Ableton Forum

eyeknow wrote:Well, you wouldn't have to worry about that if you didn't spend all your saving on chronic

The only reason I never tried dope is because it could only make me saner.

Yep, deadlines work. Beatles were contracted to do 2 albums per years, and so they did 2 albums per year. They also, um, had a lot of talent.

Actually, that might be the answer:

Just keep doing what you're doing, but do it with more talent.

mrdelurk wrote:According to the story, Gerswhin wrote Rhapsody In Blues in a month.
I wondered for many years, how in the @#$% does one create a seminal work like that in a mere month? How does one simply summon inspiration like that?

Many years later, I learned the answer. When you have no day job, and paying the rent and having food on the table depends on having the Rhapsody finished in a month - it will be finished in a month.

Ya I agree, inspiration sometimes is rooted in forced circumstances. No choices and all.. Rhapsody in blue in a month? Ya i agree his work was an american masterpiece, a classic. Give me a month I could not do that... Course Gershwin studied Nicolas Slomniskys music theory... So he had a real science of thought there.

runningwithit wrote:Course Gershwin studied Nicolas Slomniskys music theory... So he had a real science of thought there.

Gershwin studied a lot of theories. Goldmark, Cowell, Boulanger, Schillinger, etc... the fact that Gershwin wrote the Rhapsody and not any of these theory writers tells you how much these theories amounted to. Every NY cabbie has a theory how he'd ace Wall Street too.

tedlogan wrote:for me it just leads to doing nothing at all and wasting my time.

That's pretty much what happened to me before I started making music. I don't even recall music being an especially memorable thing on weed.
But since I started making music, this changed a lot. And even when I get the heavy sofa effect, and feel too lazy to actually make it, just listening to my own music gives me more insights into what it is exactly that draws me to that particular sound. But my music is very focused on the texture of sounds. So that plays into this of course.
I think timing based stuff like rhythm is not a good combination with weed.

Some more years back, I had a superb acid trip with my best friend, New Year's 2007 or 2008. We listened to a range of music, from Tiny Tim to Strapping Young Lad, Susumu Yokota to Darkthrone, Gary Numan to DeBussy, the Doors and Ministry (the band, not the amphetamine wankfest). With some sprinkles of random electronic musics. And Killing Joke's excellent Hosannas from the basements of hell. Afterwards I picked up my electric guitar and plugged it into an effects unit and jammed the most amazing session, all the while recording. Psychedelic passages, drones, heavy filth, spastic wicked leads and gentle pickings. My brain and fingers were speaking excitedly to each other, no delay, just pure expression. Just past the LSD's peak, and in the ZONE on the plateau of wonder.

The next day I listened to my recording and almost gave up on music entirely after hearing what I made. A total load of shit - a steaming uninteresting messy pile of shite.

I think this is an unfortunate conclusion to draw. Just because your perceptions changed so much on Acid does not immediately make you a master of these new sounds/connections/ideas.
I think it would have been very worthwhile to try to understand what was new and special to you in the moment you made it and try to recreate it. These experiences are not a key to mastery, but they can give you ground braking inspirations.

But I also think that Midi based work under the influence is much better suited, because you can go back in and try to clean up and crystalize the important aspects, while getting rid of unnecessary elements and ideas that just plain don't work in the real world.

These experiences allow you to leave the box. That doesn't mean that outside of the box only good/deep/revolutionary stuff exists
That's why I was talking about diamonds in the rough that have to be found and cleaned up before they can shine.

JoshG567 wrote:I have a buddy who draws.

He likes to get something going, some minimal direction from a sketch before he's ready to really jump into something.

It's when he's got that laid down that he likes to get high.

At that point he's got the motivation, the weed just gives him obsessive focus.

I think this is exactly the way to go about it. At the very least prepare everything next to you within reach, place the remote of the TV in the other room right next to the candy, so that they can't disturb you and then light up. Discipline is needed to use these as tools so they don't become a mindless waste of time.

memes_33 wrote: it might not motivate you to do anything, but maybe you'll feel better about it.

And that too is an important aspect of it. Use it to listen to your own music, because it will allow you to be awed by it, instead of the clear minded ever critical this could be better

runningwithit wrote: don't do drugs, drugs are just a baggage!

I disagree.
They can be tools, and I'm always skeptical of artists who are willing to dismiss them this easily.

Martin Gifford wrote:The Beatles said that drugs helped them. But they didn't record on drugs - they said their drug recordings were bad, so yes, that fits with what others have said here.

Don't do recordings for records to be used as is. But Midi recordings that can be cleaned up can play a part in whole pieces.
Don't use it live though, that would be a great disservice to your audience!

But I never said smoke a ton - that would be pointless. In fact, I specifically said the effect of one can last three years. My friend said that it opened him up to the right side of the brain for three years. His dream interpretation, musicality and lyrics were all better. Then one day it suddenly dried up, exactly like writers block. Everything became dry and shallow - left brain kicked in.

I too am skeptical if you may not mix up some stories. Wit LSD I could possibly believe something like this. On the one time I used it, I felt somehow touched and different for about six month afterwards. But with weed the effects don't last. What I could maybe believe is that he understood something when high, that changed the way he worked/thought. But why would that go away again after three years

Also, what alternative is there to the status quo? We are born into society's matrix. Where is the exit door to see reality?

We have a tool to find out about reality, it's called science.
The function of art is a different almost opposite one: explore the maybes, why nots, what ifs and imagine thats.

Where is the door to our greater potential?

Who says we have that?!
From what I've seen we are hairless apes, who give their pattern recognition the fancy name consciousness and our social instincts we call civilization. There is nothing deeper to this.
And even if we had. Potential to what? And what would make that so much greater?!

Society pokes and prods us into a very limited version of ourselves.

Unless you post this from a prison camp in North Korea, I would say it's up to you how you respond to that poking and prodding

We've got to find a way out.

No one is stopping you from dropping of the grid and live off your hunting and fruit picking.
But if you want to be an artist: Without an audience your art is pointless and without a relation to society it's without purpose.

Deep analysis can lead you to seeing society's matrix,

Unless you are Niklas Luhmann, what you call analysis is nothing but opinion forming.

but it doesn't give you the way out because we are surrounded by society.

see above, possible but utterly pointless

Also, deep analysis is grueling, so no one does it.

As an artist you should be the last person to let what others do or don't do influence what you do.


All that notwithstanding:
Drugs are dangerous, but art is supposed to be pushing limits and boundaries and that is by definition risky.
So if one shuns drugs on this basis alone, I don't think he's fit to be an artist.
If one only shuns them because of societies morals, the same applies.

If one says: Been there, done that, got the Betty Ford clinic bills to show for it. Then that's certainly fair enough

Tom,

I think my friend lost the right brain strength due to society's pressures - study, money, work, etc.

Science only finds out parts of reality, and only physical reality at that.

Consciousness is more than pattern recognition. Computers can recognise patterns, but they are not conscious. My experience is that we are sparks of the one cosmic consciousness, plus an infinite bundle of potentials.

Human progress to date suggests we have greater potential. Cave people watching us creating with computers and whatnot would think we are some kind of super-beings. See you in 9999.

Many people with great potential do not respond well to society's poking and prodding no matter how hard they try. Lucky people have a good mix of sensitivity, creativity, strength, social capital, and an artistic taste that matches what society currently wants.

Martin Gifford wrote: Science only finds out parts of reality, and only physical reality at that.

Well, these are the only parts that are, you know.......REAL!

Consciousness is more than pattern recognition. Computers can recognise patterns, but they are not conscious.

As I said: we give our pattern recognition a fancy name because humans are narcissists and need to feel special

My experience is that we are sparks of the one cosmic consciousness, plus an infinite bundle of potentials.

Beautiful, but nonsense...

Human progress to date suggests we have greater potential. Cave people watching us creating with computers and whatnot would think we are some kind of super-beings.

why? We still fling our poo and swing big clubs to carry out our quarrels.
That nowadays the poo is called media and the clubs nuclear weapons is just a very superficial difference.

Many people with great potential do not respond well to society's poking and prodding no matter how hard they try.

Then they need to grow some balls
Art is not: The world as seen through the eyes of whiny cowards.

Lucky people have a good mix of sensitivity, creativity, strength, social capital, and an artistic taste that matches what society currently wants.

a relevant artist makes something that the current society needs, and future societies want
So what an artist mostly needs is vision and balls

And being an artist has nothing to do with luck
It's as much a burden as it is joy

Tom,

You're the first hard right scientific rationalist artist I've met. I didn't think such a thing existed! But I also recently met a a hard right spiritual teacher, which I also didn't think existed.

As for your materialist convictions, what can I say? Materialists establish the registrations received by their five physical senses as the test for reality, which precludes the perception of evidence that doesn't support their materialist theory. In short, they are brainwashed by society.

Regarding tough-minded art, you've got me curious to hear your creations. Do you have a soundcloud account or something?

Martin Gifford wrote:Tom,

You're the first hard right scientific rationalist artist I've met. I didn't think such a thing existed! But I also recently met a a hard right spiritual teacher, which I also didn't think existed.

You think I'm a right winger?!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

As for your materialist convictions, what can I say? Materialists establish the registrations received by their five physical senses as the test for reality, which precludes the perception of evidence that doesn't support their materialist theory. In short, they are brainwashed by society.

mumbo jumbo

Regarding tough-minded art, you've got me curious to hear your creations. Do you have a soundcloud account or something?

signature links. click them

What's black and white and has us yawning all over?

Yet another TomViolenz mega-quote barrage in the name of being more correct than thou.

Have a day off Einstein.

"I smoke two joints in the morning, I smoke two joints at night"
"I smoke two joints in the afternoon......"

Hold up! That right there......is what drugs do to you

Tom,

Had a listen. Experimental music! Didn't expect that. Expected marching band music and national anthems.

I really like your idea that art is about what current society needs and what future society wants. Trouble is that current society doesn't want what it needs - by definition. Therefore, we have whiny coward artists. Society possesses what the artist needs for survival so the artist must conform to society's ignorant will. Then the art will be for the benefit of future generations, which is unrewarding in the here and now.

Of course, really great art can move current society forward. Beatles did that amazingly. They started with the pop stuff to draw people in, then went into experimental and challenging stuff to push the boundaries.

Also, there are two kinds of art - pure and political. Pure art has no agenda except the expression of the artist's potential and life's potential. However, this might not get noticed and might have no effect. Political art has an agenda, which is problematic because it contaminates the purity.

Artist Joseph Beuys had some things to say about the relationship between Art and Capital (fancy name for "money")

"Art that can not shape society and therefore also can not penetrate the heart questions of society, [and] in the end influence the question of capital, is no art."

--Joseph Beuys, 1985

and

"CAPITAL is at present the work sustaining ability. Money is not an economic value though. The two genuine economic values involve the connection between ability (creativity) and product. That explains the formula presenting the expanded concept of art: ART=CAPITAL."

--Joseph Beuys, 1985

I'm not sure I agree with these viewpoints of his, at least not completely. Interesting take nevertheless.

Martin Gifford wrote:Tom,

Had a listen. Experimental music! Didn't expect that. Expected marching band music and national anthems.

Connected to the universal consciousness and still no decent judge of character. Ts, ts.

I really like your idea that art is about what current society needs and what future society wants. Trouble is that current society doesn't want what it needs - by definition. Therefore, we have whiny coward artists. Society possesses what the artist needs for survival so the artist must conform to society's ignorant will. Then the art will be for the benefit of future generations, which is unrewarding in the here and now.

Exactly the other way around.
Precisely because society doesn't want what it needs, artists have to grow some balls and stop whining. Going against the desires of the masses is tough business with little reward. Only real men and women need apply .
As soon as the artist conforms to societies will, he stops being an artist and becomes their lackey.

I don't care if you need to beg, borrow or steal to make your art, just don't sell out! Whiny cowards invariably sell out in the end!

Also, there are two kinds of art - pure and political. Pure art has no agenda except the expression of the artist's potential and life's potential. However, this might not get noticed and might have no effect. Political art has an agenda, which is problematic because it contaminates the purity.

That's another topic though.


re: panten and eyeknow: shush, up there on the peanut gallery