Understanding your instrument part 2

[Banned]

My 2 cents is this. You people are limiting yourselves when you don't know how to read and write music.

EVERYONE who has ever made it into the music business are the RARE PERCENTAGE. I don't care how many people from B.B king to the Rolling stones who has ever made it into the business.

MULTIPLE THAT NUMBER BY MILLIONS and then you will have a GREATER PERCENTAGE of people who have never made it.

Why? Because they don't have it. Again, people like Hendrix was the EXCEPTION.

When people don't learn theory or how to read music, it is LAZY TAKING OVER. Most who say that are to lazy to even learn how to read.

Reading music provides so much understanding of your instrument. My god it takes some people TEN YEARS to learn something and finally come to realize a technique that a READER OF MUSIC learned in a day.

Lets talk about creativeness. When you don't know how to read music I find on the local level at least, people can't write. The ones who do manage to squeeze out a few originals only have 3 or 4 song EPS. People who learn to read music and understand theory have complete full CDS.

Also when you understand theory and standard notation you yourself can do more. You can WRITE SCORES FOR FULL ORCHESTRAS making your song have more depth instead of the common drums, bass, vocals, guitar

Also when you understand theory and standard notation YOU BECOME SELF SUFFICIENT. You do not need to rely on the bass player to come up with his parts, or the guitar player to come up with his parts, or the vocal to come up with his part.

I can say this, having education and an understanding in theory and notation I can write for full orchestras. This works on the lower level of just a rock band. WHen I write songs I write out what I hear in my head. When I am done I have written out what the bass player is doing, what the drummer is doing, what the guitar player is doing and even the melody line which the singer sings.

To answer the BOX THEORY. WHen you have education there IS NO BOX. When you PLAY BY EAR YOU ARE IN A BOX. You people who fail to realize the importance of music education are in the box. YOu can't do anything. You rely on other people at all times.

I know so many bands who need a bass player, or need a drummer, or need a vocalist or need a guitarist , that their ENTIRE PROJECT GETS HELD UP. Why? Because they are not self sufficient. They need the other person to do their part. If you understood notation and theory one could write the part of the other person in the mean time. This allows for NOT WASTING TIME.

Songs are also finished faster and more efficient and with greater outcomes of being WELL CRAFTED when the writer knows theory and standard notation.

When people don't know how to read music I find their works is
1 too repetitive
2 too nebulous ( because they don't understand chord tones)
3 wild and uncontrolled
4 lacking quantity as well as quality
5 often times their music is too simplistic I,IV, V and power chords
6 also do not display originality, because they only play what they know and that is nothing.

Also lets talk about EXPLORING. When a person does not know how to read or write music or understand theory there is NO EXPLORING AT ALL, ONLY GUESSING. Lets suppose you were exploring a cave and u had your guitar with you to pass the time away. Inside the cave you came across a chest filled with old manuscript. How would you play the song. You never heard the song before so HOW WOULD YOU EXPLORE AND PLAY THE SONG? You couldn't because you do not know how to read music.

Remember THE BEST EXPLORERS OF THE WORLD TOOK TOOLS ALONG TO EXPLORE. Backpacks, ropes, guns, maps, etc. The same goes for MUSICAL EXPLORATION. Don't forget your tools to take along like, THEORY, READING AND WRITING SKILLS.

I guarantee the person who understands how to read could have played and EXPLORED that ancient composition. THe person who knows nothing is left there doing nothing.

Ignorance in music is pure laziness. Don't admire the SMALL PERCENTAGE of artist that ever made it into the lime light to be the ones to dictate your desire to learn. Those musicians were lazy and often times discovered in the right place at the right time.

I also got news for everyone, the GREATEST PERFORMERS are not the ones well known and famous , but rather they are the PERFORMERS WHO ARE EDUCATED and NOT FAMOUS.

For instance the musicianship of a player in the Boston Pops is FAR MORE IMPRESSIVE AND MORE TALENTED than Jimi Hendrix will ever be.

[Banned]

Also look at the BOX THEORY as this.

People who never finished high school ( hence lack education), will most likely never get high paying jobs, which in turn will keep them in one spot most of their lives.

You see it in NY city all the time. Most people who are poor, THEIR WOLRD CONSISTS of a block or 2. Their world never gets much bigger than that.

A person who finishes high school has a higher percentage of going on to college which in turn will get a higher paying job, which will give him KNOWLEDGE AND FINANCIAL MEANS of EXPLORING THE WORLD.

The educated man will be the one who will most likely say, I'VE BEEN TO PARIS, I HAVE BEEN TO MILAN , I HAVE BEEN TO AFRICA, I HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE U.S, etc The ignorant man will most likely say, I HAVE BEEN TO COOPERS BAR ( which is around the block from him)


KNOWLEDGE HAS NO LIMIT AND NO BOX, IGNORANCE HAS LIMITS HENCE CREATING A BOX

[Banned]

Mine is COMMON SENSE based on years of outcomes that usually happen.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER in any form in any field. Period. The more you know the better off you are.

Knowledge is NEVER ENDING, hencing creating NO BOX.

Ignorance is limiting HENCE CREATING A BOX

[bassist_25]

Reading music DOES NOT EQUATE TO UNDERSTANDING MUSIC.

Case in point, there are billions of people who have taken piano lessons. You could put Bach, Chopin, or Beethoven in front of any one of them and they could play it without flaw. Maybe they could even play it flawless while sight reading it for the first time. Take one of those piano students and throw them in a Blues band and have the leader call out a 12 bar in A. I bet a good number of those players wouldn't know the first thing to do. Why? Because they know how to read music, but that doesn't mean they understand music. Just because you can read standard notation doesn't mean you know how to improvise over a progression, it doesn't mean you know how to compose, it doesn't mean you know the notes in a C major scale. It just means you can read music. Lots of people can read english, but if they had to write an essay, many would probaly screw up on grammar, form, composition, and delivery. I remember this ignorant trumpet player who was going on about how "guys who play by ear are a joke"..............then two breaths later he was talking about how he sat in with a Jazz band and he had trouble cause guess what.......he had to improvise over a chart, not read standard notation.

I will admit, my reading abilities have diminished over time. I haven't been in a situation, where I had to read standard notation, in about 4 years. (save playing piano, which I find easier to sight read on than bass. ) It's just another tool in my cabinet. When I'm learning a Rock song, why should I go spend 20 dollars on a transcription book when it would just be as easy to learn it by ear?

BTW, if I remember correctly, BB King is actually rather well versed in theory.

[ToonaRockGuy]

Tyroon, you're missing the point and taking it way too personally. Let me use an example for you of what metalrules is talking about...

Cindy Blackman. Female Drummer extrordanaire.
Education: Berklee School Of Music, the musical equivalent of Harvard.
Field of Study: Drums, Percussion, Theory.

And what's her main gig?
Drummer for Lenny Kravitz. Simple, groovy funk.

But Cindy is also very acclaimed in the jazz world, with several successful albums to her name.

What metalrules is saying is that playing by ear is certainly a wonderful gift, and those who have it are truly blessed. But just because someone can read music and understand theory doesn't mean that they are going to automatically turn out music like Dream Theater, Rush, or Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. All it means is that if you choose to do your music or music in general for a living, your options are FAR sweeter than if you only play by ear.

Nobody is questioning your musical ability or your chops. But in the big world of LA, New York, or Nashville, if you want to gig steady and make a living, you've got to know how to read tab, actual sheet music, and understand theory. For example, in New York, let's say you get hired to do some studio work for an artist. You walk in with your guitar, able to play your ass off, and *boom* the producer slams down a sheet of music. "Studio time is expensive", he says, "You've got 5 minutes to look over this, get the form, and let's get a take." What are you gonna do? You can't read music, you don't understand theory, and the next thing out of the producer's mouth will be "Get me another guitar player now."

That's all metalrules is saying. He's not doubting your musical talents or chops or attacking you in any way.

[Banned]

Problem learning it or ACTUALLY LEARNING are 2 different things. You could be an over achiever and the fact you have a high IQ, but feel everything is a bore to you.

What you don't realize is that most of the uneducated musicians who make those stupid ass comments of I DONT NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ, fail to realize all the EDUCATED people who helped their career out.

The beatles would have never been the writers they were unless George Martin taught them WHAT SONG FORM WAS. He said boys" this is what a verse is, this is how it functions, this is what a chorus is, this is how it functions"

You before the beatles came to George Martin they new nothing about writing songs. The songs they did have were so formless that no one thought they were good.

Also the beatles would have never progressed in writing had it not been for George Martin and other educated producers, arrangers, etc. The beatles would have been still doing songs like HARD DAYS NIGHT, PAPER BACK WRITER, ETC. They progressed to deeper more complex songs with better backing arrangements like YESTERDAY, PENNY LANE, LONG AND WINDING ROAD simply because they got help in EXECUTING THEM by educated producers and arrangers.

Frustration happens when you can't do. It is one thing to hear it in your head but if you don't have the means of executing them, MOST GIVE UP. Paul said to George and other arrangers THIS IS WHAT I AM HEARING. It got transcribed out by EDUCATED PEOPLE so that orchestras could play.

Often times bands like Metallica and Cold Play had orchestras back them in concert because of people like Michael Kamen. WHo WROTE THE FULL SCORE to their compositions.

The more you know and come to realize your knowledge the more you see people like Jimi Hendrix as NOT SO LARGER THAN LIFE. IT is the uneducated players who see this guy as a god. I see his LIMITATIONS.

For pete sake, Jimi couldn't even tune his guitar. Also he was just a pentatonic scale soloist. He used and hid behind so much distortion to hide his inability to play clean. He amazed the crowed with whammy bar playing like his bombing sounds and other things like animal sounds. After awhile that stuff gets old for me.

Jimi never displayed technique such as WALKING BASS LINES UNDER CHORD CHANGES, CHORD SOLOING WITH THE MELODY PLAYING AT THE SAME TIME, ETC.

I find guitarist like, Joe Pass, Kenny Burrell, Chet Atkins, to be far better than people like B.B king ( who can't even play chords) or Jimi hendrix

I used to think that B.B and Jimi were larger than life, until I started learning about reading and writing and theory. Now those players just don't impress me because I see their LIMITATIONS as players

Also one thing else to consider when dealing with the subject of WHO CAN'T READ. What generation was that statement said in.

The beatles said they couldn't read music, but when listening to them in conversation one comes to find out they KNEW CHORDS. They knew how to play a chord progression on the guitar and piano. THey knew what an A chord was, what an E chord was, what a C minor chord was, etc. The beatles just couldn't comprehend the RHYTHMIC VALUE of a note that is all. The same goes for most players like Clapton, Van Halen, Iommi, etc. Almost EVERY 60s, 70s, 80s, metal guitar player KNEW WHAT A CHORD WAS like A chord, D chord, G chord. Again, what they didn't know was the RHYTHMIC VALUE. Hence they classified this as not being able to read. I classify that as LIMITED READING.

Todays musicians/guitar players NO NOTHING. THey can't comprehend what a G chord is. They see it as a

5
5
3

Chord. So there in lies the difference. The modern players sight reading capabilities are even far less than those of the previous generations. WHy? because they are miss interpreting the advice of the previous generations players. THey hear them say things like I CAN'T READ MUSIC so they do the same. What they don't realize is that those other generations were lazy but showed a limited amount of dedication to at least knowing chords. They just didn't put it all together with the rhythmic values and durations.


Again, when you dig into history of music you will find it was EDUCATED PEOPLE guiding those ignorant musicians through.

Also look at the educated musicians out there

Elton john reads and writes music, billy joel reads and writes music, sheryl crow reads and writes music. All have survived for years in an industry that produces ONE HIT WONDES. WHy because they are educated musicians who have crafted good songs because of their education. The songs appealed to a wider generation of people, hence surviving longer in the business.

[bassist_25]

3
5
5

Actually, that's a diad, not a chord since it has no 3rd delineating whether it's major or minor. Sorry, just had to bust your balls since this is a thread about theory.

Ahh, the joys of tertian harmony.

[bassist_25]

Oh, and I have to disagree about Elton John. If it weren't for Bernie Taupin he would not be where he is today. He has stated many times that he cannot write lyrics.

[Banned]

You have to understand this PLAYING BY EAR IS NOT THE EDUCATED PART. When you play by ear your RECYCLING IN YOUR MEMORY BANK EDUCATION.

SO understand that. When someone shouts out 12 bar blues in A, the EDUCATION as well as the ability to improvise without reading comes into play.

Players know

1 what the key is example A
2 they know the formate and structure for a 12 bar blues
3 they know what NOT TO HIT which will make it sound bad

All these are EDUCATIONAL KNOWLEDGE. Do NOT think that playing by ear means you are stupid and ignorant. Playing by ear is important, improvisation is very important, however ALL IS BUILT OFF OF KNOWLEDGE.

because one plays by ear without reading it or is improvisational does not mean lack of knowledge.

Joe pass could read music and understand theory, however he applied that to the improvisational skills and he was better off for it.

Theory works this way. Suppose your playing jazz and you have a tempo of 200. That is moving very fast. What if the chord progression was bouncing back from
A minor 9 to C Major 7.

The stupid person would try to master the bounce back from A minor to C major, the educated person would KNOW WHAT MAKES UP BOTH CHORDS.

A minor 9 is A, C, E, G, B
C major 7 is C, E, G, B

The 2 chord have practically the same notes in them, only voiced differently.

The smart educated player whether improving by ear or reading music would play C major 7 chord the entire time, leaving the bass player to play the A.

The tempo of the jazz tune is too fast and will most likely create unclean playing. Playing the C major the entire time allows for cleaner playing. Again look at the notes they are all the same. It is easier for a bass player to hit an A note moving to a C note then a guitar player to play 2 chords at fast tempos

remember it is the OVERALL SOUND of A minor to C major we are trying to create. So if the guitar player plays C the entire time and the bass player is the one that plays the A in the root, THE OVERALL SOUND WILL BE Aminor

This is why education is important. It allows better cleaner playing without getting frustrated because one cant play 2 chords at a very fast tempo

Education allows for style of the arrangement. Suppose you see A minor 9th as the chord you are suppose to play. What if the director, producer, or other band members don't like the sound or chord at that register. Do you have the ability to play that SAME CHORD IN 9 POSITIONS. Maybe they are looking for a HIGH SOUNDING A MINOR 9TH

Again, when you have no education or lack in education your the one who is in the box

[Banned]

Elton john is being too kind when he is referring to Bernie simply because songs like BLUE EYES were not lyrically written by Bernie, showing that he can get someone else.

Lyricists are a dime a dozen, I find it more that Elton has helped out Bernie than the other way around.

Many people can write a lyric whether it is a good lyric or bad lyric, howevr, more people can do that than the other way around.


By the way, Elton never said he can't write lyric he just choses not too. Simply because he would be cliche and the lyrics he wants to be top notch as well as his music. However, the cliche lyrics would fit into todays BACKSTREET BOYS, NSYNC, Brit spears, dominated pop scene.

Again, Elton choses not to, not that he can't

[RobTheDrummer]

After reading this entire post, I think metalrules has hit the nail on the head. He understands why it is important to know your instrument and not be ignorant to the possibilities of what one can do when they garner knowledge about their instrument. Opinions are opinions, but facts are truth. If you can learn by ear, that's great, but if you understand scales and then hear a familiar scale, you already know what's next. A lot of people I know are intimidated by knowledge. The point is not to be intimidated, but to go out there and learn about something you love. If you want to play and be good, why not learn as much as you can to play to the absolute best of your ability? Learning how theory works takes some time, but it provodes so much more understanding. The more I learn, the better I get and the easier it is to play things. Also, the more you learn, the more your playing evolves and the possibilities become vast. I'm done ranting for now.

[bassist_25]

The tempo of the jazz tune is too fast and will most likely create unclean playing. Playing the C major the entire time allows for cleaner playing. Again look at the notes they are all the same. It is easier for a bass player to hit an A note moving to a C note then a guitar player to play 2 chords at fast tempos

remember it is the OVERALL SOUND of A minor to C major we are trying to create. So if the guitar player plays C the entire time and the bass player is the one that plays the A in the root, THE OVERALL SOUND WILL BE Aminor

True, but you have to think of context and what sound you are going for. Playing chord substitions usually changes the direction of the predetermined harmony. Even though the bass playing an A while the guitar plays a C isn't exactly a chord sub, because it's still implying an A minor chord, the context could just be that the bass player is playing a 6th (to create a melodic, not a harmonic function) underneath a C chord. The sound of a bass playing an A underneath the guitar's C still won't give the same harmonic sound (though it will still have the same harmonic function) as if the guitarist also played an Am9.

But hell, who says we even have to be diatonic here? Why not change the Am9 to an A7. That's what I would do if I were playing a D chord afterwards. The ole' II-V (well, technically, VI7-II) progression. Gotta love it.

[ToonaRockGuy]

Well then, I guess that's that. But just for the record, I never EVER inferred that Tyroon was ignorant or stupid for playing by ear. Lots of great music comes from the heart. I have no problem with that, I do the majority of my playing by ear nowadays. But it (for me) is comforting to know that if presented with a musical score, I can read the music. No offense intended, even though I apparently pissed off Tyroon. My bad, I guess.

[tonefight]

I think everyone should quit complaining and bragging and go Play

You guys either type really fast or have alot more spare time than me

[Ron]

Here's a knee-jerk test.

What do you guys think of ambient sound-scape electronica that has no (traditional) notes? It's not my cup of tea, but I know quite a few people who listen to it.

[songsmith]

I read music only at a very slow and studied rate, nobody could call me a "sightreader." I truly get that reading music could add to my experience as a musician. That said, most of the people I'd want to share a stage with don't or won't read.
If you're in an orchestral situation, it's a must. Everything MUST be played as written, or it's just cacophony. Onstage with Felix, the only MUST's are that you MUST bring your "A" game, MUST feel it in your heart, and you MUST be open to whatever's about to happen.
To me, written notation is mostly black dots on a page. I understand what it's for, why it exists, but I come from a background that precludes it. Please don't think that I look down on "readers" in any way, those are dues that I should pay and I understand their value, but to lump those of us who don't read into a lesser category is flat-out bullshit, and plays into such ludicrous statements as "Hendrix and B.B King can't play." It's apples and oranges to me... heart vs. mind. You can mathematically deduce where a certain star will be in the sky at a certain time on a certain day, and that may be a good thing to know, but I prefer to look at the stars and think about how pretty they are, and how distant, and how someone else somewhere might be looking at those same stars. You can dissert on how cannabinoids affect dopamine receptors and the resulting changes to neuropathy, but me, I'll just park it, spark it, and enjoy the buzz. The point is, to infer that my connection to the music is less than someone else's is a matter of opinion, and is utterly and completely untrue.--->JMS

[Punkinhead]

interesting thread.....

i read music, and know a shitload of theory, mainly because of my desire a few years back to learn bach and beethoven....now while this has been an invaluable tool, i must say, there's comes a time where it will limit you too...

in the end all that sounds good is what matters

but, for me, it takes a theoretical approach alot of times to get what i want. i really dig the mid eastern and classical/baroque era sounds, especially when soloing, so if i didn't know the corresponding scales/chords id be stuck. that is just soloing, song writing, myself and my band, martyrdom dont take a theoretical approach to writing the actual songs, we shoot for what sounds good. it does come out though in the writing...

http://www.pahardcore.com/bands/bands.cfm?id=6499 to see what i mean i guess, this is the never ending debate on theory vs. ear....lol...politics in music i guess

[FatVin]

Songsmith wrote:

You can mathematically deduce where a certain star will be in the sky at a certain time on a certain day, and that may be a good thing to know, but I prefer to look at the stars and think about how pretty they are, and how distant, and how someone else somewhere might be looking at those same stars.

That's why the math is a good thing, so you can know what nights will be best to take the time truly enjoy those stars, instead of only having the time to grab a quick peek at them.


Here's how I see this: Knowledge is good. Education, all to rare a quality in these parts, is a good thing. But many a great musician has written many a great song without knowing jack about theory and they are worthy of respect, and There are people out there in the world who have forgotten more about thoery than anybody who posts on rockpage will EVER know and they are certainly worthy of respect.

Knowledge of theory, or lack thereof, in my opinion, isn't the measure of a musician. The body of work is the measure that counts for me. I think to use theory as a litmus test is kinda dumb and doesn't really prove any thing.

I'd rather hear B.B. King that one of those new age ambient guys any day of the week but the guys I really admire are guys like Mark Knopfler, who know some obviously know SOME theory but also know when to cast it aside.

So theory CAN help but Soul is better, until you find soul get some theory to guide you there.

[bassist_25]

What do you guys think of ambient sound-scape electronica that has no (traditional) notes? It's not my cup of tea, but I know quite a few people who listen to it.

I like a lot of electronic music. (just listened to the Crystal Method last night, actually. Vegas is one of my favorite albums of all time.) To me, it puts me into a relaxed state. I dig all of that electronic stuff: Ambient, Happy Hardcore, Techno, House, New Age, Trance, ect. Some might say it's not real music because it's not played with real instruments, but I think that's a moot point because, aside from some sampling, those sounds cannot be produced on anything but electronic instruments. Usually when I'm trying to go to sleep, I'll put music on, but I usually don't put anything with lyrics on. I want myself to be emotional moved by music, not intellectually. (though I'll be moved intellectually by music during the day. Don't get me started on my "Art exists on 3 empiricial levels" tangent ) When I'm falling asleep I'm trying to turn off my brain and lyrics create an intellectual response. I play instrumental music when I fall asleep so I don't get an intellectual response; thus, the electronic music. It's almost always in 4/4 time with a repetitive beat. (kind of like how people fall asleep to a fan or a thunder storm) I can just focus on the textures and the reponse it gives, calms me. That's not to say I only listen to electronic music when I'm trying to fall asleep, but I usually only listen to it in the evening/at night. To me, electronic music is a night time thing.

[songsmith]

I, too, find that instrumental music is easier to relax to than lyrical stuff. Words convey ideas more easily (although instrumental music can be VERY moving, for sure, in fact Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata can still make me cry actual tears), and thoughts get provoked, and BAM! I'm wide awake!
Also, I, for one, would be interested in the 3 empirical levels of art. You've mentioned that before and it intrigues me... it sounds like something I'd like to explore. Despite my earlier post (made first thing Monday morning, on a coffee-bender), I honestly do believe that education IS extremely important, and I grudgingly admit to more than a little jealousy towards those who hold a good theory base. I think, however, that lots of knowledge (like chordal-based soloing, for example) can be "discovered" outside of a classroom, and that was really my point, I guess. A lesson is much more likely to "stick" for me if I get it on my own... I'd remember it better if I copped a lick from Felix, than if he just taught it to me! Some people take to lessons better than others. Again, I admit my post this morning was a knee-jerk reaction, and when my head cleared, I realized you guys are right....mostly! ----->JMS

[mad hatter]

The way I see it is, if you're a paid studio musician, you better know your theory, but if you're just playing and writing music for personal enjoyment, then fuck it. Don't get me wrong, I know my fair share of theory and it doesn't hurt, but it certainly doesn't put you in a lower category of musicianship, in fact, I find that creativity flows much more freely when I'm not limiting myself with the boundries of theory. So I say to you, metalrules, that no one likes a know-it-all shoving shit they don't care about down their throats. You might find that the more appropriate place for you to show off your wisdom of music theory is in a music theory classroom. I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just my two cents. Later.

[bassist_25]

I Also, I, for one, would be interested in the 3 empirical levels of art. You've mentioned that before and it intrigues me... it sounds like something I'd like to explore.

I have some free time right now, so I'll make a post about the 3 empirical levels on which art functions.

Now keep in mind, this is more of a theory; I haven't written a dissertation on this, so don't take it as an axiom or anything.

I believe that art can be emprically percieved and then anaylzed on 3 different pyschological levels. This is of course, from the perception of the audience, but artists can use this information to make conscious decisions when creating their work. The three levels are:

The Pop Level
The Intellectual Level
The Emotional Level

First, the emotional level. I think that this level is pretty self-explanatory. I think this is the first reaction that got most of us into music.

Next is the intellectual level. This level is different from the emotional level because it can be analyzed as an objectional, tangible association. By itself, it is completely arbitrary from any emotional meaning. It's the meanings that we associate while experiencing art. It is always a conscious effort to recognize. We always know when we are experiecing it. On a very surface level of explaining, let's say we listen to the words to "Green Green Grass of Home". The opening lines are "The old home looks the same, as I stept off of the train". When we hear that, we may make a mental picture of a house. Of course, the intellectual level goes way, way, more deep than that, but that's a very elementary way of looking at it. One of the easiest examples of art functioning on the intellectual level would be Surrealism. The whole purpoe of Surrealist art is that it's an understanding of pyschological systems. This is especially true for Veristic Surrealism. I'm not going to get to far into into Salvador Dali's Paranoid Critical Method, but it is the idea is transfer subconscious images to canvas so they can then be anaylzed for conscious meaning. Grasshoppers represented a child hood fear of insects, phyallic symbols represented sexuality, and I have no idea what melting watches meant. Another intellectual aspect of art, would of course be the archetypes. If you are familiar with Jungian psychology you are aware that we put forth projections of the collective unconscious into art/myths/stories/religions. These projections are known as "archetypes". We can intellectually examine art and find archetypes. Finding archetypes in movies/plays/dance is espcially easy. For example, if you ever watched the Spike Lee movie "Get On the Bus", the Jeremiah character is definatley the "Grandfather" or "Sage" archetype. Old, wise but unjudging, in tune with his spirituality. Flip is the the egotistical actor on the bus. His "Shadow" (insecurity) is very obvious and manifests itself in him by way of narssicism and misogyny. I mentioned earlier that I like to listen to instrumental music because of the pure emotional level. Well, instrumental music can still function on an intellectual level but it's much more ethereal than lyrics. Espcially if the lyrics are rather frank. You can draw more mental conclusions from instrumental music. For example, there's this New Age cd I have, and when I listen to it, I get mental pictures of India and Asia. I make very primeval associations with it. Going back to the Green Green Grass of Home example. When I listen to that song, I make the association of an execution. If it were played as an instrumental, I would have no idea that the composer wrote it from the perspective of someone on death row. I would just create my own associations from the music. That's why I love Tool. They don't spell out their lyrical intentions and encourage you to search for the answers in their music. Even if something,such as a McGuffin, has not been given an inherient meaning by the artist, it still is intellectual since the audience can draw their own mental conclusions from experiecing it. People who choose to enjoy art on the technically level are also enjoying it on the intellectual level. For example, someone who enjoys the technical wizardy of Prog Rock.

I definatley believe that art can function on a sub-conscious level, espcially when dealing with subliminal messages and the like, but I don't know enough about it to make a hypothesis. Like I said, this is all theory.

Next is the Pop Level. This was the hardest level to define, but I knew that it was something different than the intellectual level. "Pop" doesn't exactly mean Britney Spears or Andy Warhol or a Vin Diesel movie. It is the asethetic epidermis that appeals to a preestablished disposition. It isn't the emotional level because it has no emotional response by itself and it's not the intellectual level because it can't be analyzed any further they whether you "Like it" or "Don't like it". The pop level is instantly accessible, it is the hook, the catchyness, the instant appeal to any given culture/genere/demographic. Even more avant-garde and esoteric forms of art function on pop levels. An example of the pop level would be the cheesy retro feel of Pulp Fiction. The retro feel was an aesthetic tool used to establish a set and setting. Samuel L. Jackson's afro was nothing more than an asethic piece of the movie. That's not to say that the Pop aspect is irrelevant. It is VERY important to art. It is the detail that pushes art along. Without pop appeal, art would be nothing. If Pulp Fiction had Samuel L. Jackon and John Travolta driving in around with normal hair cuts the movie would lose some of it's asethic appeal. If something is kitsch, that is "Pop".

To explain these levels as an example; let's say I write a poem.

1. The Pop Level: How do I choose to write? Do I use eloquent words such as Shakespheare or gritty words such as Allen Ginsberg?

2. The Intellectual Level: All of the tools I use to make mental associations: Metaphors, Symbolism, Comparisons.

3. Emotional Level: What is the emotional reaction?

Now, all of these levels can be defined as arbitrary items, but they can be put together to form a coherant order. For example, a song may stimulate a visual color from the lambdoma (an intellectual response) and thus you may make a emotional response from the intellectual visual.

And whew, this was a long right so I'm going to be going. Talk to you later.