The Guy She Was Interested in Wasn't a Guy at All - Ch. 131 - It’s Not Over Yet

[_Keyboard]

The difference between “creating music for a commercial audience” versus “creating music because you and others enjoy it.” It might not tick those boxes of what is “in” at the moment, and that’s good actually. It’s the reason big studios and companies just release the same old thing, franchises, sequels, remakes. It’s because it’s “proven”. They are completely risk adverse.

Other than that, bands try to copy what's cool at that time too but many of them don't add their originality. You can be inspired by some other band/person but if you don't have your originality, you will be just another copy. He probably worked with this type of bands. So of course he would get bored.

 

[outinthegardener]

There's a freedom in being an amateur when making art. Professionalization or Education are restrictions. They define what sounds good, what is allowed. But when you don't know where those boundaries are it's easy to cross them and push creative risks further.

Now whether or not those risks sound good? Up to you. I don't think music can be good or bad. Those are judgments we impose on it rather than accurate descriptions of musical qualities. It's unlikely any of us are immune to trying to label or define music, Koga included. But she's probably freer than Hasegawa-Dad.

All music is shit to God, he hates our stupid noises
He thinks we're a bunch of crying babies, He wants to destroy us

 

[Luna12]

Sadly, for a lot of people, "I don't like it" = "It's total shit and nobody should like this, ever !".
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean other can't enjoy it. And if they do, it doesn't mean you HAVE to like it either. Everybody has a right to their own opinion and taste, but forcing them on others is kinda yuck, in my opinion.
Nuances like that tends to get lost, nowadays.

 

[LavenderG]

The biggest line for me was his thought "when did I open the door?"

He was so interested in the music, even with its flaws, that he automatically moved towards it to hear it more clearly.

 

[flowsthead]

There's a freedom in being an amateur when making art. Professionalization or Education are restrictions. They define what sounds good, what is allowed. But when you don't know where those boundaries are it's easy to cross them and push creative risks further.

Now whether or not those risks sound good? Up to you. I don't think music can be good or bad. Those are judgments we impose on it rather than accurate descriptions of musical qualities. It's unlikely any of us are immune to trying to label or define music, Koga included. But she's probably freer than Hasegawa-Dad.

All music is shit to God, he hates our stupid noises
He thinks we're a bunch of crying babies, He wants to destroy us

There are tradeoffs to taking risks outside the boundaries of the accepted. It's not like breaking boundaries will always be creatively fulfilling. And some of the best art is made by being restrictive. You see this a lot with poetry. When poets start off with free verse they can write whatever they want and obviously have the freedom to explore any topic. But restricting themselves to specific meters and rhythms can help force them to be more creative in how they express themselves since they have to tailor their word choices to the structure of the poem.

I agree with your point in maybe a general sense of all art is subjective so none of it is objectively good or bad, but I think technique is less subjective and we can judge art based on its goals and how successful it is at approaching them. If a story is meant to be serious, but the audience sees it as funny, then it hasn't met its goals and the story is a failure, like say the movie The Room. Lots of people love watching The Room because it's entertainingly bad, but it's also clear the film is not in on the joke making it a bad film.

As far as Mitsuki, I think she would agree that her music is less than perfect. She's probably intimately aware of it. But she's not really trying to be a professional musician (not yet anyway), she's just trying to do something to show her love and support for Aya. If she was trying to be a professional she'd want it to be better. Even if she was going for a raw, punk-style sound, there are still technique things she would do that could make it sound better and more professional while still keeping it raw.

 

[flowsthead]

He is working in a fully industrialized music world. NO passion, just assembly line. Then he sees the passion of creation in those two. Something he didn't see who knows how long.

Yeah, I think the fact that he mentions his job in his first line is key. It's not that he's bored of music in general, he's bored of the music he works with at his job.

 

[outinthegardener]

There are tradeoffs to taking risks outside the boundaries of the accepted. It's not like breaking boundaries will always be creatively fulfilling. And some of the best art is made by being restrictive. You see this a lot with poetry. When poets start off with free verse they can write whatever they want and obviously have the freedom to explore any topic. But restricting themselves to specific meters and rhythms can help force them to be more creative in how they express themselves since they have to tailor their word choices to the structure of the poem.

I agree with your point in maybe a general sense of all art is subjective so none of it is objectively good or bad, but I think technique is less subjective and we can judge art based on its goals and how successful it is at approaching them. If a story is meant to be serious, but the audience sees it as funny, then it hasn't met its goals and the story is a failure, like say the movie The Room. Lots of people love watching The Room because it's entertainingly bad, but it's also clear the film is not in on the joke making it a bad film.

As far as Mitsuki, I think she would agree that her music is less than perfect. She's probably intimately aware of it. But she's not really trying to be a professional musician (not yet anyway), she's just trying to do something to show her love and support for Aya. If she was trying to be a professional she'd want it to be better. Even if she was going for a raw, punk-style sound, there are still technique things she would do that could make it sound better and more professional while still keeping it raw.

It's true that restrictions can give direction to the creative process, or focus. It keeps things from getting too broad. But I think it's important to consider what kinds of restrictions we're talking about. There's a difference between Johnny Cash's adage of "We'd play faster if we could," A garage band playing three chord rock because they're self taught, or a social condition like "Rap music sucks because they aren't singing." Some are restrictions placed on the creator, but some are restrictions for the listener.

I like Kant's distinction between "Categorical Imperatives" and "Hypothetical Imperatives." One is a rule that is absolutely true in all circumstances (Killing humans is bad!) while the other is a rule that allows for context and circumstances (Killing is bad when they are defenseless but ok when it's war!). When you apply that thinking to Art, it's very difficult if not impossible to find absolutes. Even when cultures make attempts to describe absolute rules for music you can find exceptions. Take western scales which were defined during the medieval and renaissance eras, then compare them to microtonal scales from India. It's not useful to describe one as better than the other. They are social creations born of different contexts.

"Death of the Author" is another way to think of it. An artist might have a specific goal in mind, but there is no guarantee they can communicate that goal with 100% accuracy. A creator and a recipient will each have a subjective relationship and bring unique contexts to the work. I think this is a good thing, because it allows Art to stay engaging longer. If art were simplified and drilled down to very easy-to-understand concepts, people would "get it" and move on. The art would be boring like solving arithmetic. So rather than try to explain my goals in my work, I try to approximate and leave it vague at the margins. Art should have more than one answer because it's not math (Up yours, Pythagoras!).

If there's a lesson, it's that Art has existed much longer than the philosophy of art. We have a tendency to impose our cultural beliefs/assumptions (Especially as Modernist/Rationalist westerners) onto art as if things always made sense that way. But doing so can make us close-minded and let us miss out on a fuller experience of art.

 

[Doritos420]

I think the producer guy is supposed to be 100% correct about the song. Mitsuki is not writing challenging, avant-garde music. She's a good songwriter who lacks experience. This isn't a scene about him hearing a song that impresses him so much he's going to put it out, it's a scene about him hearing a song that has so much potential that he's going to help make it perfect.

Anyway, knowing Arai's music taste, there's a good chance this guy will start talking about how her passion comes through when she plays it live, with no overdubs, and how the really great producers just try to capture the band at their most authentic selves, playing for an audience. In other words, I'm putting my money on this guy going full Albini, with a decent chance that the name "Albini" is actually said.

 

[flowsthead]

It's true that restrictions can give direction to the creative process, or focus. It keeps things from getting too broad. But I think it's important to consider what kinds of restrictions we're talking about. There's a difference between Johnny Cash's adage of "We'd play faster if we could," A garage band playing three chord rock because they're self taught, or a social condition like "Rap music sucks because they aren't singing." Some are restrictions placed on the creator, but some are restrictions for the listener.

Sure I agree, although I'm not sure what the connection is to what I said or the chapter.

I like Kant's distinction between "Categorical Imperatives" and "Hypothetical Imperatives." One is a rule that is absolutely true in all circumstances (Killing humans is bad!) while the other is a rule that allows for context and circumstances (Killing is bad when they are defenseless but ok when it's war!). When you apply that thinking to Art, it's very difficult if not impossible to find absolutes. Even when cultures make attempts to describe absolute rules for music you can find exceptions. Take western scales which were defined during the medieval and renaissance eras, then compare them to microtonal scales from India. It's not useful to describe one as better than the other. They are social creations born of different contexts.

Again, I agree but not sure where the connection is. I wasn't talking about cross cultural appreciation. The Room example is very much a Western filmmaking experience with a Western audience. And again, I wasn't talking about absolutes. I am saying that it is possible to say, "this piece of art is attempting this technique" and thus the technique can be evaluated. It's not the worth or value of the art, but the technique. If two people are drawing say a sunflower, and one of them does so as a realist and the other does so as an impressionist, I don't think those are two are comparable as far as technique goes. But if two realists are drawing a sunflower, then you can compare the two and say one did a better job of capturing the sunflower as it was.

"Death of the Author" is another way to think of it. An artist might have a specific goal in mind, but there is no guarantee they can communicate that goal with 100% accuracy. A creator and a recipient will each have a subjective relationship and bring unique contexts to the work. I think this is a good thing, because it allows Art to stay engaging longer. If art were simplified and drilled down to very easy-to-understand concepts, people would "get it" and move on. The art would be boring like solving arithmetic. So rather than try to explain my goals in my work, I try to approximate and leave it vague at the margins. Art should have more than one answer because it's not math (Up yours, Pythagoras!).

I am very much a proponent of "Death of the Author", but I don't take that to mean that the goals of a work are impenetrable. You don't need to know the goal with 100% accuracy to be able to surmise an approximation, usually. There are works that will be more difficult to figure out what the goals are, and works that will be less difficult. And we don't necessarily need to evaluate the work as a whole, we can also look at pieces of a work. All art is on some level communication, so especially within a cultural context there is an expectation that communication is happening. There's a famous story about someone taking Hamlet to an African tribe and how a lot of the things that someone with a British upbringing might assume are universal don't translate to the tribe members at all. But for someone brought up with a British education, you can have some reasonable expectation that they will pick up on those assumed elements in Hamlet. They could, of course, still be wrong about the initial goals with which Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, but they don't need to be 100% accurate to be able to say compare one Shakespeare play to another, or compare them with the plays of his contemporaries.

If there's a lesson, it's that Art has existed much longer than the philosophy of art. We have a tendency to impose our cultural beliefs/assumptions (Especially as Modernist/Rationalist westerners) onto art as if things always made sense that way. But doing so can make us close-minded and let us miss out on a fuller experience of art.

I don't think I agree with this statement. Art and the philosophy of Art have probably existed since about the same time. Some prehistoric person drew something on a cave, and another prehistoric person said, "I think they did a good job, but the legs should be thicker" and boom philosophy of art. And sure, all cultures have a tendency to impose their cultural beliefs/assumptions on all other cultures. That's part of communication and translation, bridging the cultural divide over misunderstandings and new cultural experiences. Once again, not sure how that's relevant to anything I said when I was never speaking about cross cultural experiences.

 

[ariel_haymarket]

 

[outinthegardener]

Spoiler

Sure I agree, although I'm not sure what the connection is to what I said or the chapter.


Again, I agree but not sure where the connection is. I wasn't talking about cross cultural appreciation. The Room example is very much a Western filmmaking experience with a Western audience. And again, I wasn't talking about absolutes. I am saying that it is possible to say, "this piece of art is attempting this technique" and thus the technique can be evaluated. It's not the worth or value of the art, but the technique. If two people are drawing say a sunflower, and one of them does so as a realist and the other does so as an impressionist, I don't think those are two are comparable as far as technique goes. But if two realists are drawing a sunflower, then you can compare the two and say one did a better job of capturing the sunflower as it was.


I am very much a proponent of "Death of the Author", but I don't take that to mean that the goals of a work are impenetrable. You don't need to know the goal with 100% accuracy to be able to surmise an approximation, usually. There are works that will be more difficult to figure out what the goals are, and works that will be less difficult. And we don't necessarily need to evaluate the work as a whole, we can also look at pieces of a work. All art is on some level communication, so especially within a cultural context there is an expectation that communication is happening. There's a famous story about someone taking Hamlet to an African tribe and how a lot of the things that someone with a British upbringing might assume are universal don't translate to the tribe members at all. But for someone brought up with a British education, you can have some reasonable expectation that they will pick up on those assumed elements in Hamlet. They could, of course, still be wrong about the initial goals with which Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, but they don't need to be 100% accurate to be able to say compare one Shakespeare play to another, or compare them with the plays of his contemporaries.


I don't think I agree with this statement. Art and the philosophy of Art have probably existed since about the same time. Some prehistoric person drew something on a cave, and another prehistoric person said, "I think they did a good job, but the legs should be thicker" and boom philosophy of art. And sure, all cultures have a tendency to impose their cultural beliefs/assumptions on all other cultures. That's part of communication and translation, bridging the cultural divide over misunderstandings and new cultural experiences. Once again, not sure how that's relevant to anything I said when I was never speaking about cross cultural experiences.

Spoiler to condense post

The connection I was trying to make is that it's easy for people to confuse contextual judgments with absolutes. If we take the language used in the chapter, Dad said "The vocals start late. The guitar part is half-baked. It's way too amateurish." Saying the vocals start late is a description, but it assumes that starting on the beat is good (a judgment). Saying a guitar part is half-baked is less descriptive, closer to pure judgment. It implies some inborn quality he believes would be full baked, but doesn't explain what that would be. "Amateurish" is the same, implying an observable series of sounds that are professional instead. His use of language behaves like absolute rules, without expressing anything concrete.

What Dad was doing was an act of criticism, but I think any criticism that is based on judgment and not description is very limiting. I often catch myself doing it. To avoid this I've tried to approach art more like a Daoist- It's not a question of if I think something could be good or bad, better or worse. It's trying to understand what it is. It's trying to challenge any internalized values I might bring to the work. It's trying to find meaning the author intended and meaning the author did not intend.

At any rate, I think we mostly agree, but all this language is getting in the way I appreciate your thoughtful replies, it's been fun.

 

[TanyaTheEvil]

I love that panels that says, "it looks like that there are still new doors to open"... Thanks for the chapter and translation

 

[RexNemorensis]

IT'S NOT OVER YET
GET READY

IT'S NOT OVER YET
GET READY

IT'S NOT OVER YET
GET READY

IT'S NOT OVER YET
GET READY

IT'S NOT OVER YET
GET READY

HU HA HO

 

[FionaWitch]

Hime's dad thinks: Amature-ish...never mind.. sounds more natural and looks like the kids are working hard.

 

[DaoFox]

Be Passionate! Be Creative! Be Deliberate!😁

If you make something, make it something you can love, becuase if you don't even love it, don't expect others to love it either 😤

Love to see the dad cool with them using such an amazing home studio, kinda jealous I only have a Mic and DAW to work with.🥺

 

[Theozilla]

I don't think I agree with this statement. Art and the philosophy of Art have probably existed since about the same time. Some prehistoric person drew something on a cave, and another prehistoric person said, "I think they did a good job, but the legs should be thicker" and boom philosophy of art. And sure, all cultures have a tendency to impose their cultural beliefs/assumptions on all other cultures. That's part of communication and translation, bridging the cultural divide over misunderstandings and new cultural experiences. Once again, not sure how that's relevant to anything I said when I was never speaking about cross cultural experiences.

Whether art and art philosophy are inherently linked to each other I think depends on whether one considers art as something that can exist independent of the recognition of art as a concept i.e. does art only exist if there are conscious minds to recognize it as art? Like do the songs that animals like birds and whales make count as art even if they aren't sapient enough to consciously recognize their actions as art? Do the various visual displays that some species make out of pebbles and other earthen material count as art, or are they only art because we as humans have categorized those tangible things as art?

 

[EchoGirl]

Cute , I’d be concerned if they did break anything lol bc I assume they’re doing audio editing versus rocking out on a guitar /drumset

 

[RatoMolhado]

Dad really needed that reminder of what it's all for.

It's all for yuri.

 

[Konrad2]

Thanks for the scanlation.

 

[NotSomeone]

Maybe he's spent so much time listening to what people expect you to like, that he needed to listen to what someone genuinely likes. Tried making it sound as philosophical as I can, but maybe someone else can think of something better.

He loves music, obviously, and he knows a lot about it
But it's also his work, and you don't turn things you love into work.
It takes the soul out of it.