Heaven is the DMX music channel
Frederick J. Barnett Jr.
the DMX music channels. These aren't video channels, all they do is
play music with a blank screen. Not even any commercials! A couple of
weeks ago they added another 20 channels, and lo and behold one was
new age music! So far some of the artists I've recognized that they've
played have included Jonn Serrie, Loreena McKennitt, and Enya (twice).
Now, whenever I'm between regular tv programs, or reading or
something, I put it on and just enjoy!! I only have one complaint so
far (beyond the fact my tv isn't hooked up to a stereo, so I'm only
getting mono sound): I wish they would put up a little box with the
song title, artist, and maybe the album title, so I can know what to
buy when I hear something I really like.
If anyone is considering getting digital cable, and they know it
has the DMX music channels (these are most likely to be TCI providers
as I believe they own DMX) I definitely urge you to get it. Even if
the new age channel isn't part of the package, you can then start
bugging them to add it. :-) So far, I haven't found a web site for
DMX.
--
Frederick J. Barnett http://www.eatel.net/~fred/
E-mail: fr...@eatel.net
Governing Board Member, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/
The Baton Rouge Astronomical Society
http://www.eatel.net/~fred/bras/bras.html
The BREC, LSU, BRAS Highland Road Park Observatory
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/observatory/
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get
done!! Do you think that's easy?!?" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of
Navarone.
Judy Markworth
channels was New Age. Since we in Milwaukee are devoid of *any* good music
on the radio, I was thinking about calling my cable company to have it added
to my service. The fact that it's commercial free is appealing, I just hope
they play a variety. Oh well, who am I to be picky? I haven't heard "New
Age" on the radio in YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
Has anyone else got this service and heard the New Age station? Can you
give me more of an idea of whose music they've played?
Judy
--
The Marked Worth of Music, Wind and Wire Magazine
http://www.tcc-usa.com/markworth
jwo...@execpc.com
Frederick J. Barnett Jr. wrote in message <35ED6606...@eatel.net>...
Hndg97
>the DMX music channels. These aren't video channels, all they do is
>play music with a blank screen. Not even any commercials! A couple of
>weeks ago they added another 20 channels, and lo and behold one was
>new age music! So far some of the artists I've recognized that they've
>played have included Jonn Serrie, Loreena McKennitt, and Enya (twice).
>something, I put it on and just enjoy!! I only have one complaint so
>far (beyond the fact my tv isn't hooked up to a stereo, so I'm only
>getting mono sound): I wish they would put up a little box with the
>song title, artist, and maybe the album title, so I can know what to
>buy when I hear something I really like.
> If anyone is considering getting digital cable, and they know it
>has the DMX music channels (these are most likely to be TCI providers
>as I believe they own DMX) I definitely urge you to get it. Even if
>the new age channel isn't part of the package, you can then start
>bugging them to add it. :-) So far, I haven't found a web site for
>DMX.
The web site for DMX is DMXMUSIC.COM.
I don't have that service, but do have 31 DSS music channels offered by
Directv. They are excellent and do include a pretty good New Age channel as
well as song titles, artists, and album titles for all channels.
um...@ptd.net
I have the DirecTV dish as well. The new age channel is excellent.
They have a Song titles etc as mentioned. They also have an MC Store
that you can call and order CD's etc. Problem is that other than
the big name artists, (McKennitt, Enya) they don't have or never even
heard of them. There are some web sites that offer some new age music
as well.
Shopping.com is pretty good. They may even have some with a sample of
the tunes.
Elizabeth Hentze
Well, here in Namibia we've also got the DMX music channels on satellite TV.
I recently got it and I think the New Age channel is my favourite although
many of their songs are a bit too New Agey for me... they do play a bit of
Enya now and again as well as some Loreena McKennit. I don't recognise any
of the other artists, but there is some good music.
Hope I've helped a little...
Elizabeth :-)
Fred Puhan
> I recently got it and I think the New Age channel is my favourite although
> many of their songs are a bit too New Agey for me...
Uh... isn't that the point? :-)
Bill Binkelman
<liz...@iafrica.com.na> wrote:
> Well, here in Namibia we've also got the DMX music channels on satellite TV.
> I recently got it and I think the New Age channel is my favourite although
> many of their songs are a bit too New Agey for me... they do play a bit of
> Enya now and again as well as some Loreena McKennit. I don't recognise any
> of the other artists, but there is some good music.
> Hope I've helped a little...
> Elizabeth :-)
Elizabeth, just for my own edification...what do you mean by "too new
agey?" I'm curious what in the music causes this reaction. Please
understand that I am not putting you the spot here. I genuinely want to
know. So many people view new age music so differently that every piece of
info I get on individual tastes helps.
For that matter, _anyone_ can answer this question, i.e. what is "real"
new age music to you and do you like it, tolerate it, or condemn it to
hell? Please be semi-specific and name artists/CDs if possible.
For instance, I consider Dean Evenson a true "new age music" artist (well,
he has done some borderline stuff, especially his last one with Barabas, I
think it was IN THE GARDEN). I do truly like some of Dean's stuff
(DREAMSTREAMS is an excellent piece of work, as is DESERT MOON SONG).
I _DO NOT_ like Steven Halpern's stuff, though. And I guess he is as close
to "certifiable" new age music as it can get. Part of my feelings is not
based on his music, but that's all I'll say on _that_ point. No need to go
into details in this forum.
Constance Demby is unique. Her music is highly regarded by "new agers" but
a lot people outside the "new age" community consider her stuff
(especially NOVUS MAGNIFICAT) to be space music. This is despite the
almost overt spirituality of both her persona/philosophy and her musical
trademarks (lots of synth choral work, with heavy use of what I would
consider western sacred music motifs).
Well, there I go again...spiralling off into another topic.
Please, someone offer up something on this if you would be so kind. Even
if this leads to a lot of heated debate, it's necessary because this is a
_very_ hot topic in the industry right now. It'd be nice for the industry
to know what you, the public, thinks about it.
Bill
--
Bill Binkelman
Editor and Publisher of WIND AND WIRE
The best of contemporary acoustic and electronic instrumental music
Fred Puhan
> For that matter, _anyone_ can answer this question, i.e. what is "real"
> new age music to you and do you like it, tolerate it, or condemn it to
> hell? Please be semi-specific and name artists/CDs if possible.
Back up a second here, will you, Bill? Elizabeth's original statement
was "many of their songs are a bit too New Agey for me." Put into this
context, I'd have to rejoin with the question, what is the difference
between "good" rock-and-roll and "bad" rock-and-roll? Or "good" jazz
versus "bad" jazz. Or even classical music, and so on. As some readers
of this newsgroup are aware, I use as my .sig file a quote attributed to
the great American composer Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good, it IS
good."
So I think the question isn't what "real" new age music is; that's as
likely to have as many distinctly different answers as there are
respondents. Rather, I think that the distinction should be made
between what one deems "good" versus "bad."
Perhaps one way to make this distinction would be to measure its appeal
much the same as one would a steak (or for you vegans, a block of tofu):
is it overcooked? Undercooked? Or just right? Is the meat lean and
tender, or marbled and juicy? In other words, how does it "taste" to
you? Also, my appetite varies -- sometimes I want my food spicy, or
crunchy. Or mild and melt-in-your-mouth smooth.
You offered a few examples of your own, and I'd like to use one or two
as examples of my own:
> I _DO NOT_ like Steven Halpern's stuff, though. And I guess he is as
> close to "certifiable" new age music as it can get. Part of my feelings
> is not based on his music, but that's all I'll say on _that_ point. No
> need to go into details in this forum.
Then *I'll* go into details: Halpern's music to me is devoid of any
emotional content. I own two Halpern albums. I find them palatable,
but don't ever find myself "hungering" for them. This is what my
daughter calls "elevator music."
> Constance Demby is unique. Her music is highly regarded by "new agers"
> but a lot people outside the "new age" community consider her stuff
What does it matter? I don't cling to one "community" or another.
Keeping to my food analogy, sometimes I like Asian, sometimes Mexican,
and other times Italian. There's a restaurant in my area that's a mix
of Thai and Cajun cooking. Sound awful? Not at all; the folks who
operate the place have just decided that's what they want to offer. It
seems many people enjoy their food regardless of what you call it.
So to the meat of the matter (pun intended!): What differentiates
"real" (or good) new age music from "bad" new age music to me is how it
satisfies my appetite -- whatever that appetite might be at the moment
-- how it "fills me up" and appeases whatever emotional need I have at
the time.
And, like Duke Ellington stated above, I'd have a hard time dismissing
any artist's work. It may not appeal to me emotionally, but it could be
that it just doesn't "taste good" to me. For me, "bad" new age music is
that which is shallow, or pretentious, or which just doesn't reach that
hunger inside me.
I've said enough for now. I'll shrink back (not too far back, of
course) and watch the rest of the show. But I'm reminded of a line from
Shakespeare (Twelfth Night, I believe): "If music be the food of love,
play on."
Hannah M.G. Shapero
>> I recently got it and I think the New Age channel is my favourite although
>
>new age music to you and do you like it, tolerate it, or condemn it to
First of all, I love it that someone in Namibia can get DirecTV and post
to this newsgroup as easily as if they were in New York.
Second, I'm one of Bill's WIND AND WIRE writers so this is sort of a
self-referential job. I suppose it could turn into an article in W&W
someday if I write anything interesting.
REAL New Age Music? To me, it has a very distinctive sound, but there are
two kinds of that sound. The most characteristic is the slow,
synthesizer-loaded, soft, sustained, quasi-religious type of music which
is typified by Constance Demby or Jonn Serrie. If that's "space music"
then so be it but it also intends to convey that drifting, meditative, yet
ponderous spirituality which is so typical of "New Age" if you read the
books and look at the pink and purple graphics with their crystals and
their misty mountains and stars. For me the perfect example of this kind
of "New Age" music is that of "Raphael" (note his one-word, "angelic"
name) which has all the characteristics I've mentioned.
Then the other kind of characteristic "New Age" music is the acoustic
guitar-piano-and-small-ensemble type of stuff, sometimes with a
synthesizer added, which uses modal harmonies, folk motifs, gently
syncopated rhythms, and never gets too loud or obtrusive. This is the
Birkenstock-shoe, mineral water, tofu-and-sprouts, country cabin music.
The perfect example here is the music of Will Ackerman and his assistants,
especially the many albums he did for Windham Hill in the '80s.
This type of stuff is dated and not too much of it is done these days, but
the previous kind, the high-flown synthesizer-heavy "spiritual" type of
music, goes on and on. And I continue to listen to it and LIKE it.
There is another sub-genre of "True New Age" music which I privately refer
to as "New Age Funeral Music" or what you would want to listen to if you
were dying or already dead (played at your funeral). This is not only
"spiritual" but comforting, it sometimes has organ music in it,
along with chimes and dingling bells, and it's real slow. No one plays the
bongos in this kind of music, anywhere. I would name some names as
examples but that would probably enrage the fans of these people so I will
refrain.
Remember, if the cover is pink and purple, and the graphics are barely
readable, and the titles of the tracks are things like "Earth Song" and
"Healing Vibrations" and "Heart Dawn," this is almost certainly True New
Age Music.
Musically,
Hannah M.G.Shapero
Dave Reade
>> I recently got it and I think the New Age channel is my favourite
although
>
>Uh... isn't that the point? :-)
>
under New Age (for lack of a better description), but the "New Age' stuff
the DMX channel seems to pick is often not the portion of New Age that I
care for. As with anything commercial, they pick the less adventurous
stuff, whereas I love to find some of the more challenging or at least
unusual stuff.
IMHO, Dave.
Elizabeth Hentze
Bill Binkelman
Puhan) wrote:
> Bill Binkelman <bi...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > For that matter, _anyone_ can answer this question, i.e. what is "real"
> > new age music to you and do you like it, tolerate it, or condemn it to
> > hell? Please be semi-specific and name artists/CDs if possible.
>
> Back up a second here, will you, Bill? Elizabeth's original statement
> was "many of their songs are a bit too New Agey for me." Put into this
> context, I'd have to rejoin with the question, what is the difference
> between "good" rock-and-roll and "bad" rock-and-roll? Or "good" jazz
> versus "bad" jazz. Or even classical music, and so on. As some readers
> of this newsgroup are aware, I use as my .sig file a quote attributed to
> the great American composer Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good, it IS
> good."
>
> So I think the question isn't what "real" new age music is; that's as
> likely to have as many distinctly different answers as there are
> respondents. Rather, I think that the distinction should be made
> between what one deems "good" versus "bad."
Fred, you may have missed my point. There is "legitimate" new age music.
By legitimate, I mean it has direct and definiable ties to new age
philosophy. Whether it be the statement of intent for channeling or
accessing a higher plane or whatever. Plus there is the philosophy of the
artist. Kevin Kendle is as far from being a new ager as possible. He just
happnes to record some very relaxing music. Dean Evenson, OTOH, is very
new agist in his beliefs (after all, his label's motto is "Peace Through
Music").
It's a valid concern I have because there are so many misconceptions
around this issue both within and outside the industry. Understanding what
people label as "true" new age and just "mislabeled" new age music is
important in moving this music forward.
No offense, but while your Duke Elington quote is certainly valid and even
admirable, it is not very helpful from a business standpoint. If
_everyone_ believed as Duke did, we'd have "new age" CDs flying out of
stores and everyone would be driving Bimmers.
I was not trying to judge one type of music as better or worse. Just
trying to get inside peoples' heads and see where they draw the battle
lines. To make a statement like Elizabeth's needs clarification. Why is
some music "too new agey?" It's a valid question since _many_ mainstream
people (not us) feel that way automatically about 99% of this music,
whether it has new age philosophical ties or not.
For me, I agree somewhat (not totally) with Hannah. I think _most_ new age
music has definable (albeit elastic) characteristics. Note, I said
elastic.
>
> > Constance Demby is unique. Her music is highly regarded by "new agers"
> > but a lot people outside the "new age" community consider her stuff
>
> What does it matter? I don't cling to one "community" or another.
> Keeping to my food analogy, sometimes I like Asian, sometimes Mexican,
> and other times Italian. There's a restaurant in my area that's a mix
> of Thai and Cajun cooking. Sound awful? Not at all; the folks who
> operate the place have just decided that's what they want to offer. It
> seems many people enjoy their food regardless of what you call it.
It matters _A LOT!_ If an artist is pegged as "new age" in the industry,
that artist can be viewed more critically by some. If one is labeled as
"new age" in the marketplace, than only "new agers" will buy the artist's
work. For Constance, it works. For others, it's disastrous. You seem to
think that everyone has the same acceptance of things you do. Guess what?
Not a chance. It's a cold world and many people make buying decisions on
some very arbitrary matters.
>
> So to the meat of the matter (pun intended!): What differentiates
> "real" (or good) new age music from "bad" new age music to me is how it
> satisfies my appetite -- whatever that appetite might be at the moment
> -- how it "fills me up" and appeases whatever emotional need I have at
> the time.
I never meant to state "good" or "bad." It's like this. Some people might
consider Celine Dion a "rock" artist. Others would say she is EZ
listening. Both labels would have negative connotations on different
audiences. The use of the label is arbitrary but its impact is concrete.
If we are _ever_ to bring the majority of this music into the mass market,
we _must_, I repeat, we _must_ address this issue. Not the naming as much
as the conception of what the name implies. I am not necessarily espousing
change. But understanding why something happens is needed to understand
how to fix it.
>
> And, like Duke Ellington stated above, I'd have a hard time dismissing
> any artist's work. It may not appeal to me emotionally, but it could be
> that it just doesn't "taste good" to me. For me, "bad" new age music is
> that which is shallow, or pretentious, or which just doesn't reach that
> hunger inside me.
>
> I've said enough for now. I'll shrink back (not too far back, of
> course) and watch the rest of the show. But I'm reminded of a line from
> Shakespeare (Twelfth Night, I believe): "If music be the food of love,
> play on."
>
Does that mean that STALKER is the food of love? <g> I guess if your lover
is a vampire. <g>
PS I like STALKER so no flames please.
Fred, as always, a pleasure to match wits with you.
Bye all,
Andrew Vilday
groupings seem to me to destroy the point of enjoying music. One thing I've
noticed as a Teacher is that the kids I teach are quick to ask what music i
like and then so quick to pigeon-hole me depending on which artist I mention
first. Many are then surprised as a year unfolds to realise how mant
different bands i like. I love Enya to death but her music suits certain
moods. There are times when I wouldn't play her music just as there are
times when I wouldn't listen to Joy Division, or the Manic Street Preachers
or Stina Nordenstam or Catatonia or half Man half Biscuit or.......... the
list goes on.
I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like but I'd be pushed to
think of a whole style of music which I either like in totality or hate
completely.
Andy.V
Craig Burley
> First of all, I love it that someone in Namibia can get DirecTV and post
> to this newsgroup as easily as if they were in New York.
No way is it as easy!
The morning starts with the wife walking two miles, basket in hand,
to the local ISP. She scoops up the bits from the USENET feed into
her basket, then walks back, balancing it on her head.
When she gets home, she and her daughters sort out the bits and
write the corresponding text into the sand.
The husband, returning home from hunting, reads the writings in the
sand, and writes responses.
Which are, in turn, translated back into bits and carried by the
wife back to the local ISP the next morning.
It's really a charming life, much like how we used to do computing
back in the early days here in the USA. Now we're so accustomed
to hot-and-cold-running-USENET that we tend to assume everybody has it,
but they don't.
What they do have is the advantage of having plenty of incentive to
avoid useless flames, spamming, and so on.
This explains why browsing some Web sites can be so slow. You might be
waiting for some redneck to drive the HTTP, translated bit-by-bit into
beer choices (Bud or Texas State) in the back of his pickup, back and
forth between his ranch and his ISP, for example, or for some Swiss
to transport the chocolate-encoded bits on his cross-country skis.
In both cases, the phrase "streaming data" has an entirely different
meaning than usual.
--
"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.org
PatrickThomas
art is subjective to each individuals opinion. Just continue to consume it
as all I say!
Tom Mehren
Artist Consultant
Mixed Media - http://members.aol.com/mxdmdia/
Bill Binkelman
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
With all due respect, postings that discuss the state of this industry and
how it is perceived are far from "futile" (if that is what you are
referring to). All discussion has worth, IMO. The problem is that too
_many_ people are suffering from "ostrichism" and ignoring the fact that
this music could dramatically increase its market share if there were a
concerted effort on the part by all parties involved.
Lest mere fans think this doesn't involve them, I'd throw this out.
Just think what it would be like if you could walk into Borders, Barnes
and Nobel, Tower, Best Buy, etc etc etc. and buy the latest releases from
Kudzu, Jeff Pearce, Sharon Wiener, Richard Bone, Greg Klamt, Azrael, Meg
Bowles, A Produce, John Huling, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Yes, the major
retailers are stocking titles from some of the smaller labels (HOS,
Miramar, Higher Octave, and a few more). But if you look at the Billboard
charts, it still isn't panning out.
_THIS_ is the attainable goal, IMNSFHO (in my not so freakin' humble opinion).
If we continue on as we are, instead of a greater selection, we will see
less and less (in the mainstream retail world.
While my esteemed colleague, Tom, is correct in urging you to consume
away, this is an important issue. As a publisher who has seen three "new
age music" magazines go under in the last year (or at least disappear for
a while), I am alarmed and angry. I'm angry that there are tens of
magazines for extreme fringe alt or punk or metal rock audiences that are
being distributed nationally by Barnes, Borders, etc. And, for goodness
sake, this is not about me wanting WIND AND WIRE to be more successful,
except that I want it read by more people so more people discover the
world outside of mainstream music. The idea (as someone has suggested in
this industry - not in this group) that I am in this for personal glory or
personal recognition is insulting and shows absolutely no understanding of
my stake in this whatsoever or my ultimate goal for all the musicians and
indie labels in this industry.
I'm really sorry if my continuous tirades about this get boring or
annoying. But there is no way that the majority of new age music (or what
is sold as it) cannot sell way beyond its current status. Tell
me...someone please tell me...if Enya is such a hit (as are Clannad),
where are the comparable sales for, e.g., the release from Ceredwyn? If
Yanni is so huge, why aren't people buying David Friedman's release,
MONNRISE? If George Winston is a hit (as he still is, realistically), why
aren't people buying more Laurie Z or William Watson or Ken Elkinson?
The subjective nature of musical taste is obvious. But the marketing of
music is not as much so. The perception of new age music by the mass
market is a major reason why I asked what I did. "New agey" music is
shunned by people for the reason of misinformation. By understanding what
some people term "new age" and others don't, and examining this, we can
hopefully reverse market trends and make an impact.
I mean, look at how often a "new" group hits in rock and sells a shitload
of music. Why does that _never_ happen in new age music???????????????
Where are the new age equivalents of Green Day, Garbage, Savage Garden,
Paula Cole, etc etc etc. These are artists that (seemingly, although not
literally) appear out of nowehere and are HUGE! But, instead, the
Billboard charts are filled with Yanni, Winston, Enya, Liebert, and (what
a surprise) mindless compilations. Okay, maybe not mindless. Sorry about
that. And I mean nothing against the artists mentioned.
But just imagine if the rock charts were the same way....talk about boring.
Well, I have now re-earned my title as the "last angry man" (or "junkyard
dog" as some know me by). But I really do bristle at labeling what I view
as necessary dialogue as "futile."
Hannah M.G. Shapero
>this music could dramatically increase its market share if there were a
>concerted effort on the part by all parties involved.
>Just think what it would be like if you could walk into Borders, Barnes
>and Nobel, Tower, Best Buy, etc etc etc. and buy the latest releases from
>Kudzu, Jeff Pearce, Sharon Wiener, Richard Bone, Greg Klamt, Azrael, Meg
Bill B and others:
Our Music is by its nature not as "accessible" or easy to listen
to as the other stuff that sells hugely. The best of Our Music is not
concerned with banal emotionalism or heavy-breathing eroticism or macho
posturing, the way the big selling stuff is. It is experimental, it is
quiet, it is more intellectual, it is less aggressive....it is (omiGhod!)
for the ELITE.
You will never get albums that sell MILLIONS of copies by the
artists you mention, unless some sort of mental revolution takes place in
the human race and peoples' perceptions change radically.
Most people have a high threshold of perception. You have to BANG
BANG BANG to get their attention and hold them. They need to be swamped,
overwhelmed with sensation, they need to be drugged and thrilled and
titillated. Just think of your average cigarette-puffing tattooed
baseball-cap-backwards white teenage boy. You think he's gonna sit still
for Robert Rich? His perceptions need LOUD BIG BLASTS to get thru to his
brain. The same with his cigarette-puffing tank-top-wearing platform shoe
girlfriend. Except she needs HEAVY HEAVING EMOTIONALISM to get through to
her brain, like seeing TITANIC 6 times. She isn't gonna sit still for "The
Ambient Expanse." (Unless she's stoned out of her mind, which could
happen, but then neither of our potential consumers would remember what
they were listening to.)
Those are, however, the big consumers, who spend lots of $ on
records.
Our Music is bought by older types who, whether you want to admit
it or not, have a lower threshold of perception, who can detect and be
moved by quieter and more abstract types of sound. It's kind of the same
audience as for classical music, which also doesn't climb the charts in
the recording biz, except for those classical crossovers which have the
BANG BANG BANG and the HEAVING EMOTIONALISM.
So I think we are limited by our own nature to be a rather elite
and small sector of the music market. Fortunately with the Internet and
with mags like WIND AND WIRE and often just by word of mouth, Our Music
gets bought and spread around. But, like the more intellectual type of
classical music, we're never going to hit a mass market, 'cause we're not
the masses.
Yours in elitism,
Hannah M.G.Shapero
Elizabeth Hentze
newsgroups, 2 of which I am a subscriber(alt.music.enya, alt.fan.enya). I
didn't know it was being sent to 'rec.music.newage'.
I'm sorry for making this statement... I had no idea it would cause all
this.
I'm actually an Enya fan not a New Age fan that's all...
Sorry, if I offended anyone, I should've just kept my mouth shut...
Best Regards
Elizabeth
DavidLHsl
(excerpt)
> Our Music is bought by older types who, whether you want to admit
>it or not, have a lower threshold of perception, who can detect and be
>moved by quieter and more abstract types of sound. It's kind of the same
>audience as for classical music, which also doesn't climb the charts in
>the recording biz, except for those classical crossovers which have the
>BANG BANG BANG and the HEAVING EMOTIONALISM.
>
> So I think we are limited by our own nature to be a rather elite
>and small sector of the music market. Fortunately with the Internet and
>with mags like WIND AND WIRE and often just by word of mouth, Our Music
>gets bought and spread around. But, like the more intellectual type of
>classical music, we're never going to hit a mass market, 'cause we're not
>the masses.
Speaking of BANG BANG BANG, ever hear the first five minutes of Tangerine
Dream's Atem? <g>
Seriously, though, I agree with your point as it relates to the ambient and
electronic subgenres, but I've also seen cases where people exposed to some of
the acoustic or new age subgenres (yes, "new age" is both a mega-category and a
sub-genre) indirectly via commercials, television, and movies respond
positively to the music. The problem in this case is that the artist is never
identified, so unless someone knows to post to this group and inquire "Anybody
know who does the music in the commercial for ________?", the source tends to
remain a mystery. I also take my music to work and listen to it in my office,
and people who walk in and notice something they like might ask who I'm
listening to, but it never translates into sales.
I do think that accessibility to the music is a real problem. A lot of the
music I enjoy that I would like to recommend, even within this newsgroup, is
hard to find, limited edition, or even out of print. There is also a lot of
music on my Want List, but I haven't been able to locate them.
From my local source, which is Media Play and Tower Records, I've found stuff
in no less than the following areas: New Age, Popular (they haven't separated
techno at Tower), Indie, World Music. I've also seen stuff filed in areas and
under names that I myself wouldn't: Black Tape for a Blue Girl under Techno
when it should be under Popular; Global Communications' 76:14 has been filed
under "Global Communications", "76:14", and has even been stuck in other areas;
titles on the FAX label filed under "Air" and "Silence" instead of "Namlook,
Pete." So I have to scour the entire store.
The Internet isn't perfect either. Every time I've placed an order from CD
Now, something winds up in backorder status. In fact, I have an order now that
has been in the queue for about two months, but it's waiting to see if they can
obtain Robert Fox's Fire and the Rose (and I'll probably be out of luck on
that). Eurock is a good source, but they offer a limited selection during each
"edition." If I don't order something when it appears at their website, I miss
out. And if it wasn't for this group and Wind and Wire, I would've missed out
on Kudzu and Telomere entirely.
So you not only have to have a lot of patience to listen to the music, as
you've describe, but you also have to have a lot of patience and even more
persistance in order to obtain it.
David Hassell
Disclaimer: My momma don't dance and my daddy don't rock and roll. Is that
dysfunctional?
Bill Binkelman
<liz...@iafrica.com.na> wrote:
Elizabeth,
I can tell that you are not a regular follower of this group. Please don't
apologize for making this statement. This is a great discussion and you
should actually be thanked for bringing this up. It's discussion that
finally the transcends the ordinary that creates a space for dialogue. So,
please don't feel you did anything wrong. Just the opposite, IMO.
And it takes a lot more than this to offend most people here <g>.
Bill Binkelman
M.G. Shapero) wrote:
> >_many_ people are suffering from "ostrichism" and ignoring the fact that
> >this music could dramatically increase its market share if there were a
> >concerted effort on the part by all parties involved.
> ...............................
> >Just think what it would be like if you could walk into Borders, Barnes
> >and Nobel, Tower, Best Buy, etc etc etc. and buy the latest releases from
> >Kudzu, Jeff Pearce, Sharon Wiener, Richard Bone, Greg Klamt, Azrael, Meg
>
> Bill B and others:
>
> Our Music is by its nature not as "accessible" or easy to listen
> to as the other stuff that sells hugely. The best of Our Music is not
> concerned with banal emotionalism or heavy-breathing eroticism or macho
> posturing, the way the big selling stuff is. It is experimental, it is
> quiet, it is more intellectual, it is less aggressive....it is (omiGhod!)
> for the ELITE.
> You will never get albums that sell MILLIONS of copies by the
> artists you mention, unless some sort of mental revolution takes place in
> the human race and peoples' perceptions change radically.
(snip for brevity's sake)
I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague, to the degree that
"our" music is not what Hannah is describing. It is, in fact, a subgenre.
I would agree completely that the majority of ambient, ambient-noir,
ethno-tribal, and even space music is not geared for mass acceptance.
However, there is a lot of indie music made that is more accessible.
Still, I even take exception to Hannah's remarks about the music she
addresses. Obviously, Robert Rich or A Produce or Jeff Pearce will
probably not sell millions of copies of CDs. But I wonder if Hannah is
thinking that these artists even sell in the tens of thousands of CDs.
When I speak/write of expanding the market for this music, the exponential
growth I refer to is from its current base. So, if a certain artist sells
say 2,000 copies of his or her CD, then sales going to 10,000 units is
pretty phenomonal. And that is very attainable. There is very little
(except for the most experimental and atonal) music that cannot achieve
that goal, if the music quality warrants it, that is.
As for the "elite" nature of the music, I'd take issue with that as well.
While not everyone will flock to STALKER, I bet lots of people would buy
YEARNING.
The problem is that the marketing research has never been done on this
music and the potential for cross-marketing (e.g. rhythmic ambient to alt
rock stations, Story-like minimalism to classical, etc etc etc) has rarely
been explored.
I believe that, for example, the music of Michael Walthius could be played
on everything from alt rock to adult contemporary stations (if, of course,
they were enlightened). Lack of enlightenment about a music's potential
for mass acceptance, however, is less a matter of elite taste and more a
matter of indoctrination. Sometimes, it happens by chance. Look at the
film lately. No one thought that this would be the summer that most of the
big budget action flicks would bomb. Instead, you have a three-hour
brutally graphic war film that no one figured would be accessible being a
huge hit, as is a feminist spin on a fairy tale (EVER AFTER) and a few
other surprises.
This unknown factor does exist in music as well but it needs distributors
and retailers' help, along with at least a few "mainstream" radio stations
(i.e. not college, not public, not MPR). The breakthrough potential is
there. It's not going to be easy. But what is?
Judy Markworth
>This unknown factor does exist in music as well but it needs distributors
>and retailers' help, along with at least a few "mainstream" radio stations
>(i.e. not college, not public, not MPR). The breakthrough potential is
>there. It's not going to be easy. But what is?
I believe, as Bill does that the breakthrough potential is out there and no,
I don't believe it will be easy to accomplish. I personally fight for it
because instrumental music has been my sincere passion since I was literally
6 years old. I'll never forget my dad putting a huge pair headphones on my
small head and cranking Synergy's "Electronic Realizations". There he stood
saying, "Isn't that cool??" I'll never forget him removing the lampshades
because they were vibrating under the volume strain of Synergy's "Phobos and
Demos go to Mars" and disrupting his listening pleasure. Because of this,
I disagree with Hannah's assumption that all teenagers need "BANG BANG"
music to get through to them. I grew up on instrumental music. Sure, I
listened to Judas Priest and Metallica with my friends as a rebellious
teenager. BUT... I went home and listened to Rick Wakeman, Synergy,
Mannheim Steamroller and Vangelis to name a few. Do you think that "older"
people are not playing this stuff when their children are present? I know
teenagers who are seriously into this kind of music!
As far as where the answer lies in how to expose this music to a greater
audience, I don't have one clear-cut answer. I don't think anyone does.
What I have observed over the years is that within the confines of the
relatively small listenership of this genre, there is found an immense
amount of passion for music... period! I do agree with Hannah to the extent
that many people honestly do not know *how* to listen to music. Therefore,
they miss the subtleties and complexities and experimental nature found in
much of today's instrumental music. The average person lives in a society
that is deluged by music with lyrics. Commercial radio has taught them that
they need to be told how to feel instead of allowing music alone to bring to
the surface their own emotional connections and meaning. Music when married
to lyrics can indeed be powerful so I'm not knocking that but its presence
has overpowered and overshadowed primarily instrumental music. It has also
dulled people's imaginative power. That power is freely offered by
instrumental music. Those that I know personally who are truly passionate
about "our music" and people who frequent this group have typically shown
themselves to be more interested in and more capable of listening on a
deeper level. In a figurative sense these people use their imaginations to
create their own lyrics and establish meaning which is of importance to
them.
Music by it's very nature is audible emotion. Either we connect with it or
we don't. That may be simplified but what are the common threads among the
people that frequent this particular group? Forget the mud slinging, i.e...
"Tangerine dream sucks..."
"No, man you are so wrong, nobody will ever match them..."
Can we get a fan of Tangerine Dream and one that cannot stand them in this
group to state what it is that attracts them to this genre of music without
mud slinging? I'll bet you'll hear eerily simliar responses from both.
The New Age umbrella houses a vast amount of talent and gives us many
sub-genres to choose from. None of us like them all but a common factor
still unites us and causes us to seek out other fans of this music. I
believe that one of our common bonds is sincere and undying passion for
music. I for one live, eat, sleep and breathe music. My life is incomplete
without it. It is that passion and the joy I receive from sharing it with
others and not personal gain that will cause me to fight to get this music
into the ears of anyone who will listen. I continuously seek out that
person who wants more than the average cheesburger and fries music that
penatrates society. Those people exist. Finding them isn't always easy but
isn't it a thrill when you do? You may tell me to get a life but I get off
on it! Blame my father. It's all his fault! Thanks, dad! :-)
I don't have the definitive answer to popularizing our music but I do
believe it's worth fighting for. Without this group and without
publications like Wind and Wire and without web sites devoted to this kind
of music, I would have missed out on some incredible stuff. That thought
saddens me. What about those who crave this kind of stuff but have no clue
where to find it? I just met someone like that the other day who just lit
up when I told him how to find what he was looking for musically. It had
eluded him for years and now he's on a buying frenzy! He isn't the first
one I've come in contact with like this and he'll certainly not be the last!
To what degree this genre's popularity will rise, I don't know. I just know
we can do better at exposing it and that as a team, we're far more powerful
than we are individually.
Sorry I was so long-winded. I'll shrink back into my corner now. :-)
Judy
Synchestral Productions, Wind and Wire
http://www.tcc-usa.com/markworth
jwo...@execpc.com
Doug Daughtry
or industry involvee (and admittedly arriving rather late for the party,
but)…I do remember what it was like trying to find “what was to become part
of that vast genre of New Age music” prior to having some sort of category.
I remember finding Klaus Schulze in the Jazz section at Wherehouse Records,
because as the manager put it, “Well, it’s not Rock, and it’s not Country.”
And I couldn’t find Laura Allen (sorry, but the album got misfiled in my
record collection during a move and I haven’t found her yet – so I can’t
double check the spelling) at Tower Records, until someone directed me to
the Female Vocals section (gee, right with Barbra Streisand and Liza
Minnelli, why didn't I think to look there). Clearly, this musical area
needed some title to provide an umbrella. Linda Kohanov wrote in the
introduction for the New Age section of the “The All Music Guide” about the
New Age title being an outgrowth from music coming from alternative outlets
like health food stores, bookstores, and occult-oriented stores, as well as
massage and mediation centers associated with the new-age movement.
Regardless if the musicians that raised the New Age flag were practitioners
of astral projection, crystal tuning, or multiple lives, it seems certain
that others interested in similarly nonconfined musical creations joined in
these alternative means to get their music out and simply became part of the
musical expression. I don’t understand the idea that New Age music has to
have “direct and definable ties to new age philosophy” to be considered
“legitimate” or “true” New Age music. Multitudes of musical expressions
within this field have occurred when no other category would touch such
music. . .this category of music that defied the conventional need for a
linear melody or radio defined play length, and even ignored the ripple
effects of Punk music. In what other musical category do we continually
question the philosophical bent of the artist and what purpose does such a
discussion really mean concerning the music? Does a celestial sounding
piece have to be made by a deeply religious person? Would we require a love
sonnet to be composed only by someone truly in love? For all intents and
purposes, New Age music did arise because a new age of music was needed.
Can anyone imagine how any of our favorite artists would sound if they had
been made to fit within the confines of Rock, Jazz, or Country?
> Bill Binkelman <bi...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>...There is "legitimate" new age music.
>By legitimate, I mean it has direct and definiable ties to new age
>philosophy. Whether it be the statement of intent for channeling or
>accessing a higher plane or whatever.
(snipped)
Gregory Taylor
benefitted from being a big tent (that is, an age before one was
obliged to have one's compositions shelved in the New Age section simply
because they weren't written in the atonal serialist paradigm of the day,
for example). But that train's moved on - many contemporary acoustic
composers seem considerably more interested in being thought of as
"classical" composers rather than New Age guys because there's now a space
for them. Similar situations exist within genres I'd more narrowly define
as "electroacoustic" work, too. It's been my experience that, for some
otherwise reasonable members of *my* audience, the appelation "New Age"
is problematice precisely *because* of their personal rejection of new
age philosophies (I had a humorous call last Sunday from some guy who was
honked off about my playing "too much new agey crap." He was specifically
teed off about a set which included the Sami joiking of Wimme Sanni, some
tape music by a Dutch experimentalist, and a recent release of acoustic
music by a bunch of Chicago musos in the Tortoise orbit! I kid you not.).
In some measure, those identifications, like it or not, *do* matter to some
people who might otherwise be perfectly happy to listen to the work. My
music director's been on my case to start reporting the edgy or interstitial
stuff to folks like Pat Nugent at New Age Voice, in the hope that some
extension of the boundaries might be assisted thereby. My impression is
that NAV is doing a reasonable job of trying to suggest the edges, and would
perhaps not quite be ready for a disk of International Spy Numbers Stations
(people reading secret code numbers on the shortwave band. Honest) being in
"heavy rotation." At home, it mixes *divinely* with Chris Meloche and
Eno's "Music for White Cube...."
Just wanted to speak up for Bill here. I think he's right. Of course, I'm
camped rather further away from the circle of firelight, as my requirements
to program for multiple light sources demands. Your mileage may vary.
--
When I pronounce the word Future,/the first syllable already belongs to the
past./When I pronounce the word Silence,/I destroy it./When I pronounce the
word Nothing,/I make something no nonbeing can hold./ (Wislawa Szymborska)
Gregory Taylor WORT-FM www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html 608.828.3385
Neil Leacy
> The Internet isn't perfect either. Every time I've placed an order from CD
>Now, something winds up in backorder status. In fact, I have an order now that
>has been in the queue for about two months, but it's waiting to see if they can
>obtain Robert Fox's Fire and the Rose (and I'll probably be out of luck on
>that).
Robert Fox
The Fire and The Rose FX2 / AD26CD
“Deeply personal music inspired by TS Elliots "Four Quartets". Ethereal
and always compelling”
– Select, UK
You might try ordering direct from the AD MUsic website at
Talking to Robert a few weeks ago (Oh, what a name dropper <g>) at the
launch of David Wright's (oh, there I've done it again <even bigger g>)
latest 'Three Six Zero' he mentioned how excited they were as AD had
really pushed for worldwide distribution and were starting to make
in-roads into the high street stores. Here in the UK most of the AD
music artists are now in stock at all the MVC stores - one of the few UK
high street stores with a consistent 'New Age' music section. They have
also secured a major distribution deal in the States which should see all
their artists readily available over there.
Regards,
Neil Leacy
IT Support (nle...@it-excelsior.britax.co.uk)
====================================================================
For further information on child car seats designed and produced by
Britax-Excelsior visit our web pages at
====================================================================
Neil Leacy
>It matters _A LOT!_ If an artist is pegged as "new age" in the industry,
>that artist can be viewed more critically by some. If one is labeled as
>"new age" in the marketplace, than only "new agers" will buy the artist's
>work. For Constance, it works. For others, it's disastrous. You seem to
>think that everyone has the same acceptance of things you do. Guess what?
>Not a chance. It's a cold world and many people make buying decisions on
>some very arbitrary matters.
I wholly agree with Bill on this one (incestuous as it may seem).
Hannah previously said that the music of r.m.n. was elitist and aimed at
older listeners. Were I disagree with the elitism sentiment in many
respects I agree about the majority of fans being discerning listeners of
25+ (and before anyone has a go I just plucked a figure from the air
based on my own gut feeling... hey, doesn't that make me a market
researcher <tongue-firmly-stuck-in-cheek>). For that reason when I talk
about new age music I refer to it in general as 'contemporary
instrumental' or 'contemporary vocal', and then home in on the numerous
sub-genre's that are mentioned in r.m.n. to clarify the style. This
includes 'new age' music i.e. music specifically marketed for relaxation,
healing, spiritualism, etc.
And guess what? It works. The more people I speak to in this way the more
they seem to understand the variety of styles there are, without that
unneccesary 'Ugh, new age drippy hippy twat' attitude which many people
have - uhm, could that be termed as a form of musical racism (or have I
had too much coffee this morning)?
The word contemporary can be contentious in some peoples minds. However,
language is a constantly evolving thing and attitudes change. But in this
way you can distinguish between between say 'Contemporary Classical' and
'Contemporary Jazz' (though there are some artist that will cross over -
one of the beauties of contemporary instrumental music). Some people
would maybe consider it too highbrow a marketing term but I really think
they'd be wrong.
So how about it. How many artists lurking in r.m.n would prefer being
shelved under 'Contemporary Instrumental' to 'New Age' ?
Twiddle
think you've either over-generalized or perhaps failed to consider the
overall implications of your statement. Still, may I complement you on
this post? Regards!>
> I grew up on instrumental music. Sure, I
> listened to Judas Priest and Metallica with my friends as a rebellious
> teenager. BUT... I went home and listened to Rick Wakeman, Synergy,
> Mannheim Steamroller and Vangelis to name a few. Do you think that "older"
> people are not playing this stuff when their children are present? I know
> teenagers who are seriously into this kind of music!
I simply don't understand why it has to be such a "one or the other"
mentality. Now, as I did in high school (which was more than a few years
back), I let my mood or state of curiosity dictate what I listen to, not
a rigid definition or adherence to genre. Frankly, there are still
moments when I wanna roll the window down, crank the stereo up and drive
real fast, and Liz Story simply doesn't cut it for that purpose. As
such, I still find value in my William Ackerman recordings, just like I
find value in my CDs from Synergy, Loreena McKinnett, Black Sabbath,
Henry Mancini and Three Dog Night. Time and place, as it were...
> As far as where the answer lies in how to expose this music to a greater
> audience, I don't have one clear-cut answer. I don't think anyone does.
> What I have observed over the years is that within the confines of the
> relatively small listenership of this genre, there is found an immense
> amount of passion for music... period!
No different from passionate fans of classical music, or even
"non-popular" jazz. If you're a jazz fan and don't really care for Kenny
G, finding a store with a decent jazz section can be maddening,
especially if you want to delve a little deeper than, say, Miles Davis.
Same for pretty much any genre of music... I know serious students of
country and folk music who find it upsetting that not much beyond Garth
Brooks is easily located in music stores.
The bottom line is that the music business is not set up for passion,
but for profit, like any other business. Radio stations and music stores
do NOT have an "obligation" to play the music of our passion for us, nor
to help us discover new and exciting music. The only obligations any
business has is to pay the bills, and they do so in whatever way it is
possible. All passionate fans of ANY sort of "obscure" music can do is
exactly what we're doing... keep a sharp ear open for resources and have
the good grace to pass them along to people who are looking for similar
things. As a passionate music fan of several somewhat obscure music
forms, I can tell you that the "problem" is not confined to New Age
music; however, finding sources for and information about New Age or
"Berlin school" electronics or good Celtic music or medieval music is a
LOT easier now than it used to be...
> I do agree with Hannah to the extent
> that many people honestly do not know *how* to listen to music. Therefore,
> they miss the subtleties and complexities and experimental nature found in
> much of today's instrumental music. The average person lives in a society
> that is deluged by music with lyrics. Commercial radio has taught them that
> they need to be told how to feel instead of allowing music alone to bring to
> the surface their own emotional connections and meaning. Music when married
> to lyrics can indeed be powerful so I'm not knocking that but its presence
> has overpowered and overshadowed primarily instrumental music.
Here's the part that bothers me just a little... I think it's an over
simplification of the situation. This doesn't give much creedence to
those who have made words an art form, nor to the fact that there's not
much difference between being moved by a sound or by a word. Not meant
to be a flame directed at Judy, please note... Another consideration is
that, for the "average" person (as long as we've determined that it's at
least moderately acceptable to be elitist in here), music is NOT a
passion like it is for most of the regulars in here. I have some very
dear friends who really couldn't much CARE whether their favorite Celine
Dion song is relevant or good music or progressing the genre or hip or
acceptable to their intellectual friends or whatever... they happen to
like the song, and so on the three or four occasions a year when they
buy a CD, they buy the latest from Celine Dion or an old fave from The
Eagles or something. Again, I don't understand why this is viewed as
"bad." I'm guessing that a lot of people in this newsgroup don't really
care whether Andruw Jones of the Atlanta Braves shows proper hustle on
each and every play or not; I can assure you, though, that it's a pretty
hot topic in the Atlanta Braves newsgroup, which is filled with people
every bit as passionate as this group is. Most of these people can quote
you career stats and comparitive profiles for everyone from Eddie
Matthews to Chipper Jones, but I'm betting precious few of them own a CD
by anyone as "obscure" as Enya, even. Is this a bad thing?
I don't see why it would or should be.
> Music by it's very nature is audible emotion. Either we connect with it or
> we don't. That may be simplified but what are the common threads among the
> people that frequent this particular group?
Exactly!!! And, as such, if Celine Dion floats your boat and moves you,
why is she any "better" or "worse" an artist than any New Age artist?
> I don't have the definitive answer to popularizing our music but I do
> believe it's worth fighting for. Without this group and without
> publications like Wind and Wire and without web sites devoted to this kind
> of music, I would have missed out on some incredible stuff. That thought
> saddens me. What about those who crave this kind of stuff but have no clue
> where to find it? I just met someone like that the other day who just lit
> up when I told him how to find what he was looking for musically. It had
> eluded him for years and now he's on a buying frenzy! He isn't the first
> one I've come in contact with like this and he'll certainly not be the last!
> To what degree this genre's popularity will rise, I don't know. I just know
> we can do better at exposing it and that as a team, we're far more powerful
> than we are individually.
We obviously agree a lot here. We're doing what we can, and some of the
"responsibility" lies within individual consumers and fans of any
off-the-beaten-path genre of music to find sources and outlets for their
passion.
Because it's a comparitve world heavily rooted in charts and mass
accomplishments, etc, very little outside of the "top 40" of New Age
music will find it's way to "the masses;" but, though this situation has
existed for years and decades and perhaps centuries, the music continues
to be made. In my book, that says everything that needs to be said...
> Sorry I was so long-winded. I'll shrink back into my corner now. :-)
Well, I was pretty glad you were so long winded! Hope this finds you
well.
Twiddle
--
"The secret mirror of photographs shining in your eye
I'm married to the universe; my Brother is the sky
Stars can see to make a wish and hearts with wings can fly
So come with me and see, my love, so we can never die!"
-The Rascals
Twiddle
> shelved under 'Contemporary Instrumental' to 'New Age'?
Do you honestly think that 99.999% of so called "New Age" artists are
going to increase their sales because their recordings were moved from a
section entitled "New Age" to a section entitled "Contemporary
Instrumental?"
I honestly don't. At least with New Age, I have a term, right or wrong,
that most stores are aware of, and at least generally have a starting
point when I go into a store for the first time. Good heavens... many of
these folks are $5 an hour record clerks. PLEASE let's not confuse them
more with yet another genre classification!!
Twiddle
P.S. Perhaps time for a sub-thread here... "Funniest Record Store Clerk
Stories"
So far, mine might be this... when "Computer World" by Kraftwerk came
out all those years back, I made the mistake of wandering into a Peaches
store to buy it (it was there... I was younger then...). I asked a
sufficiently perky and cute young lady if they had the new Kraftwerk
album in stock, and she smiled sweetly and said, "I'm not sure, but I'll
be happy to check for you! Are they country or pop music?"
Frederick J. Barnett Jr.
term "new age" either. I only use it because that is currently the
accepted term for the genre. I would prefer the sub-categories of
ambient, spacemusic, etc. because while I love the music, I think the
philosophy is a bunch of hooey! :-) I don't believe in astrology,
psychics, healing crystals, or a lot of the other things that make up
the new age movement. I wish there was some way we could get this
music into a new category that wouldn't carry any of the "negative" so
to speak images that might otherwise turn off others like me, but who
never did or would give it a chance. I really only got into it after
buying the "Cosmic Dreams" 3 cassette set from a tv ad, and at the
time the only reason I bought it was because it had the "Cosmos" theme
on it, and I absolutely loved that music!! I liked the rest of the set
afterwards, and eventually found the "Hearts of Space" radio show on
my local PBR station (they've since removed it :-( ).
My love of Enya however, began with her videos on MTV and VH1.
Neil Leacy wrote:
> Hannah previously said that the music of r.m.n. was elitist and aimed at
> older listeners. Were I disagree with the elitism sentiment in many
> respects I agree about the majority of fans being discerning listeners of
> 25+ (and before anyone has a go I just plucked a figure from the air
> based on my own gut feeling... hey, doesn't that make me a market
> researcher <tongue-firmly-stuck-in-cheek>). For that reason when I talk
> about new age music I refer to it in general as 'contemporary
> instrumental' or 'contemporary vocal', and then home in on the numerous
> sub-genre's that are mentioned in r.m.n. to clarify the style. This
> includes 'new age' music i.e. music specifically marketed for relaxation,
> healing, spiritualism, etc.
>
> And guess what? It works. The more people I speak to in this way the more
> they seem to understand the variety of styles there are, without that
> unneccesary 'Ugh, new age drippy hippy twat' attitude which many people
> have - uhm, could that be termed as a form of musical racism (or have I
> had too much coffee this morning)?
>
> The word contemporary can be contentious in some peoples minds. However,
> language is a constantly evolving thing and attitudes change. But in this
> way you can distinguish between between say 'Contemporary Classical' and
> 'Contemporary Jazz' (though there are some artist that will cross over -
> one of the beauties of contemporary instrumental music). Some people
> would maybe consider it too highbrow a marketing term but I really think
> they'd be wrong.
>
> So how about it. How many artists lurking in r.m.n would prefer being
> shelved under 'Contemporary Instrumental' to 'New Age' ?
--
Frederick J. Barnett http://www.eatel.net/~fred/
E-mail: fr...@eatel.net
Governing Board Member, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/
The Baton Rouge Astronomical Society
http://www.eatel.net/~fred/bras/bras.html
The BREC, LSU, BRAS Highland Road Park Observatory
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/observatory/
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get
done!! Do you think that's easy?!?" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of
Navarone.
Gregory Taylor
>Our Music is by its nature not as "accessible" or easy to listen
>to as the other stuff that sells hugely. The best of Our Music is not
>concerned with banal emotionalism or heavy-breathing eroticism or macho
>posturing, the way the big selling stuff is. It is experimental, it is
>quiet, it is more intellectual, it is less aggressive....it is (omiGhod!)
>for the ELITE.
Wow, Hannah - I'm surprised to hear something like this from you, given
what I've read of your views in the past. Your claim is that Mase's
rap has some base-level "accessibility" that some given New Age piano
disc *doesn't?* Huh?
And this construction of an "ELITE" thing? Yikes. I think that you can
make a perfectly good case for the microcultural musics we both enjoy
without strapping the rotting corpse of some kind of Romantic elitism
to the hood of your car and calling it a hood ornament. You *sure* you
wanna go there? If so, I think you'll have a bit of a problem with nearly
any broadly-eared listener I can imagine if you wish to claim that
Constance Demby is some kind of acquired taste (thought experiment: put
that next to Morton Feldman's "Triadic Memories" or DJ Shadow's "Entroducing"
and just *try* making the claim with a straight face).
While it's certainly comforting to construct our narrowed social circles
in terms of some kind of elitism which includes us, I think that the
exclusionary side effects offset the gain. It's hard to win friends when
you begin by telling everyone that most listeners are stupid or uncultured.
Look what such a view did for perfectly good possible audiences for Classical
music. Your mileage may vary, but I'm not going that way - I think we do
better when talking about why a given community values a given kind of
work and why.
Bill Binkelman
what to snip and what to keep so I snipped it all to save bandwidth.
I keep thinking that my purpose and opinion is being misconstrued.
First, I am making no statement about the quality of music, period. I am
not making any statement that "true" new age music is better/worse than
anything else. I am not saying that "true" new age music must have (or
must _not_ have) a spiritual angle to be considered relevant/important,
etc. I am not saying there is an objective standard for "new age music." I
am not even saying (any more, despite my past ravings <g>) that the term
"new age music" is bad for _all_ this music.
Here is what I am saying.
1) The label new age music, while at least "known" by the majority of
people in the marketplace, is woefully misunderstood. At the extreme end
of this misconception are those who attach a heretical/demonic/overtly
non-Christian belief system to artists who are marketed as "new age." Not
everyone is Mortis, after all! However, since the term has recognition for
some people ("Oh yeah, like the music Enya/Yanni/Winston/Liebert makes.
Sure I know it."), why fight it. At least a section is in place. The time
will/must come for a revolution in marketing and retail identification,
but for now, let's get the damn stuff on the radio and in the stores and,
mosty importantly, in people's hot little hands.
2) There _are_ definable elements for some/many listeners for what
_musically_ defines new age music. After all, does anyone really consider
my esteemed colleague Jeff Pearce's music as "new age?" But does anyone
_not_ consider Halpern's or Iasos' music _not_ new age? Again, recognizing
the existence of some parameters is not a statement of worth. It is a
necessity to better understand the best marketing approach to take. After
all, you don't want to sell Third Force as the equivalent of Constance
Demby, do you? Another for example is in jazz. People who _know_ jazz
_know_ that Kenny (aw) G(ee) is _not_ jazz. They consider him an (un)EZ
listening artist. But, many many people in the mainstream _do_ consider
him jazz. In the same way, even if we are able to define the parameters of
"real" new age music" we are probably not going to be able to (in the
forseeable future) change the public's perception of what "new age music"
is. So, Jeff my friend, if we can get your music in Sam Goody, it's
probably going in the new age section for now.
3) What I am personally (can't speak for anyone else) trying to do with
WIND AND WIRE is to have a true (albeit minor, possibly) impact on music
sales. I know that sounds calculating, but it's borne out of my own
experiences with this music (much as Judy and Neil have written about) and
introducing it to those who have no knowledge of it. I find it hard to
believe that _my_ friends are the only _enlightened_ people out there who,
upon hearing Kevin Kendle, Jeff Pearce, and so many others, realize "Hey,
I'm missing out here! Time to get on the bus." (apologies to Spike Lee).
Instead, my and Judy's and Neil's experiences represent what happens when
this music has (ta da!) _advocates_! People who want to push this music
beyond its targeted audience. I'm not pleading with all within the sound
of my voice to become zealots. I'm just saying that without an _effort_ on
the part of some people (an effort greater than the normal one), this goal
(of deeper market penetration) is not possible. But it is a completely
attainable goal. And once attained, even on a small scale, it will have a
domino effect of, I believe, tremendous proportions. Think about it. Think
about how ariplay affects whether distributors carry music. If music is
being "pushed" by distributors, stores start carrying it. If the stores
sell it (i.e. literally move the product), everyone from the store to the
label notices it. All of a sudden, people start saying "Hey, this stuff
will _make me money_." Sad to say (but of course, true) that this is what
will push this music the furthest and fastest. Increased sales. But that
cannot happen in a vaccuum (hello, Billboard Top 20).
4) Finally, (yes, I'm stopping here) I am not suggesting anything about
the intrinsic worth of any music. I listen (and love) everything from the
neo-pop of Nicholas Gunn and Rosseau/Carlton to the dark space of Vidna
Obmana, from the dreamy keyboards of Kevin Kendle to the trippy
electronics of Richard Bone, etc etc etc. I am not suggesting that
everyone love everything. But I'm not weighing in in favor of "non" new
age music or vice versa. I would never try to "objectively" evaluate
music's worth. I just want to understand why people have the attitudes
they do, so I can help all the artists out there succeed. It's that simple
(well, relatively).
Finally, thanks to Gregory T. I still wish I could hear your show, Greg.
Have you ever heard from any listeners over here in Mpls? Is it even
possible to pick up your show here?
Twiddle
>
> Truth is I (the person who began this thread) don't care for the
> term "new age" either. I only use it because that is currently the
> accepted term for the genre. I would prefer the sub-categories of
And again, I must submit that we have one of them there "viscious
circles" here...
It's been tough enough for the industry to even recognize the term "New
Age;" do we really want people who generally focus on Celine Dion to be
determining if a new Deuter release is "Contemporary Instrumental" or
"Space Music" or "Ambient?" Heck... Bill B. is VERY knowledgable about
all this, and as it's a matter of opinion in a lot of cases, I dispute
some of HIS categorizations!
Truly, I have to think that, in the long run, people with "ecclectic"
tastes in music will see the second coming long before they see the
industries surrounding music and art catering to their whims. Again, as
noted in a previous post, this isn't strictly a unique problem to "New
Age" music... ask any of your pals who might be hardcore classical or
traditional jazz buffs, for instance...
Twiddle
Craig Burley
> Exactly!!! And, as such, if Celine Dion floats your boat and moves you,
> why is she any "better" or "worse" an artist than any New Age artist?
Because she's not as good-lookin' as Liz Story or Suzanne Ciani!!
;-)
Twiddle
>
> Twiddle <twi...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> > Exactly!!! And, as such, if Celine Dion floats your boat and moves you,
> > why is she any "better" or "worse" an artist than any New Age artist?
>
Not a HINT of an argument from me on that point!!!
Twiddle
Bobby ZZZ
>> > Exactly!!! And, as such, if Celine Dion floats your boat and moves you,
>> > why is she any "better" or "worse" an artist than any New Age artist?
>>
>> Because she's not as good-lookin' as Liz Story or Suzanne Ciani!!
ahhhhh, suzanne.....i'm speechless ;-)
ahem, back on topic........this has been a very interesting thread, and an
enjoyable one to read. is there any answer as to how to improve the visibility
and sales of the new age genre? it IS hard to find music sometimes, because
you can never tell where it's going to be catalogued in the stores. is it
under "electronic/techno" or is it under "new age"?
when i was on tour last year promoting LVX Nova, i found my CD in several bins.
usually in jazz....or possibly pop/rock....sometimes
techno/electronic...sometimes in new age. and, sometimes not all all! but it
was interesting to see where it got stuck, according to which store chain it
was found in. all this, even after we had a "file under" notice on the back of
the CD.
my hope is that new age listeners will branch out and get into other forms of
electronic music, and also that tech-head electro kids will branch out and try
some new age music.
and now, i'm going back to the studio and try to insert some BANG BANG BANG and
HEAVING EMOTIONALISM into one of my new tracks :-)
bobby d
bobby devito...............................bobbyzzz@aol.com
check out the LVX NOVA ambient electronic music web site at:
http://members.aol.com/lvxnova/lvxsite
FREE TIBET NOW!!!!!!
Twiddle
> HEAVING EMOTIONALISM into one of my new tracks :-)
> bobby d
Woah... Bobby, careful on the heaving!!!
Twiddle
P.S. Adding to your "genre collection," I saw your CD filed under "World
Beat" in one Orlando area music store...
Gregory Taylor
>> and now, i'm going back to the studio and try to insert some BANG BANG BANG and
>> HEAVING EMOTIONALISM into one of my new tracks :-)
>
Remember - lift with your legs, not your back.
It's not a well-known fact, but Marvin Gaye's original demos for the
song we all know so well for its ticking drum machine is was
originally "Sexual Heaving." There was a short mention of it just
the other night in "Sifl and Ollie," so it must be true.
Chester *rules.*
Greg
Gregory Taylor
They claim that my choosing to eschew elitism constitutes some kind of
flight from judgement into some sort of radical relativism which somehow
embraces the phrase attributed to Duke Ellington ("If it sounds good, it
*is* good.").
So, I thought I'd take a minute to comment on this at large. My point
was (and remains) that questions of quality are not, in my view, objective;
they are negotiated statements of value, suspended in a net of cultural and
personal relationships among people who choose to value them. To engage in
statements of value is to enter their microcultures and interact with them.
I continue to marvel at the fact that, despite this, there are millions of
opportunities to hear things across boundaries of time and microculture
that can still inspire us.
Persons who spend more time listening to a given kind of music are, in my
view, not *better people* somehow - they may be in a better position to
explain *why* a given group values a different thing, but - unless one
elects to "join" the argument of value already in progress - powerless to
enforce those views. Music isn't a zero-sum game (one where my triumph
must necessarily mean someone else's demise), in my view.
Does this mean that we can't point out Duke Ellington's writing as somehow
"better" than my high-school band teacher's exercises for us? Of course we
can point out who values him and why, and we can also probably discover with
a little research that what appears to be his "greatness" over a long
span of time may turn out to be a series of very different groups of people
valuing his work for very different reasons. But, in the case of a bunch of
exercises for a ninth-grade band, Mr. Graflund really may *be* superior.
Context rules. As such, you greet the new listener by finding out where
they come from, explain who you are and what you value, and begin to find
what you can both like. And, of course, you commit yourself to the risk of
being *yourself* altered by the experience of engagement (anathema to elitism,
natch).
Back to the stuff already in progress....
Bill Binkelman
gta...@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor) wrote:
> Someone (in a somewhat petulant tone) has, via email, taken me to task
> They claim that my choosing to eschew elitism constitutes some kind of
> flight from judgement into some sort of radical relativism which somehow
> embraces the phrase attributed to Duke Ellington ("If it sounds good, it
> *is* good.").
>
> So, I thought I'd take a minute to comment on this at large. My point
> was (and remains) that questions of quality are not, in my view, objective;
> they are negotiated statements of value, suspended in a net of cultural and
> personal relationships among people who choose to value them. To engage in
> statements of value is to enter their microcultures and interact with them.
> I continue to marvel at the fact that, despite this, there are millions of
> opportunities to hear things across boundaries of time and microculture
> that can still inspire us.
>
> Persons who spend more time listening to a given kind of music are, in my
> view, not *better people* somehow - they may be in a better position to
> explain *why* a given group values a different thing, but - unless one
> elects to "join" the argument of value already in progress - powerless to
> enforce those views. Music isn't a zero-sum game (one where my triumph
> must necessarily mean someone else's demise), in my view.
>
(snip for bandwidth's sake)
I don't know what it means, but I agree with Gregory (again). Somehow,
Greg and I agreeing like this must be a sign of the apocalypse (or worse)
on the horizon. But I do, seriously, agree with his take on this.
Quality can never be anything but highly subjective since, at the least,
it is culture bound. While I'm sure a lot of people in _this_ newsgroup
find the sound of a didgeridoo pleasant (at least musically), I'd wager
that a lot of people _outside_ this group would say, "What the HELL is
that?" Yet there is no qualitative significance to either opinion.
There are simply no absolutes in art of any kind. My goodness, I think the
work of some of the current abstract painters is complete shit, but some
would think I am a kitsch-lover the way I fawn over Terry Redlin's work.
There is nothing wrong with a value system and evaluating works of art. As
my esteemed colleague Judy Markworth has stated many times, "Just because
you like something and I don't doesn't make either of us more right than
the other." (paraphrased but it's the general gist of her thoughts). It's
the insistence that there is anything universal about beauty (fans of the
Twilight Zone-Rod Serling era-remember the episode about the "ugly"
woman?) that is false.
I have no problem with someone telling me, "If you don't think Vangelis'
music is beautiful, you're stupid/you suck/bite me/etc etc etc." Hey, I
love vitroilic opinions. But, truthfully, for every piece of music that is
praised by one subset (be it based on age, economic or social class, skin
color, geographic environment, etc etc etc) there will be an opposite
reaction somewhere else. Hell, we see it here all the time (Yanni vs
anti-Yanni). Hello! Neither side is right because there is no right. Which
does _not_ invalidate the opinions. It merely puts them where they belong
(as my esteemed colleague, Gergory, states above).
I don't know what this argument is really about, though. What I introduced
was the concept that this music was under-marketed to its potential. I
never espoused that it would transcend rock or jazz. But, the current
market share figure for the industry (by whoever's arbitrary standards
_that_ is, I don't know) is about 6 to 7% of the total recorded music
revenue base. I think we can do a lot better. But, realistically, even a
jump to 10% would be fantastic. I don't think that constitutes a belief in
this music being the second coming of the British invasion. I just want
the artists to sell more music.
Well, I'm losing track of what the hell I'm worked up about....that must
mean it's time to call it a night.
But, boyoboy, do I love this. THIS is what we need more of...spirited
discussion. Halleluajah!
Rcarlberg
>Remember - lift with your legs, not your back.
>
>It's not a well-known fact, but Marvin Gaye's original demos for the
>song we all know so well for its ticking drum machine is was
>originally "Sexual Heaving."
How the heck do you do Sexual Heaving without using your back though? <grin>
Hi Greg!
Judy Markworth
><Judy - A well written post and reply... there are a few areas where I
>think you've either over-generalized or perhaps failed to consider the
>overall implications of your statement. Still, may I complement you on
>this post? Regards!>
Thank you. I appreciate it. I probably did over generalize in some areas.
That post was just getting far to long and I figured I'd probably put most
people to sleep if I kept going. :-)
>The bottom line is that the music business is not set up for passion,
>but for profit, like any other business.
How true that is. It is sad particularily in the arts but even though the
bottom line is always money, at least a degree of passion remains. If it
didn't, we wouldn't have a whole lot of worthwhile art in the world. Gee,
why don't we just let the computers generate music and visual art and put it
on a production line? Unfortunately, I have a cousin who believes that if a
composer uses a computer as a tool in the composition process, even though
it may only be sitting there recording what is being played by a human
being, she figures the computer is composing the music. I wouldn't have
been offended by her ignorance because that can be fixed with one simple
demonstration if I could just get her to my house but she won't listen to me
or anyone who tries to tell her that computers don't magically compose music
(Algorithmic composition programs? Don't go there.). Talk about an insult
to every composer on the planet! Well... at least the ones who have
computers in their studios and who use them to make their jobs easier. Get
out the ink wells, quill pens and notation paper, oh ye who claims to
compose music! And by all means, light a candle or three instead of using
an electric lamp. :-)
How did I get from business to ignorance? I guess ignorance is part of it
too and I didn't realize it until my cousin "enlightened" me and then her
view was further proven to be non-unique when I found a few classical music
purists with the same attitude. (Let it be noted that I love Classical
music dearly too) This same cousin of mine heard the Vangelis piece that
was used in the beer commercial years ago (name is escaping me), got excited
about it, went and bought the CD, got home, flipped it over and found out
that Vangelis used synthesizers to create it and threw it out!!! Well... a
synth is a computer you know. My question was, even on a shitty TV speaker,
you couldn't tell that was a synth?? Get your ears checked!
>Here's the part that bothers me just a little... I think it's an over
>simplification of the situation. This doesn't give much creedence to
>those who have made words an art form, nor to the fact that there's not
>much difference between being moved by a sound or by a word. Not meant
>to be a flame directed at Judy, please note... Another consideration is
>that, for the "average" person (as long as we've determined that it's at
>least moderately acceptable to be elitist in here), music is NOT a
>passion like it is for most of the regulars in here.
Not taken as a flame at all. I can see where you would have thought I was
generalizing a little too much there. I will never knock the presence of
lyrics in music because some people do need that and I'm not an instrumental
purist even though instrumental stuff is what I prefer *most* of the time.
My preference with lyrics is a tad strange it seems judging by the looks I
get when I say this... I like lyrics I can't understand, i.e., sung in a
different language. I not sure why that is exactly. Maybe my tendency in
those cases is to view the human voice more as the incredibly powerful
instrument that it is because words that make sense to me aren't getting in
my way. I guess what I was trying to say and didn't state very clearly is
that basically all you hear on the radio is music with lyrics. That's
partially why I feel instrumental music has been somewhat overshadowed.
Maybe that's a lame argument and I'm grasping at straws. Who knows. Musak
has also given instrumental music a bad name but I won't go there now.
Like you, I am all too aware that music is not a serious passion for many
people like it is for those found in this group or in any group of music
lovers - no matter the genre. Most people I know like music in the
background and they even whistle or hum along but they have no need to go
out and buy much of it because they don't feel any kind of need to sit and
really listen. In a couple weeks I'm getting a new Jeep which I was
unfortunately forced to order with the high end stereo due to car
manufacturer's "packages". That "high end" stereo is getting ripped out the
first day I own that thing. I'm driving directly from the dealership to the
best stereo store in town to get a *real* stereo put in. Aside from my
music junkie family and a couple of friends of mine who do the same thing,
everyone else thinks I've completely lost my mind! They all say, "Gee,
Judy, you get a good stereo in your car right from the factory and it's not
good enough? I guess most poeple don't feel the need to have a rolling
concert hall but I spend nearly all of my "fun" money on music related
stuff. They spend theirs on their hobbies. What's the difference?
>
>Exactly!!! And, as such, if Celine Dion floats your boat and moves you,
>why is she any "better" or "worse" an artist than any New Age artist?
You're right. She isn't any better or any worse. It just depends on who
you are talking to at the moment. I don't have anything against her and
though I have never bought any of her music, I'll confess to owning the
TITANIC soundtrack. I bought it for the instrumental stuff even when I
hadn't seen the movie but I thought the piece she sang was beautiful. I've
now heard it 30,000 times so it quickly lost its luster but it still is a
pretty piece.
>Well, I was pretty glad you were so long winded! Hope this finds you
>well.
Well thanks. I do hope you're doing very well too!
Judy
Hannah M.G. Shapero
I wish your show were available for listening outside your area. Is it on
the Web?
Hannah M.G.Shapero
Fred Puhan
>
> Truly, I have to think that, in the long run, people with "ecclectic"
> tastes in music will see the second coming long before they see the
Hey, there you go, the NEW classification for "our" music: "Ecclectic."
:-)
Twiddle
> :-)
Yeah, but media types like something more catchy.
"New Ecc?"
Twiddle
Neil Leacy
In article <35F538...@bellsouth.net>, Twiddle (twi...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>> So how about it. How many artists lurking in r.m.n would prefer being
>> shelved under 'Contemporary Instrumental' to 'New Age'?
>Do you honestly think that 99.999% of so called "New Age" artists are
>going to increase their sales because their recordings were moved from a
>section entitled "New Age" to a section entitled "Contemporary
>Instrumental?"
Hi Twiddle,
You seem to have missed my point here. I do think that their sales may
increase if 'new age' music became a recognised name for a sub-genre of
instrumental music we all enjoy here. Then there would probably be more
openness from the general public to listen to something which, at the
moment, has too many negative connatations simply because of it's name. If
contemporary instrumental artists want to increase their rate of sales in
high street stores they should label their music 'Rock or Pop' as this
seems to be the most successful genre. ;-)
>I honestly don't. At least with New Age, I have a term, right or wrong,
>that most stores are aware of, and at least generally have a starting
>point when I go into a store for the first time.
This is my point 'New Age Music' is becoming more and more of a mis-used
term. Tangerine Dream, new age? Mike Oldfield, new age? Will Ackerman, new
age? All these and more have publicly decried being labelled as such. But
they are shelved there because, to my mind, it's the easy option laid out
by some music shop executive or designer.
And then look at the misplacement stories we hear (hi, Bobby :-) ). Why
should you have to go on an easter egg hunt everytime you go to a high
street store? I know to some people it's a great past-time to browse for
ages through all sections (myself included) but most people already have
an idea of what they want and want to get it reasonably quickly.
>Good heavens... many of
>these folks are $5 an hour record clerks. PLEASE let's not confuse them
>more with yet another genre classification!!
This is THE saddest thing about the major high street store mentallity.
Local shops are always good for the knowledge the shop assistant/owner
has in helping you choose what you want (and I'm talking all types of
high street stores here, not just music... sigh).
I don't wholly blame the clerks. Lack of training or not being chosen
because of their particular knowledge of styles of music but for looks
(it happens) then they will be more or less on a par with a MacDingles
assistant (a generalisation I know and no disrepect to individuals is
intended).
Neil Leacy
>Talking to Robert a few weeks ago (Oh, what a name dropper <g>) at the
>launch of David Wright's (oh, there I've done it again <even bigger g>)
My apologies for the above comments in brackets! These weren't meant to
go out to the newsgroup. They were intended for a colleague with whom I
have an in-joke with who also has a tendency to read over my shoulder
when I'm typing (don't you!).
If this made me look a a bit of a w#nker then so be it. I'll just have
to remember to read my finished message before pressing that 'Send'
button. :-(
Twiddle
>
> Get
> out the ink wells, quill pens and notation paper, oh ye who claims to
> compose music! And by all means, light a candle or three instead of using
> an electric lamp. :-)
Laughed my sizable buns off at this! Perhaps your classical purist pals
should consider that, without electricity, they would doubtful be the
fans of classical music that they purport to be... Wonder why some
progress is good and some progress is bad? Maybe we shouldn't go
there...
> My preference with lyrics is a tad strange it seems judging by the looks I
> get when I say this... I like lyrics I can't understand, i.e., sung in a
> different language. I not sure why that is exactly.
Perhaps because the human voice has often been described as the only
perfect musical instrument in history? Hard to debate the power of a
good one, or many good ones in unison...
Twiddle
Twiddle
> Hi Twiddle,
>
> You seem to have missed my point here.
Well, that wouldn't be a first! <laffing>
> This is my point 'New Age Music' is becoming more and more of a mis-used
> term. Tangerine Dream, new age? Mike Oldfield, new age? Will Ackerman, new
> age? All these and more have publicly decried being labelled as such. But
> they are shelved there because, to my mind, it's the easy option laid out
> by some music shop executive or designer.
The only other answer is to do away with classifications altogether
(which, by the way, I did when I had my store...). Were the Police Pop,
Rock or New Wave? Is Alison Krause Country, Folk or Bluegrass? With
every genre and subdivision, as opposed to the differences in music
being more clearly understood, the lines instead get more and more
blurred.
> And then look at the misplacement stories we hear (hi, Bobby :-) ). Why
> should you have to go on an easter egg hunt everytime you go to a high
> street store? I know to some people it's a great past-time to browse for
> ages through all sections (myself included) but most people already have
> an idea of what they want and want to get it reasonably quickly.
Which is why I'm an advocate of the "no classification" system. Put it
all in alphabetical order by artist (and even that lends itself to
debate, most of it unjustified... Jethro Tull properly goes under "J!"
Led Zeppelin properly goes under "L!" But you should hear the
arguments...)
Besides... you get some pretty humorous alphabetical pairings that way!
In my own collection, Patti Larkin is filed right next to Leather Strip,
and Laurie Anderson sits right there next to The Animals... some pretty
interesting duet possibilities there!!
Twiddle
Twiddle
> If this made me look a a bit of a w#nker then so be it. I'll just have
> to remember to read my finished message before pressing that 'Send'
> button. :-(
Neil, we are probably MOST hurt that you have a need to have personal
jokes with people other than us, your oldest and dearest friends! <g>
Regards for some insightful and entertaining posts.
Twiddle
Gregory Taylor
>
learned it while living in NY.
The Chicago Tortoise orbit is, for lack of a better term, a way of talking
about a number of interrelated musical ensembles who (at one time, anyway)
worked and lived in the Chicago area. The all-acoustic Pullman project I
mentioned features a number of these people. Unifying characteristics? Uh,
I suppose that most folks would probably put in in the "post-rock" category,
with its industrial focus on ambient music's time architectures with
regard to mix and foreground/background stuff, heavy doses of popular
song structures, lots of improvised content, and unusual instrumentation.
Folks who stroll into and out of this stuff would include the band Tortoise
(whose last outing "TNT" is as good a place to start as any) Bundy K. Brown's
New DIrections, the work of David Grubbs (his solo release on Table of the
Elements may remind you a little bit of Morton Feldman for guitars and piano),
Jim O'Rourke (though he's all over the map) and their joint project Gastr
del Sol ("Camofleur" or "Upgrade and Afterlife" will do fine, thought U&A
is heavier on the instrumental content), a relocated to Louisville project
called "Aerial M."
I suppose that for older listeners, I'd say that I can hear more than a
little of the experimental spirit that animated Can or the Soft Machine
in TOrtoise's better moments.
>I wish your show were available for listening outside your area. Is it on
>the Web?
Alas, no. I'd certainly be willing to consider taking RTQE to the world at
large (if you know any internetcasting moguls, send 'em along). However,
my station's committment to *community* radio is so strong that the very
notion of doing something that's explicitly nongeolocal is really problematic
(of course, it's expensive, too). Sorry I cannot help you. I'm proud to say
that I imagine that you might well loathe at least some of what I program,
and love some other stuff; since that's a genuine goal on my part (the
communal refinement of sensibility), I always feel a little silly speaking
out in a newsgroup that's explicitly dedicated to something that I don't
exclusively participate in. I'm supposed to be a stealth recruitment program
for New Age stuff (and Noise, Improv, etc.) more than an exclusive advocate.
And by the way - although I'm not nearly as taken with his improvised work as
I am with his more structured compositions, Ernesto Diaz-Infante's "Tepeu"
might well please the fan of solo piano work at the circle of the New Age
fire's light....
Gregory Taylor
>The only other answer is to do away with classifications altogether
>(which, by the way, I did when I had my store...).
As a personal matter, I've found that my home listening and my approach
to programming has greatly benefited from rearranging my music collection
so that *everything* is in alphabetical order (with the exception that
ethnographic recordings are filed by country or area of origin). Period.
It works great - the eye skips from Bark Psychosis' post-rock to Franco
Battiato's pop/classical stuff to Mark Battiez' electroacoustic alterations
of French sound poets. Does wonders for reminding you how large and strange
and wonderful the world is every time you go looking for something....
Gregory Taylor
Except for some extremely rare cases (cases which entirely distort the
persons involved), *all* music has a small audience; the economies of
scale we presently conjure when we think of "popular" music are, in my
experience, considerably more complex than the blanket term suggests.
In the age of "visual" popular music (ie VH1, MTV BET, etc.), we're
really talking about narrowcast marketing in an age where both the
diffusion of information and music *and* its means of delivery are
changing. We're also talking about some serious realignments in terms
of information delivery, as well. As an example, Option magazine is on
hiatus at present; Scott Becker is sufficiently visionary to realize that
he's going to have to reinvent stuff bigtime (particularly with regard
to an interest audience which is accustomed to free access to information
(and information freed, incidentally, from the traditional "vetting" and
authority suggested by press and publisher-based channels).
IT may be small comfort, but it's happening to everyone. In some regard,
a New Age consituency might be said to be in *better* shape in terms of
constituting a community of common interest (at least the metaphysically
New Agey, I suppose). THey're probably easier to sell to than a looser
group of listeners. Of course, their adherence to that common core of
exclusivist judgements which constitue "orthodoxies" might render 'em
all less flexible than the looser group of listeners, but hey. Give and
take.
I personally think that the problem may lie in assuming that the larger
economies of scale we long for are some sort of desireable norm. The future
may be composed of a very different kind of musician/producer/record company/
critic/channel of distribution. We may *already* be that different kind by
virtue of the product/community, and be mistakenly dreaming of the glories
of a dead and gone past.
Food for thought (maybe)....
Scott Burt
> My preference with lyrics is a tad strange it seems judging by the looks I
> get when I say this... I like lyrics I can't understand, i.e., sung in a
> different language. I not sure why that is exactly. Maybe my tendency in
> those cases is to view the human voice more as the incredibly powerful
> instrument that it is because words that make sense to me aren't getting in
> my way. I guess what I was trying to say and didn't state very clearly is
> that basically all you hear on the radio is music with lyrics. That's
> partially why I feel instrumental music has been somewhat overshadowed.
> Maybe that's a lame argument and I'm grasping at straws. Who knows. Musak
> has also given instrumental music a bad name but I won't go there now.
Well I hold basically the same views on vocals in music and I've boiled it down to this: 1)a song can be quite wonderful and enjoyable but the content of the
lyrics (be it vulgarity, what it suggests etc) turns me off (e.g. much of pop music), or 2) the message might be pretty interesting and cool but the singer has
no talent whatsoever IMO (e.g. AC/DC's Thunderstruck), or 3) often the vocals are so dominant that there isn't any "music" there at all (e.g. some of Mariah
Carrie's songs with nothing but a simple drum loop in the background). I've found those three areas pretty much sum up why I never listen to the radio yet
spend hours upon hours listening my music collection, much of which has lyrics that actually complement the music rather than detracting from it, this probably
also explains my enjoyment of music with vocals in foreign languages, since I have no idea what they're saying it can't detract from the beauty of the voice and
the music.
Anyhow, just my 0.02 (and remember all criticisms above are just MHO, if you can enjoy Mariah Carrie etc more power to you)
-Scott
Judy Markworth
>Laughed my sizable buns off at this! Perhaps your classical purist pals
>should consider that, without electricity, they would doubtful be the
>fans of classical music that they purport to be... Wonder why some
>progress is good and some progress is bad? Maybe we shouldn't go
>there...
Probably shouldn't go there. That would be far too logical. :-)
Judy
Rick Yasger
I've had DMX since it was first offered us in 1993, just about the time I'd
had it with radio station buyouts and format changes that cut off our new
age/ smooth jazz sources, as well as Musical Starstreams and Portraits in
Sound, two syndicated programs I'd enjoyed since 1986. We also lost Hearts
of Space some time ago. Amazing for the Seattle area. I listen almost
exclusively to the new age channel and keep a pad handy to write stuff down.
Some titles are tough to locate, and several, like Bill Gable "There Were
Signs" took me years to find. I've found a few at http://cduniverse.com,
whose prices and service are excellent.
Some say new age will prove to be the classical music of our era. Its
cerebral nature is demanding, yet rich, and is well worth the effort to
acquire. I have nearly 200 titles, mostly CD's, but the vinyl is as
priceless.
[snipped]
Rick Yasger
Hannah M.G. Shapero
>>quiet, it is more intellectual, it is less aggressive....it is (omiGhod!)
>>for the ELITE.
>
>Wow, Hannah - I'm surprised to hear something like this from you, given
>what I've read of your views in the past. Your claim is that Mase's
>rap has some base-level "accessibility" that some given New Age piano
>disc *doesn't?* Huh?
Oh well, I guess I have to respond now... :-)
Who's "Mase?"
And yes, I will say that music with LOUD, BASIC, CLEAR rhythms is more
accessible than the floating chords of Steve Roach or the multi-rhythms of
various "world" drummers.
I live in a crowded area. I get to hear all the music they listen to as
much as I get to hear my own, whether I want to or not. They install BIG
EXPENSIVE STEREOS in their cars, just like Judy is going to. They have
these huge thumpy bass speakers so that you can hear them a hundred
yards away.
For many of the people in my area, I do believe that music is a
self-assertion as much as it is a listening choice. Especially for the
young guys. I have often wanted to install a huge stereo with a thumpy
bass in my own very modest little car, and then drive down the road with
SOMA by Rich and Roach going full blast! I think I'd probably either be
attacked, or arrested.
I will re-iterate my claim that Our Music is simply not going to appeal to
the masses no matter what you do. It is too QUIET. Bill B. said, wouldn't
some teenagers enjoy Rich's YEARNING? I had to laugh...that album is so
devoid of energy that it would put a maniac to sleep. And it has no
ASSERTIVE VALUE. That is, if you play this, you aren't going to impress
anyone with your macho music muscles and sonic bulge. Our Music, is
"intellectual." It takes some thinking to listen to. And yes, I don't
believe that really, really popular music needs thinking. It is satisfied
with feeling, drenched with feeling, wallowing with feeling. Rock helps
the young guys rebel, it pumps them up. Pop helps the young gals feel sexy
and exciting and excitable. If you were 13, wouldn't you rather be a Spice
Girl than a droopy Space Girl? (consider Mike Whelan's boneless babe on
the cover of Jonn Serrie's MIDSUMMER CENTURY)
This American culture is basically aimed at "feeling" types, not
"thinking" types who are in the minority. Also, the majority of music, at
least so I've heard, is bought by younger people. By the time you're 40,
you aren't buying any more recordings - unless you're in the music
business, or are a hobbyist, or a really committed listener. Is this true?
If so, then the record companies must aim for these young consumers and
the majority of these young consumers are living in the blood-dimmed tide
of adolescence or young adulthood and need something with a HIGH INTENSITY
to get through to them, as I have said before.
Nevertheless, I like Bill B's realistic speculation that various players
of Our Music could increase their sales from 2000 to 10,000. That would
make sense to me. But I still don't think Robert Rich will ever go
platinum.
My mileage never varies. My little Honda gets 50 miles to the gallon on
the highways, 33 in the city. And my little Honda's stereo is very quiet
and dinky.....just right for listening to Our Music in the privacy of my
own driver space.
But what does that say about me? A little grey car with a middle-aged grey
person driving it, listening to music that is too quiet for most people to
even hear.
Quietly, Hannah M.G.Shapero
Samuel Bendahan
why?
Twiddle
>
> you consider Celine Dion as a Newage artist???
> why?
Samuel,
No, I don't. Please refer to the entire thread; I used Celine Dion as an
example to make a point a while back. Easy to see how you would think I
made the statement, though, based on only the last post in the thread.
Twiddle
Doug Daughtry
New Age music is that most people don't really listen or hear the music they
play themselves...rather, and not that New Age music isn't used this way
also, normally people use music as sonic wallpaper - it's there to cover the
silence / mask outside sounds / provide a sense of company . . . whatever
reason, but to be really listened to. Something as fragile as Grofe's Grand
Canyon Suite or the sounds of planetary movement by Jonn Serrie can
transport us to a whole different realm with the same or greater vividness
of any movie. Of course for the magic to work you have to be willing to
allow it. Quite a few people have asked why I listen to that funeral music,
even people that liked some of the music remarked that it's good for
something mellow in the background. The background! I really dislike the
term background music applied to what can be intensely complex and extremely
multilayered music. I've been able to sway some opinions after I play
selections in my car. When they hear, while in the sweet,
headphone-like-zone spot, the movement of the music, experience the shifting
of the texture - well, it can be enlightening. . .when the tiny ship's bell
chimes during Oracle's first release, or the harmonics meld on songs from
"North Star" by Philip Glass, or the shimmering glass-like guitar of Steve
Hillage fills the air - mind changing thoughts can occur within the
listening environment. I don't need to influence the whole neighborhood as
I drive my mobile sound enclosure down the street (although some seepage may
occur past my rolled up windows), but it's nice to know that even if I'm
next to that Semi I can still listen to Marnie Jones and hear the wind
chimes.
Bobby ZZZ
hannah writes:
>I will re-iterate my claim that Our Music is simply not going to appeal to
>the masses no matter what you do. It is too QUIET. Bill B. said, wouldn't
>some teenagers enjoy Rich's YEARNING? I had to laugh...that album is so
>devoid of energy that it would put a maniac to sleep. And it has no
>ASSERTIVE VALUE. That is, if you play this, you aren't going to impress
>anyone with your macho music muscles and sonic bulge. Our Music, is
>"intellectual."
and to think...i was flexing my "sonic bulge" just earlier :-)
i think hannah is pretty much right here. for me, i think it would be
impossible for me to compose and listen to the music i do (largely ambient
stuff lately) if i hadn't been into such heavy music as a teenager.
ah, my checquered past......yes, i played guitar in the 80's in a couple of
"metal" bands, and damaged my hearing a little from standing in front of 100
watt Marshalls, wearing makeup, spandex, and lip gloss. we played LOUD, we
were exactly the "bang bang bang" and "heaving emotionalism" in one band. and
we had plenty of young male fans and swooning female fans. (of course, since i
was the lead guitarist, i got all guys on my side of the stage, pumping fists
at me going "dude!")
but....if i hadn't played all that loud, wild music then, i really don't think
i could be making or listening to the music i do today. hopefully there will be
a PROGRESSION among certain music listeners. you have to be ready to accept
something new. perhaps someone a little more musically educated than yourself
will try to turn you on to new musical vistas.
on a hopeful note, when i was in college a couple of years ago (i went to
college late, about 10 years late :-)), i noticed that a lot of the kids there
had REALLY varied tastes. most of the kids i went to high school with found
one genre and stuck with it.....but many of the college kids i met had really
eclectic collections, and were always willing to try out new music. however,
being "new age" can be the kiss of death in some ways, some people will
automatically avoid anything with that "tag".
ok.....so keep the part about the spandex and makeup between us here on RMA,
ok??? :-)
bobby d
bobby devito...............................bobbyzzz@aol.com
check out the LVX NOVA ambient electronic music web site at:
http://members.aol.com/lvxnova/lvxsite
FREE TIBET NOW!!!!!!
Twiddle
> ok??? :-)
> bobby d
Bobby, you gonna post some pictures, or do I hafta drag out some old
issues of Jam Magazine?? <laffing> Kidding, just kidding... unless, of
course, you're considering running for public office...
Twiddle
Samuel Bendahan
Yes I just discovered both newage music and this newsgroup so I might be
a little of topics in my first messages :)
Sorry
Samuel
Bobby ZZZ
>Bobby, you gonna post some pictures, or do I hafta drag out some old
>issues of Jam Magazine?? <laffing> Kidding, just kidding... unless, of
>course, you're considering running for public office...
>
>
uh oh.......i think twiddle knows more about my past than i thought....there
ARE some funny photos of me in those old Jam Magazines. good thing i took the
originals home with me a few years ago after i was doing some interviews there!
they gave them back to me. my mom still has a couple of photos hanging up that
she tortures me with though :-)
no public office for me. i'm just too damn honest!
Twiddle
> ARE some funny photos of me in those old Jam Magazines. good thing i took the
> originals home with me a few years ago after i was doing some interviews there!
> they gave them back to me. my mom still has a couple of photos hanging up that
> she tortures me with though :-)
>
> no public office for me. i'm just too damn honest!
> bobby d
I suppose I could be mean and say that you only *THINK* you got all the
photos, but it would be an empty and idle threat! <g> Besides... there's
some pretty severe photos of me floating around them there archives as
well...
...come to think of it... um... truce? <laffing>
Twiddle
Twiddle
Hey, no apologies necessary! Nice to have you along...
Hope you'll continue to take the time to read and post, and I'm sure I
wouldn't be the only one here interested to hear about the new stuff
you're hearing that you find wonderful. Share the wealth, friend, share
the wealth!
Craig
Samuel Bendahan
and for sure Ill continue posting here
I have listened to lots of CD's (and bought them) of newage music. I
especially liked Adiemus, Vangelis portraits and Circles of life from
Oliver shanti and friends. Which do you like?
Samuel
Bill Binkelman
bobb...@aol.com (Bobby ZZZ) wrote:
> >
>
> hannah writes:
>
> >I will re-iterate my claim that Our Music is simply not going to appeal to
> >the masses no matter what you do. It is too QUIET. Bill B. said, wouldn't
> >some teenagers enjoy Rich's YEARNING? I had to laugh...that album is so
> >devoid of energy that it would put a maniac to sleep. And it has no
> >ASSERTIVE VALUE. That is, if you play this, you aren't going to impress
> >anyone with your macho music muscles and sonic bulge. Our Music, is
> >"intellectual."
One, if I stated that teenagers would like YEARNING, it was a mistake. I
would never automatically think that. But, I do think there is a lot of
"our" music out there that teens would like, although I again ask for a
definition of "our" music. If "our" music is only the soft drifting
ambient stuff, maybe not. But my definition is broader than that.
Second, I certainly disagree with YEARNING being devoid of energy or
assertiveness. I think it positively bursts with _sensual_ energy (pun
semi-intended). The only album more sensual (in a slow way, i.e., it's not
fast f_ _ _ ing music) is SOMA.
While I think Hannah has some validity to her sociological views, and many
of them would hold true in a real world sampling, it's also not that much
a given. If the above is true, lots of guys when I was a teenager were not
typical, since they listened to CSNY "Our House" and practically weeped
thinking about living in a cabin in the woods with their girlfriend(s).
Also, how did an album like MEDDLE by Pink Floyd (specifically, the
side-long cut, "Echoes") come to be popular? It's at least partly early
ambient music.
If you are making a statement about teenagers _now_, then who is buying
the (sometimes) softer stuff by FSOL, Human Mesh Dance, Aphex Twin, and
all the other dubbers out there? Not everything these artists do is
160BPM.
Take an album like Jon Durant's SILENT EXTINCTION BEYOND THE ZERO. That is
very intelligent/intellectual music, but it is also very electric
guitar-oriented. Some crossover potential must exist there, yes?
While, from a socialogical standpoint, you can try to draw some
correlation between intellect and taste in a specific age group/class
group, it's still fraught with peril because there are always exceptions.
I know someone who is my age who _still_ cranks Alice Cooper and Devo
(nothing wrong with that, either, BTW) but thinks that "quiet" music
"sux." Yet, this is one of the brightest people I know. He's a leader in
wetlands preservation in Wisconsin, very active in politics, and a fiction
author and poet. But, if it's not rock, don't bring it around.
Likewise when I first met my now ex-wife Barb, she was 21 (this was in the
early '70s), and, while she rocked out to the Stones' "Bitch" she also
played soft instrumental music (Paul Winter Consort).
Genralization is a given in our society, but even if just 10% of young
people are open-minded enough to give some of "our" music a try, think
what kind of numbers we are talking about!
>
>
> and to think...i was flexing my "sonic bulge" just earlier :-)
All if have is "virtual" one <g>.
>
> i think hannah is pretty much right here. for me, i think it would be
> impossible for me to compose and listen to the music i do (largely ambient
> stuff lately) if i hadn't been into such heavy music as a teenager.
> ah, my checquered past......yes, i played guitar in the 80's in a couple of
> "metal" bands, and damaged my hearing a little from standing in front of 100
> watt Marshalls, wearing makeup, spandex, and lip gloss. we played LOUD, we
> were exactly the "bang bang bang" and "heaving emotionalism" in one band. and
> we had plenty of young male fans and swooning female fans. (of course, since i
> was the lead guitarist, i got all guys on my side of the stage, pumping fists
> at me going "dude!")
Sure, and I listened to Blue Oyster Cult and Rush and Kiss (saw them all
live, too), but I also listened to the Mystic Moods Orchestra (the story
behind that is very funny but too revealing about my preoccupations as a
teenager to go into here <g>). I owned a copy of Beaver and Krause's IN A
WILD SANCTUARY and the final cut was my favorite - it was also the
quietest (very early ambient music, IMO). I listened to a lot of
soundtrack music, too. One of my favorite songs from the group Spirit was
an instrumental called "Ice" that was (again) early ambient in tone. This
is not a paradox, IMO. The problem with Hannah's opinion is that she is
not home with these people. Maybe the posturing swaggering BOMMBOOMBOOM
car-driving stud listens to Debussy at home. It _is_ possible. The public
perception of our personalities sometimes influences what we show. Judy
Markworth frequently relates that many people don't _admit_ they like
Yanni, because of how others will perceive it. A teenage boy doesn't want
people to think he is a wuss, so he plays THUMPATHUMPATHUMPA in his car,
because that's his public persona.
I'm not saying a majority of young kids have this dichotomy. But it is
possible that, like myself when I was young and some of my friends, they
have varied taste.
>
> but....if i hadn't played all that loud, wild music then, i really don't think
> i could be making or listening to the music i do today. hopefully there
will be
> a PROGRESSION among certain music listeners. you have to be ready to accept
> something new. perhaps someone a little more musically educated than yourself
> will try to turn you on to new musical vistas.
I don't think being musically-educated has anything to do with it. It's a
combination of one, being open-minded (which does not automatically
indicate education, IMO) and also cultural/environmental background. I was
lucky and had a mother who played lots of different music for me when I
was a kid and who _also_ let me play whatever the hell I wanted to (she
even sang along to the likes of Tommy Boyce's and Bobby Hart's "You're
Still My Favorite Girlfriend, Alice Long"). These factors can have a huge
impact on our relationship to various music genres as we get older,
including merely into our teens.
I also don't particularly agree with viewing this as a "Progression" from
one taste to another. A boadening, yes. But calling it progression implies
a value judgement, such as "this is _better_ music than what i used to
listen to." As Twiddle stated here earlier, many of us still rock, when
the mood hits us. I recently bought Mott The Hoople's MOTT and it kicks
ass as much as it did in the '70s! And I also crank up the radio when
Green Day or Savage Garden comes on, as well. When the opposite mood
strikes me, I put on Jeff Pearce or any of the "quieter" artists I listen
to. When I don't want to "rock" but I want to crank it up anyway, there's
Michael Walthius, Jan Hammer, James Asher, etc etc etc.
>
> on a hopeful note, when i was in college a couple of years ago (i went to
> college late, about 10 years late :-)), i noticed that a lot of the kids there
> had REALLY varied tastes. most of the kids i went to high school with found
> one genre and stuck with it.....but many of the college kids i met had really
> eclectic collections, and were always willing to try out new music. however,
> being "new age" can be the kiss of death in some ways, some people will
> automatically avoid anything with that "tag".
I agree with the last statement completely. But again, I think that many
teenagers have broader taste than what is visible. They probably only play
"weird" (for their bracket) music when they're alone. They probably don't
even tell their friends about it. I mean, seriously, do you think that
teenage boys don't fall in love? Do you honestly think that amidst the
giddiness and romance they _only_ listen to Soundgarden or Metallica or
Puff Daddy? Sure, a teenage boy may state that "well, my chick wants me to
listen to that stuff, so if I want a little action, I gotta listen to it."
But, as a former teenage boy, trust me, some of that is posturing as well.
When that poor SOB gets his heart broken, his first instinct could as
easily be for Celine Dion as it could be for Fugazi.
Well, I probably shot myself in the foot about a hundred times here....
And I can't believe I am defending teenage boys! I hear their
THUMPATHUMPATHUMPA in cars and I want to get behind the gun sights of a
Sherman tank. POW!
Bill
--
Bill Binkelman
Editor and Publisher of WIND AND WIRE
The best of contemporary acoustic and electronic instrumental music
Fred Puhan
> If you are making a statement about teenagers _now_, then who is buying
> the (sometimes) softer stuff by FSOL, Human Mesh Dance, Aphex Twin, and
> all the other dubbers out there? Not everything these artists do is
> 160BPM.
That's a good question, Bill. Just this past weekend I dropped in on
one of the local Tower stores to find that the "New Age" section had
been shrunk significantly. I was quite dismayed until I found that a
larger, newer section had "sprung up" labeled
"Techno/Electronic/Industrial" and there were several "younger" types
perusing the bins.
Which I wound up doing as well, and spotted (although I didn't buy --
yet) albums by Global Communication, Aphex Twin, the Orb, Muslimgauze,
Trans Global Underground, Higher Intelligence Agency, and a hundred more
I couldn't name, much less remember.
It was at that point that I realized that "our" music, as we've been
referring to it here, isn't "ours" at all -- we don't own it, after all
-- but that it's transmogrifying, reaching out to new audiences as it
evolves and splinters into a myriad of forms.
What we're NOT doing in this discussion is "thinking outside the box;"
we want to categorize and qualify that which we call "ours," when all
the time it's so elusive so as to defy that very labeling.
I agree that it makes it harder to find the album we want when we
traipse into the music store, but then again, maybe that just helps to
expose us to more variety. I first got into New Age music by "looking
[listening] outside the box." Perhaps Tower has unwittingly forced me
into doing it again!
And for the record, like my friend Gregory Taylor, I too, keep my music
collection in alphabetical order. Very likely I wouldn't complain too
loudly if the record stores presented their wares in the same manner.
Craig Burley
> Besides... you get some pretty humorous alphabetical pairings that way!
> In my own collection, Patti Larkin is filed right next to Leather Strip,
> and Laurie Anderson sits right there next to The Animals... some pretty
> interesting duet possibilities there!!
In my collection, this means going from Peter Hamill to Happy the Man,
for example...a rather breathtaking change. :)
--
"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.org
Rcarlberg
that, she likes this. Part of that identification with a style is a separation
from what your parents like.
It's uncool to like the same music.
New Age will be a raging trend in 2022 when our kids are rearing their own.
Twiddle
Well, I do enjoy both the Adiemus and Vangelis CDs you mention, but I'm
not familiar with the Oliver Shanti... but if you like the other two and
like that one as well, I'll check it out.
Man, see how this works? You're new here, and ALREADY you're trying to
cost me money! <laffing>
But... TOUCHE! If you like Adiemus, see if you can find an open copy of
"Vision-The Music Of Hildegard Von Bingen" to listen to...
Twiddle
Twiddle
>
> Also, how did an album like MEDDLE by Pink Floyd (specifically, the
> side-long cut, "Echoes") come to be popular? It's at least partly early
> ambient music.
While this might not be in my best interests to share...
... I can say that, in certain circles, some of that album's popularity
had to do with little pieces of paper... or at least it was so in my
"less responsible" years...
These daze, I do enjoy the album for the music, thank the stars. Hey,
Bobby has his skeletons, I got my own! <g> Wonder if Mom ever suspected
the reason why I "played that damned album over and over and over and
over..."
Twiddle
Twiddle
> collection in alphabetical order. Very likely I wouldn't complain too
> loudly if the record stores presented their wares in the same manner.
Another good "alphabetical irony" I found in my collection today...
Iggy Pop gets filed RIGHT next to Popul Vuh...
Twiddle
Samuel Bendahan
The problem is.. that hannah is right with one point. I live in
Switzerland and I dont know how it is in other countries, but here it is
so:
I am 18 years old. In my country I must (with GF and 1-2 other friends)
be of the ONLY ones who appreciate New Age music, while others not only
prefer more.. energic and (IMHO) less harmonic music whether it is hard
rock, techno, rap, or whatever commercial music, but they also dont seem
to like this calm type of music at all.
Now I dont know if they REALLY dont like it or if they would be ashamed
of liking it (Because its not the music listened by everyone), but With
time I am sure this music will grow in popularity, for with time -again-
we do not seek the same things, and maybe we will learn to discover
other things that what we have lived in during a long period.
For many people music are a great way to socialize (you have lots of
friends who like same music as you do, etc..).
BEcause it is commercially unknown, newage music will SCARCELY be a
common point between two people.
I hope that Newage music will become more popular, but I do not want it
to become commercial, or the music will lose its original quality.
Samuel
Bill Binkelman
(snip)
>
> I hope that Newage music will become more popular, but I do not want it
> to become commercial, or the music will lose its original quality.
>
> Samuel
What does this mean, anyway? More than a few people say this. I mean, we
already have "commercial" new age music. I suppose if the music became
more popular, more artists would cross over and start recording this kind
of music, including some artists who are slick, worthless, etc. But I
don't think that this music increasing in popularity would mean that
artists already recording it would become "less artistic" or crass or
whatever the point being made here is.
As for original, I think that, to some degree, originality is over-rated.
Which is not to say that I discount a new and unique vision. It is still a
rare thing and cause for celebration. But what I mean is that there is
nothing wrong with re-inventing the wheel. It's still a "wheel" but it may
ride better or smoother or faster or whatever.
E.g. Michael Walthius and Mark Sarno (to name two indie artists) are
mining the same territory that Jan Hammer did on his MIND'S EYE sndtrk and
his follow-up DRIVE, i.e. propulsive pop/jazz/rock fusion music with some
"new age" wrinkles thrown in but suffused with very high quality "hooks."
So, maybe not "original" in the truest sense. But hey, they _kick ass!!!!_
That's good enough for me.
We are _sooooooooo_ far away from worrying about the "impact" of success
on this genre that I think it raises needless concern to bring it up. It
would have been like someone saying back in the '60s, "Hey I really hope
the success of the Tolkien trilogy doesn't flood the market with crappy
fantasy novels." What we got, in reality, was _lots_ of good fantasy
(LeGuinn, Donaldson, Brooks, et al) and very little crap, IMO. So, while I
sympathize with the view above, unless you think that every major label
will bandwagon-jump and pollute the waters in the first year of mass
acceptance, I wouldn't fret over it.
Finally, about originality. If you want some original music, listen to
some of the stuff Greg Taylor plays. I have received some
experimental/avant garde music to review and it is _very_ original. For my
tastes, I don't know I like it much, but Eleanor Hovda's COASTAL TRACES,
Tim Song Jones' THE PLURAL OF HEAR or Robert Dick and Steve Gorn's STEEL
AND BAMBOO won't sound like garden variety music, trust me.
Bill
PS On re-reading the earlier post, the poster may not have been making a
statement about "originality" as much as about "original _quality_" While
my remarks may seem extraneous, then, I leave them in for the purpose of
rpovoking a response from someone and continuing the discussion. If this
pisses anyone off, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.
Bill Binkelman
> Greetings,
>
> Well, after reading your message, I can only say you are right..
> I just took example on the techno music that is being heard today.. but
> I had in my head a wrong example, and thankfully you showed me the truth
> :)
>
> Well, What I meant is that techno, which is by definition -the-
> commercial music is becomming most annoying and repetitive.
> Maybe I shouldnt have dropped these two last lines they were senseless.
>
> Samuel
Please don't take my last post personally. Since you are new, you should
know that I am, by nature, rather (shall we say) argumentative in my
writing (I can hear the chuckles from hear, so be quiet to those of you
who are laughing).
I agree that techno, as a whole, can be repetitive. However, once again
the problem comes with who is techno and who is not and what is repetitive
and what is not. Orbital, while techno and "repetitive" is a band I enjoy
a lot. Ditto a band I am just discovering called Autechre. And the little
I have heard from Crystal Method sounds cool, too.
When all someone does, though, is fire 160BPM at you with little
variation, yeah, that can get tired real fast.
As for my showing _anyone_ the truth, god forbid! Hell, even _I_ don't
know what's true anymore (except I do know that my writers at WIND AND
WIRE are saints for putting up with me the way they do).
Samuel Bendahan
Thank you, Ill look at the local stores if I can find that, and if I do
ill listen to it and maybe youll also cost me money :))
Well, I must say, Adiemus must be one of my favorites. Especially the
first one of the first CD is just beautiful.. I am just made for this
kind of music.. isnt this rare? :)
As for Oliver Shanti and friends I liked Circles of life, its a
compilation of the good ones, I guess its the best to get a general
knowledge. What I found interesting (and which is like Vangelis
Portraits), is the diversity of musics in that CD. The difference
between the songs can be extermely high..
I must say, what I like in New Age music are especially Voices,
-Nice-harmonic- sounds, calm.. and something which is strong anyway.
When I listen to adiemus, I feel something stronger than any hard rock
stuff that could be heard, in spite of the fact it is a very calm type
of music. The sounds are beautiful.
I hope I can find a lot of other artists who produce this kind of music
and I am glad to have met people who share the same oppinion on newage
music than me.
glad to meet ya :)
Samuel
Samuel Bendahan
Hannah M.G. Shapero
>the problem comes with who is techno and who is not and what is repetitive
>and what is not. Orbital, while techno and "repetitive" is a band I enjoy
>a lot. Ditto a band I am just discovering called Autechre. And the little
>I have heard from Crystal Method sounds cool, too.
I have a confession to make. (No, it does not involve the President of the
United States.) I LIKE techno music. I like the stuff that drums away and
carries you along like a modern shaman's drum. I love the ORB. They're my
favorite "techno" group. I would love to hear more music like that. Is it
New Age? I think so! It's some of the rare "New Age" music which is LOUD
and has insistent powerful rhythm. Also, the Orb are one of the very few
musical entities which adds HUMOR to their output. Much of "New Age"
music is just achingly serious.
>As for my showing _anyone_ the truth, god forbid! Hell, even _I_ don't
>know what's true anymore (except I do know that my writers at WIND AND
>WIRE are saints for putting up with me the way they do).
Bill Binkelman's vehemence and vitriol is more than balanced out by his
devotion to Our Music and his moments of hilarity.
Orbliviously,
Hannah M.G.Shapero
Rcarlberg
> I have a confession to make.
> I LIKE techno music.
Feel like making a sampler tape (or CDR)? I'm an old fart who hasn't bothered
with most techno, since what I've heard is mind-numbingly boring.
Home taping isn't killing music, drumboxes are!
Anyway, if there's some good stuff out there I'd like to know about it. I
heard a piece by Trans Global Underground (I think that's right) on the
ray-dee-oh a couple days ago and stopped into Tower to check it out. Luckily
it was one of the albums featured in their listening station, so I took ten
minutes to skip through it. The track I heard was the only good one.
Phooey.
Gregory Taylor
>...Which I wound up doing as well, and spotted (although I didn't buy --
>yet) albums by Global Communication, Aphex Twin, the Orb, Muslimgauze,
>Trans Global Underground, Higher Intelligence Agency, and a hundred more
>I couldn't name, much less remember.
>
>It was at that point that I realized that "our" music, as we've been
>referring to it here, isn't "ours" at all -- we don't own it, after all
>-- but that it's transmogrifying, reaching out to new audiences as it
>evolves and splinters into a myriad of forms.
You betcha. Some of those forms are, I think, mappable onto the bias set
of those listeners of mine I'd tend to think of as "new age exclusivists"
with little or no trouble, and some sets off into considerably different
territory; new age works whose roots are considerably closer to a set of
sensibilities which are *considerably* more ah...."ethnographic" or rooted
faithfully in some nonwestern tradition, works whose aural surface would
probably pass new age muster but whose makers see themselves as being
solidly allied with the microculture of the "classical" tradition, various
flavours of ambient work, work which proceedeth from the traditions of
electroacoustic (i.e. computer music in the academic sense rather than
meaning someone in their basement with a sequencer) music, various forms
of industrial or experimental music, and so on.
>What we're NOT doing in this discussion is "thinking outside the box;"
>we want to categorize and qualify that which we call "ours," when all
>the time it's so elusive so as to defy that very labeling.
I couldn't have said it any better myself, Fred. The difficulty is that
I imagine that many readers here would, at this point, begin to argue
on the grounds of "efficiency" (I don't have time to listen to music
outside of the genres I claim to like) as a defense for the exclusivism
of their tastes. I think that Bill and Pat Nugent at NAV have done a
commendable job of describing what's in the box, what fell into the box
from the shelves above, and what got piled into the box when it was
moved because there wasn't any other box to put it in - so much so that
I usually find myself pleading here for something slightly different...the
notion that there is something seductive about categorization at the end
of this century - we're offered the opportunity via our enabling technologies
and those who would use them to sell us things to configure a world in
which we only encounter and hear what we *want* to hear; the new things
we encounter are a suffient hair's breadth away from the familiar to beckon
coyly and guarantee our continuted consumerist behaviour, but not sufficiently
different that we actually are in a position to see the act of listening as
a risk - an engagement with the larger world (a less hazardous one, at that)
which might turn our attentions in the best of times to the world outside
rather than our cocoon and our bias sets. It would be an understatement to
point out that I find the complicity of something like the net (where
the boundaries really *are* down and we can engage with nearly anything)
something of an ironic twist.
On some level (cue choirs, drumroll), I think that the development of our
own selves and sensibilities in the new informational landscape is one part
of the greater Test of Our Age: Will we use what we have access to to turn
toward the world, or to turn away from it to a landscape of narcissistic
desire and gratification?
Sorry. End of sermon.
Greg
P.S. Those of you who are fond of the kid of acoustic landscapes one finds
in "On Land" period Eno and some of Jeff Greinke's work would be well advised
to check out the second release by Tear Ceremony on Simulacra (they're on
the web): "Film Decay." It's a marvellous piece of work which doesn't do
much but does the "not much" very well..
--
When I pronounce the word Future,/the first syllable already belongs to the
past./When I pronounce the word Silence,/I destroy it./When I pronounce the
word Nothing,/I make something no nonbeing can hold./ (Wislawa Szymborska)
Gregory Taylor WORT-FM www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html 608.828.3385
Bill Binkelman
M.G. Shapero) wrote:
The check is in the mail, Hannah <g>. Ha ha, that's doubly funny since
everyone's a volunteer. Get it? BWAHAHAHA! Oh, I'm such a punster!
I agree with what HMGS says. Some techno is really really good. Most of
the people who like at least some genres of new age also love The Orb's
work (in fact, both Chad and Mann, if memory serves, put ORBLIVION in
their best of 1997 list last year). As I said, my particular tastes run
toward Orbital, Autechre and some others. But just as some new age is
repetitive or boring, so is some techno (wow, what a blazing insight,
Bill...there is boring music out there...well, isn't that something <g>).
I also agree about the seemingly small amount of humor in "our" music and
too much seriousness. Wit and whimsy do not mean an artist isn't "serious"
about their music. It means he/she doesn't always compose "serious" music.
Someone mentioned Grofe's GRAND CANYON SUITE in this ng a while ago. It
has that funky funny "burro" movement in it, right? Yet the rest of the
music is downright stirring, IMO.
I think "fun" (as in light-hearted) music is not always the aim of most
new age musicians. I applaud those that feel otherwise. Some indie artists
definitely know how to blend the dramatic with the whimsical, e.g. Bix
Beitelman's FREEDOM DRIVE and Adriano DeFreitas' VIRTUAL LANDSCAPES (the
latter of which has some of Grofe's characteristics). Deane Delli-Bovi's
DREAMING INSIDE OUT is full of bubbly "happy" music. And of course, one of
the founding members of new age music, Ray Lynch (interview in an upcoming
issue, BTW) has a wonderful way with whimsy in his music (as well as
drama).
Now I just need to find a way to add the words "vehement" and "vitriolic"
to my business cards and signature file. Well, I guess every good runaway
dog (or junkyard dog - I don't remember which one Bradley Sowash called
me) has his/her moments of vehemence and vitriol. In this case, I believe,
the adage is true. My bark is worse than my bite (the concluding thought
is best left unexplored, thank you).
With that, adieu! mes ami!
Aured Rancuel
> heard a piece by Trans Global Underground (I think that's right) on the
> ray-dee-oh a couple days ago and stopped into Tower to check it out. Luckily
> it was one of the albums featured in their listening station, so I took ten
> minutes to skip through it. The track I heard was the only good one.
Well I would recommend a group called Westbam, the only album I've heard is
"we'll never stop living this way", if their other output is similar I'd jump
for it, unlike most dance-oriented rave thumpa-thumpa pulsing migraine techno
this album has lots of rythms that I can only describe as "different", the rythms
blend with the music and are extremely varied and very neat to listen to,
I don't it's easily available in the states though (most good techno isn't),
I got it from a German friend who stayed with my family a years back.
-Scott
Samuel Bendahan
Yes, I agree with this, Techno -can- be good. I have listened to it a
lot, for some of my friends enjoy this music a lot. I liked it -
honestly - but not all. Some are good, and then the others become more
noise than anything else. Sometimes in techno, interesting sounds can be
found, and I like it.
however I prefered New Age to techno because there are ALWAYS
interesting and nice sounds :)))
As for your very argumentative way of speaking, do not worry, I am used
to it and I enjoy it :)
Im involved in politics and there you have lots of argumentative
specches (you have also lots of argumentless but still too long speeches
hehe..)
Samuel
Neil Leacy
In article <35F663...@bellsouth.net>, Twiddle (twi...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>Neil, we are probably MOST hurt that you have a need to have personal
>jokes with people other than us, your oldest and dearest friends! <g>
heers, Twiddle! :-)
Regards,
Neil Leacy
IT Support (nle...@it-excelsior.britax.co.uk)
====================================================================
For further information on child car seats designed and produced by
Britax-Excelsior visit our web pages at
====================================================================
Afterburner
server. alt.fan.enya and alt.music.enya elided from the Newsgroups: line
since I've never (that I know of) heard an Enya tune and thus have little
to contribute to those fine newsgroups.]
f...@his.com (Fred Puhan) sez:
>And, like Duke Ellington stated above, I'd have a hard time dismissing
>any artist's work. It may not appeal to me emotionally, but it could be
>that it just doesn't "taste good" to me. For me, "bad" new age music is
>that which is shallow, or pretentious, or which just doesn't reach that
>hunger inside me.
This dovetails nicely with the good-natured ribbing I've been
getting from my co-workers about purchasing a John Tesh CD <cue collective
gasps of shock and horror from my co-workers>. On the one hand, I know
that they're just ribbing me, and if it wasn't about a John Tesh CD, they'd
find something else because we're all friends and we're always poking
good-natured fun at each other over a variety of topics. On the other
hand, I still have a hard time keeping from getting irritated over this
*particular* bit of ribbing because I utterly fail to understand why
anybody should care what I listen to (unless I'm blaring it publicly,
forcing them to listen to it). I find Marilyn Manson's music unpleasant
and personally offensive on many levels, but I'm not going to give someone
a hard time about listening to him if that's their bag. Like you, I
recognize that the reason I don't like Marilyn Manson is because it doesn't
appeal to my (wholly subjective) tastes, and not because there's some
objective standard that says Marilyn Manson is Bad Music(tm).
As for what I consider "bad" vs. "good" new age music, I'm not
sufficiently versed on the topic to form any substantive opinions. Looking
at the CD's I've purchased recently, I would say that some combination of
"contemporary beat" and "melody" seems to do the trick, with "contemporary
beat" being defined in my case more-or-less as "modern dance rhythms" and
"melody" being defined in my case as "major chordish and lacking
substantial dissonance."
Note that really good melodies can compensate for the lack of
contemporary beat. "L'Aquila," the first track on John Tesh's "Avalon", is
a rocking good tune with a very catchy melody. Likewise, the title track
of the Chaquico/Freeman CD isn't going to inspire many folks to get up and
boogie, but it's still a very nice, very pretty, very pleasant song. On
the other hand, all the contemporary dance beats in the world won't make me
like a song that doesn't also have a good melody. Gabrielle Roth's "Zone
Unknown" is an example. Had lots of dance beat, but the music itself just
didn't do it for me.
Anyhow, enough rambling. Gotta go buy dogfood.
Yours,
Afterburner
Afterburner
articles by the news server of my ISP.]
"Judy Markworth" <jwo...@execpc.com> sez:
>How did I get from business to ignorance? I guess ignorance is part of it
>too and I didn't realize it until my cousin "enlightened" me and then her
>view was further proven to be non-unique when I found a few classical music
>purists with the same attitude. (Let it be noted that I love Classical
>music dearly too) This same cousin of mine heard the Vangelis piece that
>was used in the beer commercial years ago (name is escaping me), got excited
>about it, went and bought the CD, got home, flipped it over and found out
>that Vangelis used synthesizers to create it and threw it out!!! Well... a
>synth is a computer you know. My question was, even on a shitty TV speaker,
>you couldn't tell that was a synth?? Get your ears checked!
Reminds me of a fair number of folks I know who have the attitude
of "If it doesn't have lyrics, it sucks."
>I guess what I was trying to say and didn't state very clearly is
>that basically all you hear on the radio is music with lyrics. That's
>partially why I feel instrumental music has been somewhat overshadowed.
I agree, especially since some of my favorite *rock* recordings are
instrumental:
"La Villa Strangiato" by Rush
"Jessica" by the Allman Brothers
"Frankenstein" by the Edgar Winter Group
"Hocus Pocus" by Focus
(Of the above, "La Villa Strangiato" would probably be most
interesting to the members of this group. Not for the "new age" feel of
the tune, since it's not new age-y at all. But because it's very complex,
filled with key, time signature, and even thematic changes. The subtitle
in the liner notes is "An exercise in self-indulgence."
>Maybe that's a lame argument and I'm grasping at straws. Who knows.
Here's another straw for you: Think maybe the pervasiveness of TV
as "background noise" has something to do with the pervasiveness of music
in which the lyrics are emphasized (or at least given equal time)?
>Musak has also given instrumental music a bad name but I won't go there
>now.
Well, it's been a month since you wrote the above. Wanna go there
*now*? :)
Yours,
Afterburner
Afterburner
Scott Burt <sr...@spamaway.email.byu.edu> sez:
>2) the message might be pretty interesting and cool but the singer has no
>talent whatsoever IMO (e.g. AC/DC's Thunderstruck),
Actually, in the context of "musically achieving what one sets out
to achieve," I'd have to say that AC/DC has been phenomenally successful.
As near as I can tell, they sound exactly like they want to sound. Not
every band can say the same. :)
>3) often the vocals are so dominant that there isn't any "music" there at
>all
This is, in fact, how I define the distinction between "Pop" and
"Rock." Pop music is, to me, music in which the vocals are given
precedence. The drummer in Madonna's band doesn't need to be supremely
talented along the lines of Neil Peart or Dave Weckl. If he/she were,
he/she would overshadow Madonna and, well, that Just Wouldn't Do(tm). With
folks like Madonna, Mariah Carey, Paula Abdul, and so on, their voice and
their lyrics are what folks want to hear. The instruments are just there
to give some background for the voice and the lyrics. (This was hammered
home to me recently when my girlfriend drug me to the Culture Club concert.
The guitarist was up there strumming away on his guitar in a very
enthusiastic fashion -- and I couldn't tell what he was playing. Only a
few times did he actually break down and play something that I could
distingush from the musical melange that was coming from the stage. Most
of the time it just faded into the melange. Which was precisely as
planned, since people go to Culture Club concerts to hear Boy George's
vocals, not Roy Hay's guitar.)
In my view, rock music is distinguished from pop music by the fact
that the instruments are given equal time, and in some cases (Van Halen,
Boston, Dire Straits, and Many More(tm)!) given occasional (or frequent)
precedence over the vocals.
Disclaimer: The above is useful only as a way to distinguish pop
and rock, and assumes that the folks making (or hearing) the distinction
already have an understanding (even if it's just a vague understanding) of
Rock/Pop versus (for example) New Age.
But enough of my off-topic rambling.
Yours,
AB
Afterburner
articles by the news server of my ISP.]
hm...@access1.digex.net (Hannah M.G. Shapero) sez:
>If so, then the record companies must aim for these young consumers and
>the majority of these young consumers are living in the blood-dimmed tide
>of adolescence or young adulthood and need something with a HIGH INTENSITY
>to get through to them, as I have said before.
And let us not forget peer pressure. I'm getting vast amounts of
teasing by my friends and co-workers because I purchased a John Tesh CD.
If I didn't have a fairly well-developed sense of self, I might be swayed
by their teasing and not buy any more John Tesh CDs so as to gain their
approval. I can easily construct similar scenarios for high school kids
caught listening to Will Ackerman. He's just not "cool".
Yours,
AB
Ross
Don't forget "They Might Be Giants" -- they're legends!! :)
Ross
On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Afterburner wrote:
> [Another blast from the past, etc.]
>
> bi...@bitstream.net (Bill Binkelman) sez:
>
> >I also agree about the seemingly small amount of humor in "our" music and
> >too much seriousness. Wit and whimsy do not mean an artist isn't "serious"
> >about their music. It means he/she doesn't always compose "serious" music.
> >Someone mentioned Grofe's GRAND CANYON SUITE in this ng a while ago. It
> >has that funky funny "burro" movement in it, right? Yet the rest of the
> >music is downright stirring, IMO.
>
> Pop has Weird Al Yankovic.
> Classical has Peter Schiekele (aka P.D.Q. Bach).
> Big Band had Spike Jones.
>
> Whither New Age?
>
> Yours,
> AB
>
> (Whither Country, for that matter...)
>
>
Afterburner
yadda, etc]
rcar...@aol.com (Rcarlberg) sez:
>Feel like making a sampler tape (or CDR)? I'm an old fart who hasn't bothered
>with most techno, since what I've heard is mind-numbingly boring.
"Halcyon and On" by Orbital is extremely nice and "new age-y."
Yours,
AB
Afterburner
Hannah M.G. Shapero
Popularized? Well, while shopping in Safeway today I was surprised to hear
something by Ray Lynch on the PA system. I'm guilty....I actually LISTEN
to supermarket "motivational background music."
Would Our Music, played in a supermarket, cause people to drift over to
the vegetable bins and buy more greens, alfalfa sprouts, and tofu?
As for Bill: "infiltrate our music into the section..." I don't have a
language problem with that. However, in another posting you used "infer"
when you should have said "imply." :-)
Your schoolmarm,
Hannah M.G.Shapero