The Better the Person...the Better the Music?

I've actually always thought this (and not joking around)...

Think about it.

If music is (arguably) a reflection of the soul, heart, whatever...and it can be assumed that a soul longs to accomplish purity (as nobody really strives to be impure...addictions or psychological problems aside), then isn't it safe to say that the most accomplished music would come from a good person with a pure, healthy soul?

Of course a horrible person could still be a good technical musician, even a very expressive musician. But as far as reaching the pinnacle of writing music...wouldn't what makes music the greatest it can be, essentially be linked to what makes a person the greatest they can be (being pure)?

What do you think?

I don't think so, for one because I don'T believe in some sort of soul, and I think it is impossible to be better than someone in a moral context as you said.

Nope.

What kind of person they are matters none to me.

-AC

No. Alice in Chains vs Enigma.

Michael Jackson vs. Pete Townshend

Hehe....hehehe. He.

You came at it from a different angle.

But with excellent facilities. As had the Nazis.

They get you on the old morals rule? Nazis!

But wi...th-then what you said.

-AC

Hey...now that wasn't so bad!!! Much appreciated.

Truce

Here’s a better explanation:

Look at Bono of U2...a pretty solid guy (in a group of seemingly solid guys), and a true philanthropist. I know he's been the band's chief songwriter and driving force over the years...and look at some of the consistent quality they've put out, including classic, beautiful songs like "One".

And to make an opposite example (although I can't be sure), look at someone like Courtney Love, who I think is actually a very intelligent person, but a total train wreck nonetheless. I think the quality of her music (and to be specific...how close she's come to achieving the ideal in music) shows that.

The focus again, is how ideal music can get...and it kinda makes sense that if music comes from a person...(and more specifically, comes from what the core of that person is...the heart or whatever), then the ideal state of music should be what the ideal state of a person is...love.

Love only comes from pureness...and so the ideal music would only come from a pure person.

Whatcha say to that?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've actually always thought this (and not joking around)...

Think about it.

If music is (arguably) a reflection of the soul, heart, whatever...and it can be assumed that a soul longs to accomplish purity (as nobody really strives to be impure...addictions or psychological problems aside), then isn't it safe to say that the most accomplished music would come from a good person with a pure, healthy soul?

Of course a horrible person could still be a good technical musician, even a very expressive musician. But as far as reaching the pinnacle of writing music...wouldn't what makes music the greatest it can be, essentially be linked to what makes a person the greatest they can be (being pure)?

What do you think?

jimi hendrix...drug addled junkie loon...****ing amazing songs

Cliff Richard...clean living as can be...****ing rubbish songs

so no

then the ideal state of music should be what the ideal state of a person is...love.

if this was the case then i dont think many of the protest songs that have defined certain times would ever have come into being as most of them are born from anger toward a certain situation

Originally posted by jaden101
jimi hendrix...drug addled junkie loon...****ing amazing songs

Cliff Richard...clean living as can be...****ing rubbish songs

so no

Plus, I think your example is kinda lacking (no offence) because as far as I knew, Hendrix was a very cool cat...a sensitive and peace lovin' guy.

As far as Cliff Richard goes...there can be lots of musicians out there who are clean cut, good people...but if they have little talent...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Hey...now that wasn't so bad!!! Much appreciated.

Truce

Here’s a better explanation:

Look at Bono of U2...a pretty solid guy (in a group of seemingly solid guys), and a true philanthropist. I know he's been the band's chief songwriter and driving force over the years...and look at some of the consistent quality they've put out, including classic, beautiful songs like "One".

And to make an opposite example (although I can't be sure), look at someone like Courtney Love, who I think is actually a very intelligent person, but a total train wreck nonetheless. I think the quality of her music (and to be specific...how close she's come to achieving the ideal in music) shows that.

The focus again, is how ideal music can get...and it kinda makes sense that if music comes from a person...(and more specifically, comes from what the core of that person is...the heart or whatever), then the ideal state of music should be what the ideal state of a person is...love.

Love only comes from pureness...and so the ideal music would only come from a pure person.

Whatcha say to that?

If anything, Bono is less of a good person that someone who has consistent morals. There's only so long I can handle him asking us to give money to the poor, when he could easily dip into his own pocket without ever needing us.

Anyway, I just don't think it matters at all what somebody is like outside of music, it shouldn't.

The "ideal" music is different to each person, you need to realise that.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The "ideal" music is different to each person, you need to realise that.

Just because someone might have a disregard for human life, and his ideal of the value of life is one that suggests some people deserving to die (according to his criteria), then that doesn't exactly make him well-suited to define what that ideal really is…actually valuing life. My main point here is…he's not able to "recognize" that true ideal. And like you said...his ideal is different, but coming from an ill-suited (and impure) perspective nonetheless.

Soooo…what makes you or I or anybody else think that we’re not in fact ill-suited to determine what I'm suggesting the ideal of music is (again...I'm focusing on your last point here about different ideals...not whether or not you agree there is in fact an ideal). My point is...from how I’ve defined it, it would take someone who is living the ideal of life (love, goodness, yada yada), to recognize the ideal of music (music that comes from a good person)...as it would take someone who is living the ideal of life (love, goodness, yada yada), to truly recognize the ideal of the value of life.

Get it?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've actually always thought this (and not joking around)...

Think about it.

If music is (arguably) a reflection of the soul, heart, whatever...and it can be assumed that a soul longs to accomplish purity (as nobody really strives to be impure...addictions or psychological problems aside), then isn't it safe to say that the most accomplished music would come from a good person with a pure, healthy soul?

Of course a horrible person could still be a good technical musician, even a very expressive musician. But as far as reaching the pinnacle of writing music...wouldn't what makes music the greatest it can be, essentially be linked to what makes a person the greatest they can be (being pure)?

What do you think?

I think no. Two examples being James Taylor and John Denver. Happy, folksy music that was from the heart, only they were pieces of shit, wife and drug abusing wastes of flesh.

Besides, if music is arguably a reflection, and we're left under the assumption that a soul strives to be pure, that leaves plenty of room for doubt. Not to mention those who don't write their own songs.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I agree with that to an extent...the ideal of music IS different to each person...but as is the ideal of the value of life…and maybe not all people are able to recognize what that true ideal is.

Just because someone might have a disregard for human life, and his ideal of the value of life is one that suggests some people deserving to die (according to his criteria), then that doesn't exactly make him well-suited to define what that ideal really is…actually valuing life. My main point here is…he's not able to "recognize" that true ideal. And like you said...his ideal is different, but coming from an ill-suited (and impure) perspective nonetheless.

Soooo…what makes you or I or anybody else think that we’re not in fact ill-suited to determine what I'm suggesting the ideal of music is (again...I'm focusing on your last point here about different ideals...not whether or not you agree there is in fact an ideal). My point is...from how I’ve defined it, it would take someone who is living the ideal of life (love, goodness, yada yada), to recognize the ideal of music (music that comes from a good person)...as it would take someone who is living the ideal of life (love, goodness, yada yada), to truly recognize the ideal of the value of life.

Get it?

None of that proves the rather ridiculous notion that nice people make better music.

-AC

No you're right...that last point didn't.

I was just trying to show how people having a different ideal of music like you said, doesn't necessarily play any part in "recognizing" what I've suggested the true ideal of music is (music that comes from a good person).

Point being, if I lived an impure life devoid of love and goodness (like the dude who isn't able to recognize the ideal of the value of life), then I too wouldn't be well-suited in recognizing the ideal of music (music that refelcts a writer who is in fact a good person).

...still, I'm hard pressed to prove that the ideal of music in fact has anything to do with being a good person.

Why do you have an obsession with trying to prove factually subjective things as objective? It's impossible.

It's not just undertaking an improbable, but possible challenge. It's actually impossible.

_AC

Bob Marley wrote and sang beautiful songs about peace, understanding, and unity while being a philandering, aggressive, and intolerant man.

So, no, I don't think being a happy-clappy person is a prerequisite to making great music.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you have an obsession with trying to prove factually subjective things as objective? It's impossible.

It's not just undertaking an improbable, but possible challenge. It's actually impossible.

_AC

It's the kind of stuff I like to think about.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Bob Marley wrote and sang beautiful songs about peace, understanding, and unity while being a philandering, aggressive, and intolerant man.

So, no, I don't think being a happy-clappy person is a prerequisite to making great music.

Sure, him and every other person who has character flaws...(kinda like what The Core said about John Denver). If anything, I'm saying that their music would be that much better (closer to what I suggest is the ideal) if those flaws were improved upon....Victory of the self translating into victory in the art.

Well, no, not really. Their life experiences have created the background for the songs they write, so to take away those you'd be left with some shit music like...oh, I don't know...Robbie Williams? Coldplay? Something akin to those travesties.