|
What is "Authority"?
The dictionary has this as one of it’s definitions: Confidence
derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata
with authority
When a person speaking seems to know what they’re talking about,
we tend to listen and are possibly swayed by their arguments because they
have a certain sense of ‘authority’ about their statements.
They make sense. And they make common sense. That type of authority is
not assigned by someone – it is earned on the basis of merit. These
people become leaders to some degree based on the credibility they build
by offering that common sense, logic, and sense of truth and insight in
their observations.
Similarly, when you listen to the music produced by various artists, there
is sometimes that extra sense of each note being just the perfect note
at the perfect time.
That is how I can judge a really good artist from one who is not yet as
skilled in their craft, regardless of the genre of music. If they know
how to put a song together in such a way that each note seems to always
be the right note at the right moment. Then it has that sense of authority.
It has power. Power to persuade others. Power to win over the hearts and
minds of those who hear the message.
Eric’s music has that sense of authority. When I listen to his material,
there is no doubt in my mind that each note, as it happens, is just the
right note for that passing moment. Each chord progression is correct.
It begins, runs, and resolves correctly. If there is no counter-melody,
it is because none was needed, and had it been added, it would have diminished
the effect of the piece. In fact, any change whatsoever would only serve
to diminish the piece. That is authority.
When writing music, I wonder if Eric has to think much about it, or if
it just comes naturally. I know that when I write music, I start with
a blank page, and I have to begin somewhere, so I begin with a nugget
of an idea and then build on that. As I build, I am always trying to think
of what the next most logical move is. I look for not just the possible
next chord or next note, but the *perfect* next note or chord.
Then the concept expands into the realm of production. When to add a voice,
when not to. When to cut the entire band except one single guitar to do
one run of notes - then crash the rest of the band right back in again.
When to make it heavy, when should it be light. Is there a logical flow
of ideas within the lyrics? Or is it one of those psychedelic non-sequitur
ramblings of a drugged-out stoner typical of the late 60's/early 70's?
Does the sound of the music and melody match the topic of the lyrics?
Do they combine to create and overall mood or emotional effect? Or are
they fighting each other? How does it begin? With a single instrument,
and then slowly add the others to build a band sound? Or do all the others
suddenly come in with a colossal impact?
How many instruments? What to double, and when? What effects to apply?
There are so many elements to it, and any one of them being off or wrong
destroys the credibility and the authority of the piece.
Then there is the whole issue of whether the piece is the brainchild of
a single artist or a group of artists, each of which has their own vision,
and each of which can pull the project in their direction. Sometimes,
a mix of visions brings a stronger, blended vision of where it should
go - if the 'chemistry' is compatible between artists. And yet many times,
it doesn't work, and the ideas of one merely diminish the effects of the
ideas from others.
Then there is also the concept of asking for help from people outside
the creative process. People who are not themselves musicians.
There is a trade off when the artist asks for help from another.
Normally, when we, 'the audience', pick up a book and read it, or read
a poem, or listen to a song, experience a painting, or a sculpture, etc.,
we usually have a sense of faith in the artist that what was intended
to be there is there. We trust in their authority.
Just like when we get off the elevator on the 10th floor of an office
building, we have unconsciously made an underlying assumption that the
engineers and architects knew what they were doing when they designed
the tensile strength and configuration of the steel girders for the building
and that the floor is not going to collapse when you step onto it. We
make these assumptions of simple faith everyday. We make many similar
assumptions about the world around us on a daily basis.
We make similar assumptions of faith with art as well.
We may like the piece, or not like the piece, but, unless we are a professional
critic, most of us simply assume that it is what it is. It is complete.
And what the artist intended.
We don't take it upon ourselves to suggest that the chords to "Stairway
to Heaven" are wrong.
We don't think the melody to 'Silent Night" needs work. Or that "The
Last Supper" should have had one more disciple at the table.
As such, we imbue these pieces with a certain sense of what I will call,
'Artistic Authority'.
They speak with an authority of what they should be. Of how they should
exist in the world.
When we buy a new CD and listen to it, we usually accept it as easily
as we accept the classics in that we assume that the songs are complete
and correct, and as the muse instructed the artist to create.
So when an artist asks for help, it changes the situation - at least for
that person, doesn't it?
For THAT person, they now have a say in what the chord progression is.
Cliffs of Dover might have less impact on you if you had a deal of say
in the exact melody. Perhaps it would lose it's authority - it's right
to exist as it is now. Things are changed for the person that gets to
suggest the exact tint for the leaves on those trees, the exact wording
of this Haiku.
When they get to determine the plot twist in the movie at that crucial
point.
No one doubts the fact that the Empire was allowed to blow up the planet
Alderan in Star Wars. That film has the authority to simply state that
that is what happened, and we take it at face value and trust that it
makes sense in the grand design of events that are about to transpire.
But if you are given say over things, all that evaporates. If you determine
that Princess Leia convinced Governor Tarkan and Darth Vader to let them
live, then suddenly everything is up for grabs. For you, at least, the
story has lost it's artistic authority, and has simply become a workpiece
that you toiled over. To a degree, the magic is lost. Your ability to
change the story makes the story meaningless in a sense.
It takes away from the sense of 'authority' of the piece. The piece of
art is now no longer a fixed piece of the panorama of the universe around
that person. Once it is open to change by that person it becomes something
different. Something less, I should say.
It has lost it's 'authority', but on the other hand, that person has gained
some power. They can change something they couldn't change before. So
the authority of the work is diminished, but the authority of the person
is enhanced. And that is the tradeoff.
So it becomes a bit of a quandary for the artist to ask for help, doesn't
it?
The tradeoff for the artist there is that they must de-mystify the work
for that person in exchange for help that may enhance the mystery of the
piece for others. So the tradeoff is expanded.
In asking for help, you lose a fan, but gain an artistic aide. If you
never ask for help or advice or feedback, you maintain the mystery for
all others, but your impact is limited to only your own abilities, and
senses. You are working in a vacuum. If your ego allows you to take criticism,
advice or direction at all, you must decide whose experience you wish
to ruin in exchange for their advice and input. An interesting choice.
As with all decisions, the more informed the better.
Another aspect to this is the concept of 'quality' in art. Art is very
subjective. Taste is always personal and therefore indefensible. However
not all 'art' is the highest of quality. People start at a low level of
skill and then evolve to higher levels of skill as they learn new things.
So their art improves. In my own case, my later songs are better than
my earlier ones, because I know what I'm doing a little more now than
I did when I started writing and recording 27 years ago. Each album is
better than the ones before it. To some degree, even each song is usually
a little better than the last.
So add this element into the mix and now we have a case where Artistic
Authority is at risk if the quality is not high enough to provide a compelling
suspension of disbelief for the audience.
In most cases, an artist is trying to convey a message to the audience.
A story, a lesson, a feeling, a mood, a whatever. To do this, they must
create an environment and a set of triggers to catch the audience's attention
and engage their emotions. They must set a mood. They must touch on archetypes
and symbols, similar experiences, and familiar points of the world that
will trigger the emotional context that they are trying to build for the
audience.
If their mastery of their art is insufficient to the task, then they will
fail. The audience will experience nothing the artist has intended. They
will simply get caught up in the form of the portrayal and lose the content.
The form, if rendered correctly, should disappear in the mind, as the
content of the underlying message is revealed. To me, that is 'quality'
in art. Just as a very skilled actor makes you forget the actor and believe
the character to the point that their predicament seems real and engages
your emotions. That is where the art is. That is quality performance,
and artistic authority.
At least that's my feeling on it.
|
|