seat, which in turn can be abstracted as furniture. There is still a connection. If the video narrative, such as it is, is a religious one, then yes, people from other religions and cultures may not see connections. I know a little about Krishna but I certainly am not familiar enough to have seen the connections.

 

As you mentioned, it is similar to song writing. As a writer we have to have some mind towards who we are talking to, and being understood. Commonly, we talk to specific groups on one level, but accommodate a broader understanding. In this, from what you say, at a visual level, Rama has left messages for a specific group, while neglecting a broader listener. Musically, there is a far broader appeal. It is not simply traditional worship music. So for me, musically, Rama is reaching beyond that core listener who will automatically get these visual abstractions. Hell, you even suspect there are ones you are not aware of even though you are far more aware of the frames of reference.

 

The risk of such hidden or obscured messages is that large numbers of viewers would be left cold, at best, or marginalised at worst.... a bit like knowing there are in jokes amongst friends. You hear the odd person laughing, while you feel excluded from the joke. You are never sure if they are laughing at you. A joke only for those in the know. Not exactly a huge issue for one video of one song... but if it were a trend? That would be concerning. It would seem crazy to create music with broad appeal, only to cater for a small core visually. I hope that makes sense.

 

Just to be clear, I know it is not your main project, but at the same time you should feel rightfully proud. I really am not trying to take this apart, run it down or otherwise undermine it's value. Indeed, were it something with more limited appeal, I would probably not have bothered saying something... however, as a general point of interest and discussion, relevant to all of us music makers, it is only on having drilled down and talking about it, that had enable us all to put our finger on exactly what works and what doesn't work here, instead of being vaguely aware that the video, not the song, was leaving me disconnected. Cold. A little underwhelmed. Without really getting why that should be the case, when I enjoyed the song.

 

On a purely musical note... while I enjoy this, and appreciate it's detail, it doesn't hold as much emotional pull as your own songs. With your own music the emotion is palpable, ever present, oozing and building to burst the banks like an over full river. Musically, both are very good. They are quite different entities. That said... I am looking forward to the rest of the Blushing Satellites album. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mahesh said:

With this video, there are many messages and references but as you mentioned it is a small minority. Rama, whose band this is, is a weird guy. (A good hearted one). What the audience wants or would relate to best isn't in his priorities as much as what he wants to express. He isn't looking to make any money out of the album in itself though we will be playing gigs that will help all of us earn some money doing what we love. He intends to donate all the money that is to be earned, if any, from the album sales to a charity. He spent thousands of dollars on this project to just be in that creative process for his own spiritual reasons. And he does intend for the music to have an intent of healing. 

 

That makes sense, although I wouldn't have thought it egoless, it sounds more akin to self-indulgent or being self-absorbed, to be so unconcerned for the experience of your listeners. Interesting that it is about personal connection and personal journey, and limited communication with a small group, when my understanding of Krishna is that of love and the interconnectedness of all things. 

 

Rama is not alone in this approach to music. I find it weird, because to me, music is fundamentally about communication and connection. Meanwhile Rama seems to be doing the equivalent of putting up posters to tell you he is going to play beautiful, crafted music, for his own pleasure in a sealed room somewhere, so that you can turn up and hear a muffled version of what he is doing.

 

There is a duality in such musicians. A mixed message. On one hand they do not care about you or your needs, yet they feel a burning desire to tell you that they don't care lol. If they really don't care, why not be content to keep playing alone in their bedroom?

 

In my experience thus far in life, such approaches tend to come from arrogance. A strong, uncompromising need to be recognised and be accepted for who they are. To feel understood. That people get them. While at the same time saying, well if you don't get me, screw you.

 

That does not negate the experience of working with such people, and Rama may not be that guy, but you perfectly describe the symptoms of such duality.

 

People are strange. Artistes are stranger! Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for going off-topic Mahesh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, john said:

 

That makes sense, although I wouldn't have thought it egoless, it sounds more akin to self-indulgent or being self-absorbed, to be so unconcerned for the experience of your listeners. Interesting that it is about personal connection and personal journey, and limited communication with a small group, when my understanding of Krishna is that of love and the interconnectedness of all things. 

 

Rama is not alone in this approach to music. I find it weird, because to me, music is fundamentally about communication and connection. Meanwhile Rama seems to be doing the equivalent of putting up posters to tell you he is going to play beautiful, crafted music, for his own pleasure in a sealed room somewhere, so that you can turn up and hear a muffled version of what he is doing.

 

There is a duality in such musicians. A mixed message. On one hand they do not care about you or your needs, yet they feel a burning desire to tell you that they don't care lol. If they really don't care, why not be content to keep playing alone in their bedroom?

 

In my experience thus far in life, such approaches tend to come from arrogance. A strong, uncompromising need to be recognised and be accepted for who they are. To feel understood. That people get them. While at the same time saying, well if you don't get me, screw you.

 

That does not negate the experience of working with such people, and Rama may not be that guy, but you perfectly describe the symptoms of such duality.

 

People are strange. Artistes are stranger! Lol


John, I would disagree on this one. Simply because there is no obligation at all to be concerned for the experience of the listeners. There is no such thing written in stone and there never should be.  Unless one wants to make it a living or claims to be concerned of the audience, there is nothing stopping anybody to do what they want to do for their own reasons including with music. And they can put it out there for the world to see and invite them to give it a listen.  And it would still be without arrogance. No one is forced to listen nor is he disheartened if the audience don't listen. I really don't think audience always have to be part of the equation in music.  

 

There is no obligation to make music to make it universally relatable either. You do music honestly and with complete dedication and passion. If certain people relate to it, great! If they don't, great! (as opposed to your assumption that it's a "screw you" which isn't at all) No harm done. Being neutral in how the audience will take it or not isn't the same as saying "screw you". You made that equivalence.  I have faced this question on my spiritual journey way too many times. About the thought of going "inward" to be seen as being self-indulgent and egoistic. But I've always read otherwise. The very essence of the Tao speaks of this and it is more so non-dual in nature than the duality you speak of. Tao meaning doing not doing. They say that one needs to do their job and step back. And that is the way of life. I see the essence of it purely in what Rama is doing. Create the music with no focus taken away from what is to be expressed. Do it with love and passion. Put it out there. Invite people to listen. Do all that you think is your job. But step back from it once done. Do not expect. If you do, learn that it's the ego speaking and come to the center. 

 

Tell me, why does one have to play music only in their bedroom if they don't care? I mean, can one not care and yet love the process of making music, putting it out there and sharing it with people? That way if people relate to it, it's a plus. If not, it's okay! lol No hate, no harm. I see only love in that situation. I see no duality in doing what you love because you love doing it. 

I understand why you can see it the way you are because of the very difference in your definition of music and what it means to you. But your equivalence to what Rama is doing is gravely inaccurate, I must say. Which is okay lol But I say that by knowing him personally and what his intent has been. In fact, I find it egoistic for people who do crave for approval for one's own music that way, so much that they factor that into expressing with music. In a way it includes myself. I admire people who can genuinely say that they are making music for the pure love of the process and to be involved in the intent of the message. And then put it out there out of their own expense with no expectations from it. And if one did earn something from it, then give it all away as Rama intends to. To not seek anything but the experience of making music, now that surely is egoless. 

 

Everyone is free to pursue any art for their own necessity. There is no obligation to be concerned about any audience and it doesn't make you a bad person if you aren't. You become a bad person if your intentions are bad and you act from there. 

Honestly, I find my own journey of music filled with getting approval from the likes of critics, audiences and the need to make a living from it - egoistic. lol I do it anyways for the pleasure of it allowing me to continue doing it. Maybe that's the way life works, or the industry works or whatever, doesn't change the fact it is built on ego. 

 

With my experience in recording this album, I saw a great stress on working without ego. It allowed me to realise that this project was a person's vision to express love through the talents he's been given and our talents were being used to channel that source. It allowed me to learn patience and go into the shoes of the other person and brighten that vision of his without letting myself be emotionally attached to my ideas in music, so much so that I start haste and disagreements. The producer worked the same way. It wasn't about being a puppet and agreeing to everything being said. We raised our doubts when we did and we elaborated as much as needed and we had the space to. But we knew that ultimately, there was a purpose being served and that purpose came from a small seed of a musical idea of a person. Imagine such people working with you on your album John? What an asset that would be! To make your vision theirs. Which we did so proudly for the sake of the message of the album.

The symptoms you described from your experience are unfortunate and I feel bad that you'd to work with such people. But that definitely ain't what I experienced lol It was exactly the opposite of it. There was a vision very clear with the album, but the spirit was always the one with open-heartedness, no ego and respect. Which included our understanding that we were all the pawns in a game Rama had created. 

 

Silence is not disagreement. It's not necessarily a message to the world to say that one doesn't care. Expressing explicitly that one doesn't care is saying that one doesn't care. Paraphrasing the Tao Te Ching, do your work and step back. Beautiful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, High is the song in specific related to Krishna. The album titled "The Union" is the reference to the union of Shiva and Shakti (which are two Indian mythological gods), yin and yang, good and evil, male and female, ego and love. That's what the entire album is about. :) 

BTW Limited communication with a small group was not the intent, it was a by product of being purely focused on what needs to be expressed. So I think the association there is unfair and inaccurate! 

Anyways all of this is good stuff. I realise that I'm not speaking for Rama here but myself and my own views on music, spirituality and love. Insightful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand and infer things from what I said as if I said them, when I did not. I am not sure what you are disagreeing with as I did not chisel anything in stone.

 

I don't think of caring about listener experience as strictly to do with making a living from music, although if you want to make a living from music caring about listener experience is important. Still there is no obligation, only action and likely consequence.

 

Neither do I think there is an obligation to do music for others.

 

There is, for me, as an observer, a contradiction in not caring about listeners experience on one hand, while wanting them to experience it... which is a fundamental reason for sharing, be that to get paid, to see reactions, or for some other reason you want others to share your experience... on some level it is clearly important that others get the experience you are giving them.

 

I was not saying such artists should play in their bedroom. I was highlighting the nature of sharing. That if sharing is not important, they may as well be playing in their bedroom. If sharing is important, then there is a contradiction in that in one hand listeners are important or necessary, while on the other they are unimportant.

 

As I said, Rama may not be that guy.

 

I did not say anything was a rule, obligation or written in stone. I did not say anyone was a bad man. Free will means anyone can do what they want, call it what they want. 

 

I said to me it is weird to have that contradiction I mentioned above.

 

Music is fundamentally communication. You express yourself. A monologue can be done alone. It is not about connection, other than your own connection to the words, or in this case the music. A conversation requires two people at a minimum (or if spiritual an other, a god, the universe). To be understood, a connection is made on some level, be that with a person, a group, a god, the universe.

 

Can you create something that is an of itself? Absolutely. If I compare this to food:

 

  1. You can make food and not care if anyone eats it. That is your right. This would simply be the joy of creating. I may want to do this outside, but it really does not matter where I make it. It is not for others. It isn't even for you. It is about the creation process, which as I don't care about people eating it, could be anywhere, including my bedroom.
  2. You can make food and not care if anyone eats it., but you. That is your right. Commonly, if you did this, I would expect you to want to enjoy the food you make or to tweak it until you did like it. It would be uncommon to want to make food that you didn't enjoy unless you were doing it purely as a learning exercise. Yes it could be for the joy of creating, but it would be unusual to not at least be interested in what was thought of the creation, by at least yourself. That is how we learn. You could make it outside, but there is no NEED for it to be anywhere other than private. This is not an instruction.
  3. You can make food and want others to eat it. You can do this too, for the joy of creation. But it would be unusual to do so and not care whether anyone liked it. You may have reasons other than whether people liking it, for wanting them to eat it.
  4. You can make food, want people to eat it, want them to enjoy it This is probably the most common. It is quite independent from wanting to make a living as a chef, though if you do want to be a chef, people liking your food is pretty damn important.

None of this is rules, or carved in stone. I am just describing the main options when making food. The same would be true for music.

 

There is a difference between the creation process which outputs a creative work, and the need to then show people or not. Caring about others or not runs through both processes..

 

i dont know what association you think think is unfair and inaccurate. There is action and consequence.

 

Electronic Engineering

 

If I was to express that using a DC power supply, I could regulate current using a variable resistor that was also a unipolar switch, in series connection with a filament, such that I could control the incandecense of the filament, some people would get instantly what I was talking of. Some would not. The more complex components I introduce using such language, the smaller the group that would understand me would be.

 

By knowing this I could change my language to say that I was going to connect a dimmer switch to a battery and build so that I could control the brightness of the bulb and turn it on and off. I am talking of the same thing, yet almost everyone understands.

 

While I understand I am not obligated, there is action and consequence. While everything need not be dumbed down for global understanding, there is consequence. Less people get it.

 

Often when we create something for and of a closed group, we share it only with the closed group. When it goes beyond that group we have to adjust our language and explain what is meant so it is understood, or we ask people to ignore it after we try to explain it a few times and are met with glazed eyes.

 

That is why papers on neuroscience  are published in specialist journals, not in newspapers. When the results do spill onto the general press language is adjusted and the concepts simplified.

 

Arrogance was my general (not exclusive) experience of the few people who have created music so firmly for themselves. It was not a comment on Rama. I don't know the guy and haven't worked with him.

 

We've departed a fair way from the song and video.

 

Motivations, intentions and personality aside, abstracted references to Krishna are not unwelcome, they just are not seen by those not in the know. They become unrelated squiggles and colours on top of seemingly unrelated images. A little thought, to cater for dumb listeners might have helped the video, and perhaps helped the message of the lyrics, to be delivered even more effectively to a wider audience.

 

While perhaps not intending to make a living from music might seem an important factor, we as artistes do ask people to spend their money (sometimes for some artistes), and certainly their time, on our music. Asking them to do so may or may not have an obligation, but surely it warrants consideration? If it doesn't, can we blame them if they walk away?

 

Lastly, the joy of making music is built within almost all musicians. Considering others, connecting to others etc has a varying level of influence on the creation process, depending on who we are, and what our purpose is. I would think very few make music purely for personal gain. Certainly not those who play with others or perform. We also do it for comradeship,a shared experience, connection.. especially with other musicians.

 

Out of interest, can you imagine gigs where no one claps, no one reacts? Not at all? I doubt many musicians would like many gigs with no reactions.

 

As a thought experiment:

 

We all know music can elicit strong reactions. It is no surprise people use music to get hyped, get relaxed, even to make love. What if there was a direct correlation, proveable, between the music we perform and reactions... such as murder, conception, dishonesty, assault, rape, happiness etc? The fact is... there is. We all know it. True, the strongest of reactions are rare, but they happen. Say it was a sure thing. Would we care then what our audience experience was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya John,

 

This has turned into an interesting and insightful discussion. Let me try to go through your response in steps so that it will allow me to clarify myself and gladly reiterate the same point I was trying to make! :) 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

I think you misunderstand and infer things from what I said as if I said them, when I did not. I am not sure what you are disagreeing with as I did not chisel anything in stone.

I'm not sure if I've inferred anything else than what was in your post. Let me bring in your earlier response so that I can clear that up if I did misunderstand anything. Do feel free to point it out and I'd be happy to discuss this topic from that talking point.

 

12 hours ago, john said:

That makes sense, although I wouldn't have thought it egoless, it sounds more akin to self-indulgent or being self-absorbed, to be so unconcerned for the experience of your listeners

From what I understand from this, I assume you're trying to say that to be unconcerned for the experience of the listeners draws similarities to being self-indulgent and self-absorbed. Which is what I disagree with. I do so because that statement infers that egoless music has to be associated with a concern for the experience of the listener. I wouldn't think so. Music in itself, let alone egoless music doesn't have to relate to the experience of the listener at all. I mean, having learnt most of what I know about the music industry all from you, I do agree that the concern is hugely significant if you are to make a living, expect to get paid or gain some fame or approval. But the music and the process of creating it can be egoless by indulging one's self in present moment freshness and looking to express whatever it is that the skill allows you to. I wouldn't be (or want to be) thinking of the listeners when I'm in such a state of mind. But I wouldn't necessarily be thinking of myself either. I'd be involved in making the music and expressing the message of it. Paraphrasing one of my favorite philosophers Anthony DeMello - "You're not the dancer. You are being danced". I would draw comparison to that saying which suggests you not speaking through music but music speaking through you. Now this is a very new-age way of looking at things and I assume that the atheist would get a kick out of this. Nonetheless, it is a view point that myself as well as many others have genuinely have connected with deeply.

 

12 hours ago, john said:

Meanwhile Rama seems to be doing the equivalent of putting up posters to tell you he is going to play beautiful, crafted music, for his own pleasure in a sealed room somewhere, so that you can turn up and hear a muffled version of what he is doing.

 

This equivalence is again something I disagree with. (I hope I don't have to repeat myself everytime that me disagreeing with you doesn't mean you're not allowed your views. It's just a talking point) I'm not saying you're not allowed to have your own judgement of it but it wouldn't amount to what it truly is equivalent to or is the truth. I don't believe so that he's doing the equivalent of putting up posters to tell that he is going to play beautiful crafted music and sit somewhere in a sealed room somewhere. I will further elaborate on this as I quote your latest post to clarify.

 

12 hours ago, john said:

There is a duality in such musicians. A mixed message. On one hand they do not care about you or your needs, yet they feel a burning desire to tell you that they don't care lol. If they really don't care, why not be content to keep playing alone in their bedroom?

If there is a desire for a musician to not care and yet want to express that they don't care and further seek an approval from it - sure, I agree. There is duality in such musicians. But the true intent of why someone does something and how it is seen by you or anybody else are not the same thing. If it was so, I can take apart any piece of music, any person, any musician and find some sort of duality with the same logic. I don't see any burning desire for Rama to tell anybody that he doesn't care. But again, I will explain this desire and what the intent might be just once further along this post. It just helps me not repeat myself. 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

There is, for me, as an observer, a contradiction in not caring about listeners experience on one hand, while wanting them to experience it... which is a fundamental reason for sharing, be that to get paid, to see reactions, or for some other reason you want others to share your experience... on some level it is clearly important that others get the experience you are giving them.

I can address this contradiction by again referring to Anthony DeMello. He wrote a book called "Awareness". He was a Jesuit preist, a psychotherapist and toured the world spreading his message of awareness. And yet he said "I'm just here to dance my dance. If you learn from it, great! You did it. If you didn't, that's okay too." He said what he had to say but never claimed authority for it. He expressed and shared what he thought or felt made sense. He toured the world for it! But he said only the observer is responsible for what they observe. Whether it's good or bad. Whether it's enlightening or not.  I feel having this freedom of taking no responsibility for the good or the bad allowed him to express with clear vision and non-bias. Maybe he got called for more talks elsewhere, maybe he got paid to write more books. But he never demanded or was seeking it. And wasn't bothered if he didn't get it. Which is quite a radical thing to say but hey it exists. Same with music.

 

8 hours ago, john said:

I was not saying such artists should play in their bedroom. I was highlighting the nature of sharing. That if sharing is not important, they may as well be playing in their bedroom. If sharing is important, then there is a contradiction in that in one hand listeners are important or necessary, while on the other they are unimportant.

 

There doesn't necessarily have to be a contradiction and saying there definitely is, is inaccurate. (I will elaborate further more on this as I get to your food example) Let me explain myself. I might have no concern for the experience of the listener and yet have the intent to share it ie., simply make it available for consumption. And hey, I might let people know about it too! If the listener gets it, great! We've made a beautiful connection. If not, that's great too! If it's not worth their time, it's not worth their time. No harm done. Doesn't have to disregard my intent to share it in any case. 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

I said to me it is weird to have that contradiction I mentioned above.

Well, what do I tell ya John, the world is a weird place! lol

 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

Music is fundamentally communication.

I would say music is fundamentally expression. I don't mean it in a way as express to someone but just, expression - the act, skill or process of taking all the things floating in your mind, may it be your subconscious too, squeeze it through that keyhole of a language called art (music, painting, whatever it is) and imprint it on a canvas. Music can and is fundamentally used as a way or medium to communicate, sure, I'd agree. But what music is, my definition would differ and I'm sure there are many out there who'd have their interpretation of it. 

 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

A monologue can be done alone. It is not about connection, other than your own connection to the words, or in this case the music. A conversation requires two people at a minimum (or if spiritual an other, a god, the universe). To be understood, a connection is made on some level, be that with a person, a group, a god, the universe.

I would agree with this and would see it in no way as inconsistent to all that I've said above. Though I would highlight the point that you mentioned that sometimes the conversation is between the musician and a god, the universe, yourself and so on. 

 

 

Now with the food example - this is where it gets interesting. You did mention in a couple of them that there is no NEED to make it outside. There is no NEED to make it inside either. You just like making food.  You make it where you feel like it regardless of the common custom. You do it until you like it or are happy with what you have discovered and learned. And once you're happy with the dish or where it has got you, you put it outside on a table. Might even express in your own way the story behind it(read "lyrics" and "music"). People walking by might stop by to take a bite finding some interest in it or finding some sort of association with the essence of the recipe, some might not relate to it, some may! But I see no harm (and you have mentioned that neither do you) in indulging oneself in a cooking process, enjoy it and work on it all the way and put it out there for those who might find interest in it. If they don't, no harm at all! If they do, you've created something of a beautiful connection there which is a by product of your journey with food. You don't need to take credit or responsibility for the by product and proudly wear it on your head. In no step along the way does the chef have to think about whether somebody would like it or not to make something delicious because the chef was too involved with the art itself! Of course, in this way, one might create a bad recipe too which is also okay because it doesn't change anything for the chef and the journey he went through already.

 

12 hours ago, john said:

Interesting that it is about personal connection and personal journey, and limited communication with a small group, when my understanding of Krishna is that of love and the interconnectedness of all things. 

You said that the song is about personal connection and also in the same sentence said that it is about limited communication with a small group. This is what I said is unfair and inaccurate. Because it is not about that at all. Sure limited communication is a by product or as you said, a consequence of an action. But it isn't about it. 

 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

Often when we create something for and of a closed group, we share it only with the closed group. When it goes beyond that group we have to adjust our language and explain what is meant so it is understood, or we ask people to ignore it after we try to explain it a few times and are met with glazed eyes.

 

We don't have to adjust anything beyond anything if we don't want to. We can present something as is and let the listener/viewer decide what he/she wants to make of it. It is a weird path to tread on but it isn't uncommon at all. Many great scriptures were written that way. Many great paintings were made that way. (and with both, bad ones too!) And one can still invite people to come and do make what they want from it because he's simply unbothered of the consequences. He shares it because he loves sharing it. Making it available for those, if any, who've got an interest for it. If something good happens from it, it's more than welcome (though in the case of the album, I did mention any sales from it would go to a charity), if nothing happens from it, it's more than welcome! It's very unlikely that something bad happens from it though. If it did, it would be the responsibility of the person causing it and not the creator. 

 

You referred to my "set in stone" comment multiple times and said that you never said so. I never claimed that you said so either lol I referred to that just to make my point(which you have agreed and reiterated yourself) that there is no obligation to do ANYTHING in ANYWAY with art. That's the beauty of art. My personal opinion about something is not to say that I claim you have the opposite opinion.I'm sure you'd agree with me here as well. In fact in my earlier posts, I did mention that I agree with you and that what I'm saying reinforces with your points. 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

While perhaps not intending to make a living from music might seem an important factor, we as artistes do ask people to spend their money (sometimes for some artistes), and certainly their time, on our music. Asking them to do so may or may not have an obligation, but surely it warrants consideration? If it doesn't, can we blame them if they walk away?

No, we cannot blame them if they walk away. Which is my point as well. :) 

 

8 hours ago, john said:

We all know music can elicit strong reactions. It is no surprise people use music to get hyped, get relaxed, even to make love. What if there was a direct correlation, proveable, between the music we perform and reactions... such as murder, conception, dishonesty, assault, rape, happiness etc? The fact is... there is. We all know it. True, the strongest of reactions are rare, but they happen. Say it was a sure thing. Would we care then what our audience experience was?

 

I never said any of us do not have a desire about what the music represents and what it wants for the listener. In fact I started with saying that it is with an intent to heal. But that shouldn't change the fact that I do not have to factor that in to my music creating process, especially when it's of spiritual value. As much as it sounds contradictory, it isn't. I can have an intent to do something and let that intent drive my musical process without interfering in the process of making the music itself. My way of healing somebody with music maybe is to create music with no interest in the self, in the ego, in the need to find any sort of approval and let love, open-heartedness and spiritual pursuit merge with one's skill in music and put that into a canvas. It can be seen as meaningless, abstract, loose. While others see it otherwise. It is okay, because the music would still represent a period of time where I chose to obsess myself with the process of creating along with a need to express love and healing the proof of which would be lying in everyone of those days themselves and the experiences that I would have had. That to me, is beautiful and worthy of sharing. It maybe useless to many, but it wouldn't matter. 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mahesh said:

From what I understand from this, I assume you're trying to say that to be unconcerned for the experience of the listeners draws similarities to being self-indulgent and self-absorbed. Which is what I disagree with. I do so because that statement infers that egoless music has to be associated with a concern for the experience of the listener. I wouldn't think so. Music in itself, let alone egoless music doesn't have to relate to the experience of the listener at all. I mean, having learnt most of what I know about the music industry all from you, I do agree that the concern is hugely significant if you are to make a living, expect to get paid or gain some fame or approval. But the music and the process of creating it can be egoless by indulging one's self in present moment freshness and looking to express whatever it is that the skill allows you to. I wouldn't be (or want to be) thinking of the listeners when I'm in such a state of mind. But I wouldn't necessarily be thinking of myself either. I'd be involved in making the music and expressing the message of it. Paraphrasing one of my favorite philosophers Anthony DeMello - "You're not the dancer. You are being danced". I would draw comparison to that saying which suggests you not speaking through music but music speaking through you. Now this is a very new-age way of looking at things and I assume that the atheist would get a kick out of this. Nonetheless, it is a view point that myself as well as many others have genuinely have connected with deeply.

 

 

I'll answer in separate posts, because it makes it easier and my available time at any one point doesn't lend itself to a huge post :)

 

Now it becomes clearer. Your inference is incorrect. ;) You described an approach which you characterised as egoless. I said it sounded less like egoless, more in common with self-indulgent or self-absorbed. I said 'akin to' instead of 'in common with', I could have said 'like', but the meaning is the same.

 

Your inference assumes that what you describe is egoless lol It could be, but is not necessarily. I do not know Rama, so I cannot say... other than from my experience of people who have been similarly focused on their vision. They were not egoless. I did not assume such for Rama. I can only comment on my experience of other people. Most people, and like you I include myself in this, are a mix. They do it for themselves and for others.

 

Equally I know some people who make music for the taste of others. Some of those do it purely for money. No doubt there are rare gems who do it purely for others in an altruistic sense. Similar to what you describe for someone who does it without any concern for others, I just have not met anyone like that. One does not necessitate the other.

 

in this we seem to agree. The issue seems to be in that you inferred I meant a one to one equivalence. If I had said, it IS NOT egoless it IS self-indulgent or self-absorbed....then I could see your point. :)

 

My doubt is based upon my experience of writers and artistes who have had no concern for listeners at all. Some were bullies. Most were arrogant. Does this mean all who do not care of listeners experience are this way? No. Maybe there are many more who feel like this but do not shout it from the rooftops, who do not publicly identify their motivations and considerations. Indeed as they are silent, maybe they are majority of this kind of writer.

 

I do not know Rama, as I mentioned before. I cannot say what his approach was or why. For that I rely on you lol

 

I may have been better to say "could be self-absorbed, or self-indulgent", or probably better to have said nothing at all. The topic is meant to be about your music, not whether Rama is an egoless musician, or not. Interesting or not the conversation has gone down a rabbit hole. I did not mean to insult Rama or you. My experience is my experience, but I did not need to bring it up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL John, you know what, I guess I'm as responsible to have further taken it down a rabbit hole. I didn't claim you did insult Rama. He was just a subject of conversation for a typical musician under such a circumstance. I guess the only reason I engaged myself further in the discussion was because as you mentioned, I do know Rama and a fair bit of his approach or intent with music. But more than that for almost a year, I personally was myself part of that experience. And it didn't quite add up to what you were inferring and to make it safe here, what I inferred that you were inferring lol. There was an A/B comparison of interpretations of the same subject presented in front of me and I was trying to either connect the dots or find the ones that do not connect. All with a spirit of gaining insight over my own views and yours. Which is all.

I feel it is best I end this discussion which certainly was insightful but never intended to be accusatory. To find accuracy, sure. But that is all. Maybe a great discussion for another day! Sometimes, green never looks green to everybody. We draw from what we can use as tools of construct - whether it be words, emotions or even music!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mahesh said:

I can address this contradiction by again referring to Anthony DeMello. He wrote a book called "Awareness". He was a Jesuit preist, a psychotherapist and toured the world spreading his message of awareness. And yet he said "I'm just here to dance my dance. If you learn from it, great! You did it. If you didn't, that's okay too." He said what he had to say but never claimed authority for it. He expressed and shared what he thought or felt made sense. He toured the world for it! But he said only the observer is responsible for what they observe. Whether it's good or bad. Whether it's enlightening or not.  I feel having this freedom of taking no responsibility for the good or the bad allowed him to express with clear vision and non-bias. Maybe he got called for more talks elsewhere, maybe he got paid to write more books. But he never demanded or was seeking it. And wasn't bothered if he didn't get it. Which is quite a radical thing to say but hey it exists. Same with music.

 

 

Interestingly he he doesn't say what, if anything he hoped for, or didn't hope for. For example, he is there to just dance his dance, if you get it, great, if not great... he does not say "I don't care about the outcome". Another conclusion could be that he doesn't want the observer to feel bad for not getting it. He could hope they get it, but he won't cry if they don't.

 

By equivalence, I am not saying he should dance his dance in his bedroom, or sitting room, or a cave, or the middle of a forest. That was not my intent regarding Rama either. Rather that if the listener or viewer is really unimportant, it should be unimportant where it happens. Completely. It may as well be in a bedroom.

 

if it is important to be performed to others.... then surely it must be that the listener is an important factor... be that for the listener/viewer's experience or the performer / writer, or a combination of the two?  Perhaps the venue is important, but then whether people are there to hear it should be unimportant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our posts crossed. Lol

 

We can end the discussion, talk elsewhere if you want. It is interesting to me, different perspectives always are. I maybe coming over as grumpy as I feel crap. Unintentional 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Your Ad Could Be Here



  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,040.00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.