Ever get the impression...
steblick
theme, compositionally. That they abandon ideas, running off to the
next one before the first one is complete?
... that a lot of the avant-garde bands became so because they really
aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
... that if you bought all the allegedly 'absolutely essential' albums
as recommended by Prog review sites, you'd have a basis of about 3000
cds?
... that cds who name themselves after other band's songs or album
titles are usually third-tier prog bands?
steblick
Alex Temple
> ... that a lot of those RIO bands don't know how to develop a musical
> theme, compositionally. That they abandon ideas, running off to the
> next one before the first one is complete?
Certainly not the ones I listen to. :)
What bands/albums are you talking about specifically?
> ... that a lot of the avant-garde bands became so because they really
> aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
No. Personally I find a lot of RIO extremely catchy. Although there are
some bands in this style that drift towards a "generic RIO" sound without
much to add -- that's always been my impression of Birdsongs of the
Mesozoic, though I haven't heard a whole lot of their stuff.
> ... that if you bought all the allegedly 'absolutely essential' albums
> as recommended by Prog review sites, you'd have a basis of about 3000
> cds?
YES. :)
> ... that cds who name themselves after other band's songs or album
> titles are usually third-tier prog bands?
Radiohead? Weidorje?
--
Alex Temple - NP: News from Babel - Work Resumed on the Twoer
fiber_optiq at yahoo dot com
"Beispiele paranormaler Tonbandstimmen"
Mike Prete *www.progweed.net*
news:3f0bb5ba.02051...@posting.google.com...
> ... that a lot of those RIO bands don't know how to develop a musical
> theme, compositionally. That they abandon ideas, running off to the
> next one before the first one is complete?
>
> ... that a lot of the avant-garde bands became so because they really
> aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
For the most part, I'm tempted to say this is just bullshit, but I'm sure
examples exist. I mean, there's crap in every genre. But a lot? I think
you've overgeneralized it.
> ... that if you bought all the allegedly 'absolutely essential' albums
> as recommended by Prog review sites, you'd have a basis of about 3000
> cds?
Depends on which sites you read ;) I know I'm guilty of having the majority
of stuff I write be stuff I'd recommend, but for the most part, I like
writing about stuff that I want others to hear. I rarley use 'essential'
though.
> ... that cds who name themselves after other band's songs or album
> titles are usually third-tier prog bands?
For the most part, yes.
np: XTC - Apple Venus
--
Mike Prete - Mi...@progweed.net
The Giant Progweed - Progressive Music Reviews
www.progweed.net
Evil Pixies - www.progweed.net/evilpixies/
David Cantu
Well, I'm not sure who you're talking about; but, by their own admission,
Yes (certainly not RIO) created songs like Starship Trooper by cutting and
pasting television theme songs together.
Robert Carlberg
>... that a lot of those RIO bands don't
>know how to develop a theme
Wrong.
>... that a lot of the avant-garde bands
>really aren't adept at creating catchy
>melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
Wrong (and what the hell is a "non-commercial catchy melody"?)
>... that if you bought all the allegedly
>'absolutely essential' albums you'd have
>about 3000 cds?
Oh, if only. I wish my 'desert-island discs' could be reduced to 3,000!!!
>... that bands who name themselves after
>other band's songs or album titles are
>usually third-tier bands?
That's because most of them started out as cover bands -- but almost all bands
start that way, you know. That's no guarantee of a continued lack of
originality.
Jim Chokey
> theme, compositionally. That they abandon ideas, running off to the
> next one before the first one is complete?
>
> ... that a lot of the avant-garde bands became so because they really
> aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
Why does this remind me of folks who go into the modern art
sections of museums and make commments about Picasso,
Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not knowing how to paint"
(by which, of course, they mean "not knowing how to paint
recognizable objects in a realistic manner"). :-)
-- Jim C.
Alex Temple
> what the hell is a "non-commercial catchy melody"?
Presumably one that grabs you and sticks in your head, but wouldn't be
appreciated by the mainstream. Of course, I consider a tune like Thinking
Plague's "Dead Silence" to be a perfect example, but there are also plenty of
non-avant examples, such as songs by Burning Airlines, early Brian Eno, the
Olivia Tremor Control and so on.
--
Alex Temple - NP: Miriodor - Jongleries Elastiques
Alex Temple
> In article <20020517124006...@mb-bg.aol.com> rcar...@aol.computer wrote...
>
> > >... that a lot of the avant-garde bands
> > >really aren't adept at creating catchy
> > >melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
> >
> > Wrong (and what the hell is a "non-commercial catchy melody"?)
>
> For that matter, what the *blue flying nun-shagging fuck* does
> 'non-commercial' mean? Or are there musicians who sign record deals who
> hope beyond hope never to make any money from it?
I thought it was fairly obvious that he meant "created with the intent of producing great
art rather than with the intent of making a lot of money." Or, to put it more succinctly,
"not a sellout."
--
Alex Temple
NJD
fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com says...
> I thought it was fairly obvious that he meant "created with the intent of producing great
> art rather than with the intent of making a lot of money." Or, to put it more succinctly,
> "not a sellout."
What a crock.
--
Nick Delonas
Author of the third worst album of all time!
Robert Carlberg
>modern art sections of museums and
>make commments about Picasso,
>Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not
>knowing how to paint"
Or Coltrane to play.
FWIW I still feel this way about Pollock. Can you point me to anything of his
that wasn't pure self-indulgent crap?
Jim Chokey
Yeah-- his paintings.
-- Jim C
NJD
jchoke...@mindspring.com says...
Well okay, maybe not "self indulgent."
Noah Samuel Lesgold
> steblick wrote:
>
> > ... that a lot of those RIO bands don't know how to develop a musical
> > theme, compositionally. That they abandon ideas, running off to the
> > next one before the first one is complete?
>
> Certainly not the ones I listen to. :)
> What bands/albums are you talking about specifically?
I think he means Karwreck.
> > ... that a lot of the avant-garde bands became so because they really
> > aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
>
> No. Personally I find a lot of RIO extremely catchy. Although there are
> some bands in this style that drift towards a "generic RIO" sound without
> much to add -- that's always been my impression of Birdsongs of the
> Mesozoic, though I haven't heard a whole lot of their stuff.
Yeah. See Thinking Plague, "Dead Silence" and RIO single if there
ever was one. Likewise, Bob Drake obviously *can* write more
straightforward and consonant stuff, but chooses not to a lot of the
time. Chuck Vrtacek writes crazy noisy stuff for Biota but his
Forever Einstein work is much more straightforward and easy on the
ears. The problem is that there certainly *are* some bands who think
avant-garde means flailing around without a script and making noise.
> > ... that if you bought all the allegedly 'absolutely essential' albums
> > as recommended by Prog review sites, you'd have a basis of about 3000
> > cds?
>
> YES. :)
The problem is that there really are an insane number of really,
really good CDs out there. Obviously, peoples' tastes differ, so you
will have many albums cited as classics by some people and panned by
others (see Jim Hresko's "4" rating on _Close to the Edge_).
> > ... that cds who name themselves after other band's songs or album
> > titles are usually third-tier prog bands?
>
> Radiohead? Weidorje?
FWIW, the song "Weidorje" on _Udu Wudu_ post-dates the existence of
Weidorje the band, I believe.
--
Noah Lesgold http://cif.rochester.edu/~nlesgold/
nles...@cif.rochester.edu AIM: nlesgold ICQ: 132716231
"Xbox is the first and only video game system designed from its inception
to be ready to play Xbox games right out of the box."
--Microsoft press release (1-08-02)
Alex Temple
> The problem is that there certainly *are* some bands who think
> avant-garde means flailing around without a script and making noise.
NURSE WITH WOUND.
--
Alex Temple
Alex Temple
> In article <3CE5666F...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>,
> fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com says...
> > I thought it was fairly obvious that he meant "created with the intent of producing great
> > art rather than with the intent of making a lot of money." Or, to put it more succinctly,
> > "not a sellout."
>
> What a crock.
>
'Scuse me?
steblick
> >reminds me of folks who go into the
> >modern art sections of museums and
> >make commments about Picasso,
> >Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not
> >knowing how to paint"
>
> Or Coltrane to play.
A few comments from the original poster.
I think you are misinterpreting my original point here. I was VERY
careful NOT to say that these RIO-Avant bands can't PLAY. So the two
comments above seem to have willfully missed my point. I think you
wanted to play the Philistine card without really looking at what I
was saying.
In fact, it is quite obvious that most RIO/avant artists are
hightly-trained, advance-skill musicians. What I mean is that their
compositional skills sometimes suggest that they have trouble
developing a theme. Surely questioning one aspect of their art does
not mean an indictment of their musical virtuosity!And yes I am
thinking of the likes of TP/5 UU's/B. Drake here but other examples
exist too.
Although I like these bands I sometimes find their music to be
fractured pastiches of musically independent ideas, often abandoned
just as soon as they are suggested. Interestingly, I don't find this
with U Totem's first, which I therefore find superior
compositionally.
One could look at this feature as as either being a quality of high
art or as one ofcompositional immaturity, the way young
skilled-but-unrefined writers/painters often display their virtuosity
without due regard for compositional balance. But I'm just SUGGESTING
it, not announcing or declaring it- hence the 'do you ever get the
impression..' title. As a result, the harsh 'bullshit' and 'what a
crock' responses seem a little overemotional. So does the rather
disingenuous questioning as to what I meant by 'non-commercial' which
seems more like the comment of someone who didn't like my post and
wants to find SOMETHING/ANYTHING to take issue with.
It's just something that entered my mind guys, I didn't call your
mama's a bad name. Chill a bit, OK?
steblick
btw- I hinted that bands that use more famous bands songs/albums as
their own names are USUALLY inferior. So Radiohead and Weidorje are,
yes, exceptions to this USUAL rule.
Alex Temple
> rcar...@aol.computer (Robert Carlberg) wrote in message news:<20020517190139...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
> > >reminds me of folks who go into the
> > >modern art sections of museums and
> > >make commments about Picasso,
> > >Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not
> > >knowing how to paint"
> >
> > Or Coltrane to play.
>
> A few comments from the original poster.
>
> I think you are misinterpreting my original point here. I was VERY
> careful NOT to say that these RIO-Avant bands can't PLAY. So the two
> comments above seem to have willfully missed my point.
Not true. The latter comment is not really analogous, yes, but a great painter is as much great for his ideas as
for his technique -- probably more so. The people who say that Picasso etc. "don't know how to paint" (i.e.
"don't know how to paint realistically") is very similar to your statement that a lot of avant bands don't know
how to write catchy melodies.
> In fact, it is quite obvious that most RIO/avant artists are
> hightly-trained, advance-skill musicians. What I mean is that their
> compositional skills sometimes suggest that they have trouble
> developing a theme. Surely questioning one aspect of their art does
> not mean an indictment of their musical virtuosity!And yes I am
> thinking of the likes of TP/5 UU's/B. Drake here but other examples
> exist too.
Strange: I think that Thinking Plague's compositions are some of the most perfectly-constructed, exquisitely
developed pieces of 'rock' music I've ever heard. I challenge you to listen to "Love" or "Moonsongs" and tell me
Johnson goes onto the next idea too fast. I'll admit that _In Extremis_ is a lot harder to follow in this
respect, but the compositional tightness IS there, if you're willing to look for it.
I will agree that 5uu's are jumpier, it's true, but I find plenty of thematic development in their songs.
Consider, for example, "Noah's Flame" off _Abandonship_ -- the repetetive guitar/keyboard groove at the end is
based on a countermelody played slowly in the opening. In fact, Kerman makes extensive use of layered repetition,
which is as fundamental a way of developing music as I can think of. Occasionally I even find him too repetetive!
Many RIO bands also make use of a technique pioneered by Stravinsky, which is alternating between four or five (or
more) short sections in different combinations, rather than developing them straight-ahead the way, say, Beethoven
would. 5uu's "Geronimo" comes to mind -- if you call it badly developed, you're also calling Stravinsky's
"Symphonies of Wind Instruments" badly developed, in essence.
> Although I like these bands I sometimes find their music to be
> fractured pastiches of musically independent ideas, often abandoned
> just as soon as they are suggested. Interestingly, I don't find this
> with U Totem's first, which I therefore find superior
> compositionally.
Weird -- I think U Totem's first has /exactly/ the problem you described, especially "Vagabond's Home," where
Grigsby seems to ramble with only a moderate level of coherence.
> One could look at this feature as as either being a quality of high
> art or as one ofcompositional immaturity, the way young
> skilled-but-unrefined writers/painters often display their virtuosity
> without due regard for compositional balance.
That is, assuming one found this feature to be present. There IS music your criticism applies very well to -- a
lot of John Zorn comes to mind, or Mr. Bungle -- but I simply don't see it in Thinking Plague and 5uu's. Do you
mind if I ask, how familiar are you with 20th century classical music? It seems to me that the structures and
compositional devices used by Kerman and Johnson are actually quite similar to those used by composers like
Bartok, Prokofiev and Stravinsky. And surely you're not calling THEM immature, are you?
> btw- I hinted that bands that use more famous bands songs/albums as
> their own names are USUALLY inferior. So Radiohead and Weidorje are,
> yes, exceptions to this USUAL rule.
They were the only two I could think of. I guess I don't listen to enough third-tier prog bands. :)
Om shanti
Chokey <jchoke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Touche.
Of course Mondrian and Kandinsky were extremely good Fauvists with a
"realistic" (objective) subject, when they were young. Pollock was a
student of Thomas Hart Benton--hardly a radical--and his early painting
resembled Ashcan-school realism with some bizarre angles. Picasso was
one of th most accomplished draftsman in the history of art, with pure
power of line.
Just like Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Captain Beefheart, Heldon,
Magma, etc, etc--all could and did play "catchy melodies" when they so
felt like it. But, to return to Picasso, "When you're 18 and you've
painted out pristine realistic subjects [like Picasso in his blue
period], then where do you go?"
Any sensible artist goes where the muse leads, and if audiences don't
grasp it, whose problem is that?
Omar the Tentmaker
Om shanti
<steb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think this deserves a reasonable response, so I'll attempt.
I believe I understand thesis--correct me, if I'm wrong. You find that
RIO (silly term that it is) bands seem to prefer noisemaking and
fracture over thematic development. That's fair enough, but I think you
are missing what musicians here are doing.
What, first of all, is a "theme"? Need it be only a melody of five to
eight bars, singable by an average person with no training in music,
evenly pitched within a tenth interval or smaller, and presumably
repeated in case someone didn't get it the first time? I am sure you
know how limited this definition is, so I won't discourse. Still, the
idea that these folks' music is comprised of "fractured pastiches of
musically independent ideas, often abandoned just as soon as they are
suggested"--do you mean to imply that these musicians who are highly
trained, as you say, cannot link musical ideas together? I don't think
you'd say that, but that is sort of the subtext there, I think.
It is perfectly possible that seemingly unrelated "ideas" are in fact
related in a way you do not understand. For instance, I can lay out a
harmonic progression not according to 3rds or 5ths or 7ths, but rather
in diminished 4ths. Or, I could abandon harmony altogether and let the
melody of my improvisation supply the "chords" of the piece, with no
accompaniment. Or I could set one tone with overtones to a drone, and
continue to play "dissonant" intervals for 20 minutes before finally
allowing percussion to accompany. Or I could set a rule that each note
must be played before the other notes can be repeated. I could even set
a rule that each note is accompanied by a volume level and a note
value, and that each volume level and each note value must be played
before being repeated.
The result of course might sound like cacophony, but it's a rule, and
the notes are certainly interrelated, even if the listener doesn't
grasp the idea. Ask Paul Hindemith, or Ornette Coleman, or Ravi
Shankar, or Arnold Schoenberg, or Olivier Messiaen (channel them, if
need be, through the medium of your choice). That is hardly the fault
of the musician. Indeed, these are the reasons why I listen to music:
to discover something anew, a way of communicating beyond mere
singsong. Oddly when you mention abandoning themes immediately after
they are suggested, I thought of Yes, whom I've always thought of as
loose at best, yet no earnest prog rock maven would ever call them
compositionally incompetent (even if I often think they are).
Often what you hear in RIO are not unrelated ideas at all. Rather,
they're non-traditional structures: structure by rhythmic variation
independent of tone, structures of breathing intervals rather than
harmony, melody augmented or diminished in time. These ideas are not
new, just new to prog rock. Part of the enjoyment of RIO is deciphering
exactly how one "musically independent" is related to other "musically
independent" ideas. Part of the enjoyment, for me, of ANY music relies
on some detective work, like chasing down all the Lutheran chorale
fragments in Bach's Partita No 2 for solo violin, or the
To "suggest," as you say, that these people show compositional
immaturity, in spite of being "highly trained," is awful disingenuous.
Perhaps their ideas of composition are something that no longer have
anything to do with the circle of fifths, the 1-4-5 progression, the
incessant backbeat, or even with the ABACABA song form. Maybe
composition, and theme, and melody, and all those things we all hold so
dear, so fast to our minds as though for dear life--maybe we all need
to modify our ideas of what they might be, even though we're sure we
know.
That is what I understand to be "progressive" music. I could be wrong.
I certainly do get the sense that young firebrands often need a mask
for their own insecurity, so they resort to the type of art that allows
them "freedom." Free verse, free jazz, abstract expressionism--all can
hide a chicanery, certainly.
But do you ever get the impression that many artists hide behind the
banal and the standard and the rules because it's also a way of not
really saying anything, or putting an idea forth? It's funny: people
respond so vehemently to a challenge in their ideas that they go so far
as to say, "That's not art!"--as if art were an either/or proposition.
(I recall John Cage at Cornish saying, "Here's a buncha art for ya" and
gargling carrot juice into a microphone.) No one ever listens to
Richard Marx and says "That's not music!" or to Surface or Take 6 or
Blink 182 or Papa Roach and says "They don't know what they're doing!"
It's just the easy way. Nothing more. Nothing offered. Nothing gained.
Just time passed. The rules hide just as many scoundrels as the art
that draws those who would be without rules.
My $0.02
steblick
> steblick wrote:
>
> > rcar...@aol.computer (Robert Carlberg) wrote in message news:<20020517190139...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
> > > >reminds me of folks who go into the
> > > >modern art sections of museums and
> > > >make commments about Picasso,
> > > >Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not
> > > >knowing how to paint"
> > >
> > > Or Coltrane to play.
> >
> > A few comments from the original poster.
> >
> > I think you are misinterpreting my original point here. I was VERY
> > careful NOT to say that these RIO-Avant bands can't PLAY. So the two
> > comments above seem to have willfully missed my point.
>
> Not true. The latter comment is not really analogous, yes, but a great painter is as much great for his ideas as
> for his technique -- probably more so. The people who say that Picasso etc. "don't know how to paint" (i.e.
> "don't know how to paint realistically") is very similar to your statement that a lot of avant bands don't know
> how to write catchy melodies.
Not really analogous. The ability to paint refers to the painters'
technique or allegd lack thereof. My comment about some RIO refers to
compositional limitations. I truly wonder if they could come up with
first-class melodies; perhaps their musical minds simply cannot zone
in as well as others in the melody department. It may be their
compositional weak-point just as other bands fall short in the timbre,
texture or other departments.
SNIP Alex' excellent analysis of 5uu's/TP (btw I DO like 'Moondance'
as a composition).
> > Although I like these bands I sometimes find their music to be
> > fractured pastiches of musically independent ideas, often abandoned
> > just as soon as they are suggested. Interestingly, I don't find this
> > with U Totem's first, which I therefore find superior
> > compositionally.
>
> Weird -- I think U Totem's first has /exactly/ the problem you described, especially "Vagabond's Home," where
> Grigsby seems to ramble with only a moderate level of coherence.
Well, let me compare 5uu's to Picchio dal Pozzo who seem to me to be
superior in the composition dept. Although PdP are NOT RIO they share
some characteristics, and they certainly have one foot in the
avant-garde corner. Whhile PdP do have pastiche elements (i.e., the
'found' sounds) they serve to introduce themes, they don't become
musical themses by themselves. PdP weaves its musical themes in a
subtle manner such that segues between sections are not overt
start/stops of the TIO variety. There is a coherence and continuity
between ideas that bridges them together into a cohesive whole. When I
listen to 5uu's I think "Hey THAT'S an intersiting bit.." and then
just as I'm settling in for it, BOOM they're off in another direction.
I usually stay away from reviews that laud how a band changes its
musical themes every few seconds although some prog review sites seem
to mistankenly believe this jumpiness to represent virtuosity and
sophistication. To me it seems more like a high school girl changing
fashions every week.
>
> > One could look at this feature as as either being a quality of high
> > art or as one ofcompositional immaturity, the way young
> > skilled-but-unrefined writers/painters often display their virtuosity
> > without due regard for compositional balance.
>
> That is, assuming one found this feature to be present. There IS music your criticism applies very well to -- a
> lot of John Zorn comes to mind, or Mr. Bungle -- but I simply don't see it in Thinking Plague and 5uu's. Do you
> mind if I ask, how familiar are you with 20th century classical music? It seems to me that the structures and
> compositional devices used by Kerman and Johnson are actually quite similar to those used by composers like
> Bartok, Prokofiev and Stravinsky. And surely you're not calling THEM immature, are you?
>
I will not hesitate to admit that you (and most regulars on this
board) know more about music and musical history than I. But I have
trouble hearing the three above composers in RIO. The former two
seemed to me to incorportate a far greater element of Romanticism than
does RIO and although Bartok has that jumpy, dissonant edge, the hint
of Eastern folk melody ties it together more cohesively.
I do admit that I am speaking from a non-musician listener's viewpoint
but a critical, informed one I think. Then again, I'm sure someone is
likely to question my notion that PdP is compositionally coherent or
highly melodic (as you did with my thoughts on U Totem on the question
of coherence). I CAN add though that many prog fans and serious music
listeners have similar notions about cetain RIO bands.
Anyway, thank you for a thougfhtful post. I am interested in hearing
more about RIO bands and the connection to 20th century classical
music. I'm always aiming to educate my ear.
steblick
Alex Temple
> My comment about some RIO refers to
> compositional limitations. I truly wonder if they could come up with
> first-class melodies;
And I keep telling you they DO!
I'm sorry that YOU don't enjoy the types of melodies these bands create, but there are plenty of us who think they're
wonderful.
Hey btw -- check out Art Bears _Hopes and Fears_ and News from Babel _Work Resumed on the Tower_. Two of the most
freakin' gorgeous melodic RIO albums ever, especially the latter. If you think THOSE don't have any "first-class
melodies" ... well, I'd question whether you're even listening to it.
> (btw I DO like 'Moondance' as a composition).
You like "Moonsongs" from a compositional perspective and not the other pieces on _Moonsongs_ and _In This Life_? I
don't understand that. The only really jumpy piece on either of those albums is "Warheads." A lot of them ("Etude
for Combo", "Love", "The Guardian") stay with one or two motifs for the entire piece.
> Well, let me compare 5uu's to Picchio dal Pozzo who seem to me to be
> superior in the composition dept. Although PdP are NOT RIO they share
> some characteristics, and they certainly have one foot in the
> avant-garde corner. Whhile PdP do have pastiche elements (i.e., the
> 'found' sounds) they serve to introduce themes, they don't become
> musical themses by themselves. PdP weaves its musical themes in a
> subtle manner such that segues between sections are not overt
> start/stops of the TIO variety. There is a coherence and continuity
> between ideas that bridges them together into a cohesive whole. When I
> listen to 5uu's I think "Hey THAT'S an intersiting bit.." and then
> just as I'm settling in for it, BOOM they're off in another direction.
Again, what 5uu's have you listened to? While their transitions are often abrupt, there are also clear connections
between the motifs in the different sections. It's not "pastiche" in ANY meaningful description -- though U Totem's
"One Nail Draws Another" (which I adore, btw) most definitely IS.
(Incidentally, you might check out the new 5uu's, _Abandonship_ -- it may be more like Kerman's work with U Totem than
any other 5uu's release.)
Again ... if you can't hear it, don't assume it isn't there. Listen to it a lot and see if it clicks. And if it
doesn't, you don't have to continue to post this observation on RMP -- as you HAVE done before, in a thread called
"experimental music," in which we had the exact same pointless discussion.
> I will not hesitate to admit that you (and most regulars on this
> board) know more about music and musical history than I. But I have
> trouble hearing the three above composers in RIO. The former two
> seemed to me to incorportate a far greater element of Romanticism than
> does RIO and although Bartok has that jumpy, dissonant edge, the hint
> of Eastern folk melody ties it together more cohesively.
Univers Zero is so Bartok-influenced that I sometimes feel like Denis is a rip-off. Stravinsky -- well, he was
romantic sometimes, and sometimes not. Listen to "Le Sacre du Printemps," "Symphonies of Wind Instruments," "Concerto
for Piano and Winds," "Agon," and "The Owl and the Pussycat" and then compare to RIO bands (which, btw, it seems you
haven't heard that much of -- perhaps you'd enjoy some other ones more than TP/5uu's.)
As for Prokofiev, while he was often very Romantic, his 6th and 7th piano sonatas are UNBELIEVABLY RIO-ish at times,
especially the first movement of the 6th. Check it out -- it's fucking amazing stuff.
More importantly, I was talking about the compositional methods and structures more than the actual sounds of the
composers, each of whom tend to have their own distinct harmonic and melodic language, though the tendency seems to be
influences from dodecaphony, Middle Eastern folk music and jazz.
> Anyway, thank you for a thougfhtful post. I am interested in hearing
> more about RIO bands and the connection to 20th century classical
> music. I'm always aiming to educate my ear.
The best you could do to educate your ear in this department would be to take some difficult piece of music and listen
to it really carefully, a lot. If you find TP and 5uu's incoherent, maybe you could try some 'easier' RIO -- Volapük,
or Univers Zero, or Stormy Six's _L'Apprendista_. I've often found that I need to hear X to appreciate Y -- for
instance, when I first heard Henry Cow, I found them incoherent, but after I was familiar with TP, 5uu's, Biota, Art
Bears and U Totem, I fell in love with them. I think a familiarity with the aforementioned classical composers really
helps too.
--
Alex Temple - NP: Faust - The Faust Tapes (pastiche in EVERY meaningful sense :)
NJD
fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com says...
> NJD wrote:
>
> > In article <3CE5666F...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>,
> > fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com says...
> > > I thought it was fairly obvious that he meant "created with the intent of producing great
> > > art rather than with the intent of making a lot of money." Or, to put it more succinctly,
> > > "not a sellout."
> >
> > What a crock.
> >
>
> 'Scuse me?
What a crock. Seems clear enough.
The Lord Thy God
>> ... that cds who name themselves after other band's songs or album
>> titles are usually third-tier prog bands?
>
>Radiohead? Weidorje?
Ruins?
--
"Flames are discouraged, except for those which quote famous (or
not-so- famous) Stooge lines. For example, it would be acceptable to
threaten to 'tear out your tonsils' or to 'gouge your eyes out'."
- alt.comedy.slapstick.3-stooges FAQ
The Lord Thy God
>> Radiohead? Weidorje?
>
>FWIW, the song "Weidorje" on _Udu Wudu_ post-dates the existence of
>Weidorje the band, I believe.
Actually, no, but I still disqualify it on the grounds that the guys who wrote
the song were the same guys who were in the band.
steblick
Thanks for a very intelligent, well-written response. You present a
very good argument.
> I believe I understand thesis--correct me, if I'm wrong. You find that
> RIO (silly term that it is) bands seem to prefer noisemaking and
> fracture over thematic development. That's fair enough, but I think you
> are missing what musicians here are doing.
Actually that's slightly off the mark. "Noisemaking" is neither my
term nor intention. I like many of these individual pastiches arising
from RIO/Avant bands, I just wish they developed into more extended
themes where the interesting motifs can be better worked out. I find
instead that they are quickly abandoned, almost as if the author
doesn't want to accept further musical responsibility for the (often
interesting) idea.
>
> Still, the
> idea that these folks' music is comprised of "fractured pastiches of
> musically independent ideas, often abandoned just as soon as they are
> suggested"--do you mean to imply that these musicians who are highly
> trained, as you say, cannot link musical ideas together? I don't think
> you'd say that, but that is sort of the subtext there, I think.
I'd say that they often don't seem to link the ideas together well.
"Cannot" is too strong a term. Or perhaps the sudden shifts are a type
of avant dogma. But it doesn't help create good music IMO.
>
> It is perfectly possible that seemingly unrelated "ideas" are in fact
> related in a way you do not understand. For instance, I can lay out a
> harmonic progression not according to 3rds or 5ths or 7ths, but rather
> in diminished 4ths. Or, I could abandon harmony altogether and let the
> melody of my improvisation supply the "chords" of the piece, with no
> accompaniment. Or I could set one tone with overtones to a drone, and
> continue to play "dissonant" intervals for 20 minutes before finally
> allowing percussion to accompany. Or I could set a rule that each note
> must be played before the other notes can be repeated. I could even set
> a rule that each note is accompanied by a volume level and a note
> value, and that each volume level and each note value must be played
> before being repeated.
>
I am not musically knowledgeable enough to fully appreciate your
argument here. But, yes, it is entirely possible that the 'thematic'
element escapes my ear in this type of music. I'm not sure how the
introduction of 'rules' aids your argument here.
> The result of course might sound like cacophony, but it's a rule, and
> the notes are certainly interrelated, even if the listener doesn't
> grasp the idea. Ask Paul Hindemith, or Ornette Coleman, or Ravi
> Shankar, or Arnold Schoenberg, or Olivier Messiaen (channel them, if
> need be, through the medium of your choice). That is hardly the fault
> of the musician. Indeed, these are the reasons why I listen to music:
> to discover something anew, a way of communicating beyond mere
> singsong. Oddly when you mention abandoning themes immediately after
> they are suggested, I thought of Yes, whom I've always thought of as
> loose at best, yet no earnest prog rock maven would ever call them
> compositionally incompetent (even if I often think they are).
Looking at the first half of this paragraph leads meto believe that
such music would be cohesive only in a calculated, intellectual
manner. If the listener does not grasp it, either consciously or not
we are on the edge of self-indulgence here, the bane of much so-called
'high art'.
P.S. You shouldn't assume that the only alternative to this approach
would be 'singsong'.
>
> Often what you hear in RIO are not unrelated ideas at all. Rather,
> they're non-traditional structures: structure by rhythmic variation
> independent of tone, structures of breathing intervals rather than
> harmony, melody augmented or diminished in time. These ideas are not
> new, just new to prog rock. Part of the enjoyment of RIO is deciphering
> exactly how one "musically independent" is related to other "musically
> independent" ideas. Part of the enjoyment, for me, of ANY music relies
> on some detective work, like chasing down all the Lutheran chorale
> fragments in Bach's Partita No 2 for solo violin, or the
Yes, you may be right here and I'm not appreciating this element of
composition. But I can't help but get the feeling that such analysis
of the cohesion is somewhat post-hoc. For example, I could make
completely random music that COULD be analyzed after-the-fact as an
example of extreme and sophisticated complexity. Wasn't it Leibniz who
argued that any random smattering of dots on a sheet can be connected
by a pencil to form a cohesive shape? But then to say that the shape
is somehow planned or inherent in the dots...
>
> To "suggest," as you say, that these people show compositional
> immaturity, in spite of being "highly trained," is awful disingenuous.
> Perhaps their ideas of composition are something that no longer have
> anything to do with the circle of fifths, the 1-4-5 progression, the
> incessant backbeat, or even with the ABACABA song form. Maybe
> composition, and theme, and melody, and all those things we all hold so
> dear, so fast to our minds as though for dear life--maybe we all need
> to modify our ideas of what they might be, even though we're sure we
> know.
Well, you seem to be hinting that I'm something of a musical novice
(dilettante?) here as you've basically provided a
sophisticated-sounding argument saying basically that we should try to
open our minds to other forms of musical expression, ones that might
be at odds with our pre-conceived notions about correctness.
Trust me, I'm aware of this and enjoy the works of many progressive
and 'complex' writers and performers. But surely I can argue that some
of these seem better than others to me and that X is why I think so. I
think it unfair that you want to reduce me to someone who is simply
resisting moving beyond standard forms. I don't think you should have
got that impression from me.
> But do you ever get the impression that many artists hide behind the
> banal and the standard and the rules because it's also a way of not
> really saying anything, or putting an idea forth? It's funny: people
> respond so vehemently to a challenge in their ideas that they go so far
> as to say, "That's not art!"--as if art were an either/or proposition.
> (I recall John Cage at Cornish saying, "Here's a buncha art for ya" and
> gargling carrot juice into a microphone.) No one ever listens to
> Richard Marx and says "That's not music!" or to Surface or Take 6 or
> Blink 182 or Papa Roach and says "They don't know what they're doing!"
> It's just the easy way. Nothing more. Nothing offered. Nothing gained.
> Just time passed. The rules hide just as many scoundrels as the art
> that draws those who would be without rules.
Fine. But this has little to do with my argument. In fact it is a
pretty good straw man. Nowhere did I say "that's not art" or "that's
not music". I merely hinted that a certain aspect of a certain type of
musician's art does not seem to work so well. To reduce my point to an
assumption that I am resisting a challenge to my artistic
sensibilities is rather self-serving, rhetorically speaking. And,
interestingly, it is something of a hackneyed critique.
Still your message was good reading and you make some valid points.
steblick
steblick
thought so I doubt they'd say it out loud out of fear of being
labelled ignorant or a philistine. More likely that they try to wax
philosophical about it.
steblick
VS
> ... that a lot of those RIO bands don't know how to develop a musical
> theme, compositionally. That they abandon ideas, running off to the
> next one before the first one is complete?
Yes. But this applies to almost all prog bands. Rock/pop musicians and
composers rarely have the skill for properly developing ideas within
compositions.
> ... that a lot of the avant-garde bands became so because they really
> aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
No.
> ... that if you bought all the allegedly 'absolutely essential' albums
> as recommended by Prog review sites, you'd have a basis of about 3000
> cds?
No.
> ... that cds who name themselves after other band's songs or album
> titles are usually third-tier prog bands?
Yes. It's one of the stupidest things a band can do.
555
Bob Drake
> art or as one ofcompositional immaturity,
bd
Bob Drake
> art or as one ofcompositional immaturity,
You forgot: "they liked the way it sounded".
Sorry if this was posted more then once, I'm having troubles with the news
server connection.
Alex Temple
> In article <3CE5C904...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>,
> fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com says...
> > NJD wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3CE5666F...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>,
> > > fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com says...
> > > > I thought it was fairly obvious that he meant "created with the intent of producing great
> > > > art rather than with the intent of making a lot of money." Or, to put it more succinctly,
> > > > "not a sellout."
> > >
> > > What a crock.
> > >
> >
> > 'Scuse me?
>
> What a crock. Seems clear enough.
>
Which part of what I said is a crock? That there is such a thing as a sellout? That this is what
he meant by "non-commercial"?
--
Alex Temple - NP: Fred Frith - Gravity
Alex Temple
> I'm not sure how the introduction of 'rules' aids your argument here.
>
> Looking at the first half of this paragraph leads meto believe that
> such music would be cohesive only in a calculated, intellectual
> manner. If the listener does not grasp it, either consciously or not
> we are on the edge of self-indulgence here, the bane of much so-called
> 'high art'.
> Yes, you may be right here and I'm not appreciating this element of
> composition. But I can't help but get the feeling that such analysis
> of the cohesion is somewhat post-hoc.
[and so on]
I just wanted to say that for what it's worth, while I do enjoy analyzing music, I can hear the
thematic cohesiveness of a lot of this complex, avant-garde music without any analysis whatsoever. I
don't think musical training is necessary to appreciate RIO (or any of the other forms of experimental
music discussed here), just close attention, repeated listening and perhaps a taste for dissonance
(though that can be developed, like a taste for beer).
--
Alex Temple - NP: Fred Frith - Gravity (another album you might here clearer development in)
steblick
I do appreciate your well-thought out responses. Please understand
that I DO want to appreciate all kinds of music so your comments are
helpful in that department.
BUT at some point I wonder, is it my lack of appreciative skills or is
there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter. I worry
about the underlying notion hinted at here that every piece of
'complex' high art is somehow sacrosanct and thus beyond criticism. At
some point, if my ear is not getting it I have to at least contemplate
the possibility that the music is 'failing' in some respect.
BTW- I DO like these bands (OK- I don't like Henry Cow) but I feel
that this is a common weakness among them. And, yeah, maybe you're
right- I'm just not getting it. I'll keep trying, but I am
appreciative of 'difficult' arts, have a decent understanding of them
and believe I have a 'trained' ear. At some point, can't I
legitimately say, "I think the music is coming up short here"? After
all, as a reviewer you do that, don't you?
steblick
Om shanti
is what I'll deal with:
> I am not musically knowledgeable enough to fully appreciate your
> argument here. But, yes, it is entirely possible that the 'thematic'
> element escapes my ear in this type of music. I'm not sure how the
> introduction of 'rules' aids your argument here.
Well, the rules are set up before they are applied. They are therefore
the glue of the composition. Uncovering the rules leads to a deeper
understanding of the music, and I think a deeper understanding provides
deeper enjoyment. Dig?
> Looking at the first half of this paragraph leads me to believe that
> such music would be cohesive only in a calculated, intellectual
> manner. If the listener does not grasp it, either consciously or not
> we are on the edge of self-indulgence here, the bane of much so-called
> 'high art'.
>
> P.S. You shouldn't assume that the only alternative to this approach
> would be 'singsong'.
I don't necessarily assume that simply because an audience doesn't
understand something that they are stupid. Hardly so. But I don't think
that the inability of a listener to grasp a music means that the
musician in self-indulgent, either. The truth is that there are
different audiences with different ears.
For instance, I highly doubt that most Americans, however trained in
music, would be able to grasp something as simple to me as the proper
use of dastgah and radif in Persian music. It isn't that they're dumb,
simply that it's beyond their current experience. Being a real listener
to me is being an active listener, and an active listener would have to
learn the rules of Persian music to know exactly what is happening.
This is not to say that Persian music (or the aforementioned classical
music and jazz) is "calculated." On the contrary, music is always
understandable as pure sound, and certainly has a sensuous quality to
it, always, no matter how "sophisticated" the compositional aspect. I
don't have to know diddly about Persian music to like the way it
sounds, but--here's the crux of my point--the way it sounds is not the
sum total of the music, only one aspect, and to me the most
superficial.
BTW, I didn't mean "singsong" in a pejorative way; I meant it simply as
shorthand for music that is made to be sung easily. Sorry about that.
> Yes, you may be right here and I'm not appreciating this element of
> composition. But I can't help but get the feeling that such analysis
> of the cohesion is somewhat post-hoc. For example, I could make
> completely random music that COULD be analyzed after-the-fact as an
> example of extreme and sophisticated complexity. Wasn't it Leibniz who
> argued that any random smattering of dots on a sheet can be connected
> by a pencil to form a cohesive shape? But then to say that the shape
> is somehow planned or inherent in the dots...
Quite so, but often the dots are not random; they are in fact quite
planned. Distinguishing intention is always hard, but that's kind of
why we are alive, I think. To figure out a purpose in living. Such are
the conundrums of our lives.
I'm not reducing you at all to a "dilletante." I think I treated you
fairly, as a person of intelligence, because I believe you are. And I'm
not trying to sound sophisticated--god forbid. I am merely suggesting
that, because I think you're intelligent, that you might apply your
intelligence in a different way, with a little help, and thus make it
easier for you to listen to those things currently beyond your range of
taste. Believe me, I understand that some things are "better than
others to me." That's okay. But the question is always, "Better for
what?" For singing? For playing? For appeasing my tired body and brain
at the end of a long day of listening to opera snobs cajole and
ridicule fellow employees? Music may serve all those purposes, and more
still. Different music for different audiences. I'm just saying don't
dismiss music--ANY music--without understanding quite what you're
dismissing?
I tell you, there's a lot of music I can't stand. But I listen to it.
Three or four times, sometimes, till I feel like I know what the
musicians are doing. Then if I don't like it still, I just conclude
it's not for me, and go to the next thing. I can't genuinely, though,
dismiss something out of hand without trying to understand it,
otherwise I might miss something important. That's all I'm saying.
> Fine. But this has little to do with my argument. In fact it is a
> pretty good straw man. Nowhere did I say "that's not art" or "that's
> not music". I merely hinted that a certain aspect of a certain type of
> musician's art does not seem to work so well. To reduce my point to an
> assumption that I am resisting a challenge to my artistic
> sensibilities is rather self-serving, rhetorically speaking. And,
> interestingly, it is something of a hackneyed critique.
Actually, this isn't a straw man; it's a corollary (since you quoted
Leibniz, I'll use his term). Music that is easily accessible to an
average listener (and I've used three very vague terms here) is not
necessarily better than music that isn't, and vice versa. And I'll go
one further. I think _most_ musicians who play by the book are
genuinely stunted human beings who can't give up their honest feelings
or thoughts about what they're saying. But since their music is easily
assimilated while sitting in a cubicle, no one realizes what sort of
damage this does. There's much music that is smooth and melodic that
sucks your soul dry--turn on a smooth jazz channel for 10 minutes, and
you'll feel your bowels loosening.
I'm not saying you're resisting a challenge. I'm simply providing you
with more information, more ways of understanding. At least I hope so.
If I thought you were resisting the challenge, I wouldn't bother to
tell you things that I think would make your listening more
pleasurable, and that's really all I was trying to do.
Om shanti
Om shanti
<fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to say that for what it's worth, while I do enjoy analyzing
> music, I can hear the
> thematic cohesiveness of a lot of this complex, avant-garde music without any
> analysis whatsoever. I
> don't think musical training is necessary to appreciate RIO (or any of the
> other forms of experimental
> music discussed here), just close attention, repeated listening and perhaps a
> taste for dissonance
> (though that can be developed, like a taste for beer).
Quite agreed. See my response. I was merely saying that sometimes one
_must_ analyze something in order to like it. Which is not to say break
out Piston's treatise on Harmony or la-di-da. Analysis to me is,
simply, listening to a piece attentively, preferably more than once.
When I don't like something, I listen to it again. If I still don't
like it, I listen to it again, with full attention. If I still don't
like it, at least I can know why, rather than resorting to the old
cop-out "I just don't like it." It's hard to carry on a conversation
after that, and I love conversation.
FWIW.
Om shanti
A huge fan of Copland's "What to Listen for in Music"
Bob Drake
> there a flaw in the composition?
I think it's just a matter of taste. There aren't any "flaws", just "things
someone wanted to do" which might end up appealing to some listeners and not
others. I suppose if a band claimed that all their music was structured
according to some special method or insisted that they develop their themes
the same way as such and such classical composer but in fact didn't, then
you might be able to say it was "flawed" or at least they didn't know what
they were doing, but I think most people who make rock-type music of the
type we are talking about here are not making any attempt to follow
traditional rules of classical composition, whatever those might be. Maybe
some do, I don't know. People you've mentioned in this thread with whom I
have worked generally have only one desire as far as composing and arranging
and that's for the song to feel complete, whatever that means. None ever
claimed to be masters of thematic development but there are enough of those
already maybe over the centuries.
Anyway I know it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but there ya
go,
steblick
>> Any sensible artist goes where the muse leads, and if audiences
don't
> grasp it, whose problem is that?
>
wouldn't go that far but I would say that it encourages
self-indulgence. In such cases music can become self-referential, a
kind of musical 'in-joke' accessible only to the brain of the
composer. It'd be like a comedian doing a takeoff on the eccenticities
of his Uncle Mortie, who no one in the audience knows. Whose fault is
THAT?
Surely the artist has to play to an audience, thus he/she has to
consider how to connect with an audience. Without an audience the
musician is like the tree falling in the forest unheard...
This means that a good artist tempers and tames that muse and
formulats it in it a COMMUNICATIVE way, not turned inward into a kind
of isolated onanism. This type of compromise- going from the
inspirational muse to communicating it to others- takes talent! The
former, with its disdain for the audience, takes mere indulgence.
steblick
steblick
> > One could look at this feature as as either being a quality of high
> > art or as one ofcompositional immaturity,
> You forgot: "they liked the way it sounded".
>
that one need not ask this question as a prelude to liking something
but...).
Is it that you have a very sophisticated sense of thematic development
that is beyond mine and are thus able to appreciate that which seems
incoherent to me?
Maybe.
Or is it that you like the constant shifting of gears and untamed
experimentation for the same reason a teenage girl changes fashions
just as soon as she's tried on the previous outfit (i.e. lack of
extended focus or lack of will to see an idea fully develop- *I know
the last word is a loaded term*). I got the latter impression from
what I heard of Skull Mailbox, some 5uu's ('Equus' was an obvious
exception and thus the track that grabbed me the most).
Sorry to sound critical but I'm trying to articulate an honest
non-musician's response to some of your work.
steblick
Bob Drake
> that one need not ask this question as a prelude to liking something
> but...).
When you're working on something and it's "right" you don't even need to ask
yourself. You'll know because of goosebumps or a thrill or a laugh or
whatever, and when you don't feel like something is still needed to make it
feel "done".
> Is it that you have a very sophisticated sense of thematic development
> that is beyond mine and are thus able to appreciate that which seems
> incoherent to me?
Definitely not. For example I have never cared for Steely Dan. Chris Cutler
is always telling me how brilliant they are so I recently tried to listen to
The Royal Scam which he recommended. I couldn't make it more than halfway
through. I tried twice. I just don't care for it at all, I can't take it.
I'm not unable to comprehend the structures or something (which has nothing
to do with whether or not I like something btw) but simply the whole
character of the music is not appealing in any way to me. That wouldn't make
me say it has some kind of problem, or the people who made it were doing
something wrong or that someone who is crazy about it has some special
listening skill that I don't. It's a matter of taste.
> Sorry to sound critical but I'm trying to articulate an honest
> non-musician's response to some of your work.
That's alright, I was just trying to say I don't care if music is made to
follow some special formula or not, I can love it either way iand has
nothing to do with whether or not it appeals to me...and also to point out
that a lot of musicians don't try to stick to some special formula. One way
isn't "right" and the other "wrong" and neither require some special
"sophisticated" sense. Most people like something or not.
Comparing it to a teenage girl who has no attention span was silly and
doesn't deserve a response (and this sentence doesn't count :)
BD
Alex Temple
>
> Or is it that you like the constant shifting of gears and untamed
> experimentation for the same reason a teenage girl changes fashions
> just as soon as she's tried on the previous outfit
I cannot believe you just said that. I mean, it's one thing to
criticize someone's music (I've discussed my problems with _In Extremis_
with Mike Johnson somewhat extensively :), but you could at least have a
little courtesy. Yeesh.
--
Alex Temple
Alex Temple
>
> Om shanti <bc...@nospam-scn.org> wrote in message news:<180520020209261454%bc...@nospam-scn.org>...
> >> Any sensible artist goes where the muse leads, and if audiences
> don't
> > grasp it, whose problem is that?
> >
> I don't agree with this as a principle. Some would call it elitist. I
> wouldn't go that far but I would say that it encourages
> self-indulgence.
I would say that composing music is INHERENTLY self-indulgent. After
all, writing for a large audience gives us the crap that populates top
40 radio, or some of the pointless, trite crap that Mozart wrote for
royalty (as opposed to the good stuff that he wrote because HE wanted
to). On the other hand, writing out of personal conviction has given us
music like the late Beethoven string quartets, Le Sacre du Printemps and
Faust -- music that was largely unappreciated at the time but has come
to be loved by many after people "got used to it."
Because here's the thing -- while an artist (sort of) needs an audience,
it isn't necessary to write for that audience to get one. Most people
can create music that they love, and chances are there will be people
who enjoy it. If it's John Lennon, a ton of people will love it. If
it's Bob Drake, the audience will be smaller. But there is an audience
for both, and, in fact, for pretty much any music that can be created.
Alex Temple
>
> BUT at some point I wonder, is it my lack of appreciative skills or is
> there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
> former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter.
OK, I'm going to be blunt because I'm tired of you saying the same thing
over and over again: it IS the former. How do I know? Because I've
taken years of music theory, listened to highly complex music for ages,
and I write music in this style and I love it to death. I hear the
development very clearly. For you to say it isn't there is basically
for you to say that I'm hearing something that isn't there, which I
think is pretty presumptuous. So yes, I'm sorry to say it, but I
honestly think you don't get this music. It's just like when I listen
to mid-period Elliott Carter -- I can enjoy it on some level, but I know
I'm not getting it the way real Carter fans are. Now, I'm not saying
you can never get it -- the ear is highly trainable, and when I first
heard The Rite of Spring I thought it was meaningless chaos -- but, as
of now, no, I'm sorry, you're not hearing the music the way the composer
or most fans do.
> At some point, can't I
> legitimately say, "I think the music is coming up short here"? After
> all, as a reviewer you do that, don't you?
>
Actually, no. As a reviewer, I write about MY taste and why I don't
like something. OK, I might say something akin to what you're saying
here (say, about John Zorn), but I wouldn't pose it as objective fact --
and I certainly wouldn't argue about it with Zorn fans on a public forum.
--
Alex Temple - NP: After Dinner - Live Editions
Michael Borella
> Om shanti <bc...@nospam-scn.org> wrote in message news:<180520020253360673%bc...@nospam-scn.org>...
>
>> RIO (silly term that it is) bands seem to prefer noisemaking and
>> fracture over thematic development. That's fair enough, but I think you
>> are missing what musicians here are doing.
>
> Actually that's slightly off the mark. "Noisemaking" is neither my
> term nor intention. I like many of these individual pastiches arising
> from RIO/Avant bands, I just wish they developed into more extended
> themes where the interesting motifs can be better worked out. I find
> instead that they are quickly abandoned, almost as if the author
> doesn't want to accept further musical responsibility for the (often
> interesting) idea.
IMO this is the best part about RIO/avant - they tend not to wear out
melodies like so many other bands do. Repetition can be so dull...
--
Mike Borella
cath...@xnet.com
http://www.borella.net
VS
> steblick wrote:
>>
>> BUT at some point I wonder, is it my lack of appreciative skills or is
>> there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
>> former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter.
> OK, I'm going to be blunt because I'm tired of you saying the same thing
> over and over again: it IS the former. How do I know? Because I've
> taken years of music theory, listened to highly complex music for ages,
> and I write music in this style and I love it to death. I hear the
You remind me of Plato, who designated philosophers as the leaders of a
perfect state.
If to appreciate "Marteau sans Maītre" I have to either undertake years
and years of musical training or listen to the piece fifty or sixty times,
and I don't, who is to blame? Pierre or me?
A thirty-minute tape of toilet flushing will start to make artistical
sense if you listen to it enough.
555
Dgasque
steb...@hotmail.com (steblick) writes:
>BTW- I DO like these bands (OK- I don't like Henry Cow) but I feel
>that this is a common weakness among them. And, yeah, maybe you're
>right- I'm just not getting it. I'll keep trying, but I am
>appreciative of 'difficult' arts, have a decent understanding of them
>and believe I have a 'trained' ear. At some point, can't I
>legitimately say, "I think the music is coming up short here"? After
>all, as a reviewer you do that, don't you?
I wouldn't worry about it. You can take almost every genre there is and find
people who believe that certain groups/individuals have taken a good thing and
made it unnecessarily "difficult". OTOH, they can take other
groups/individuals and claim that they sold out to the mainstream crowd with
overly simplistic music.
--
=dg=
Alex Temple
>
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@ythistooahoo.com> wrote:
> > steblick wrote:
> >>
> >> BUT at some point I wonder, is it my lack of appreciative skills or is
> >> there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
> >> former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter.
>
> > OK, I'm going to be blunt because I'm tired of you saying the same thing
> > over and over again: it IS the former. How do I know? Because I've
> > taken years of music theory, listened to highly complex music for ages,
> > and I write music in this style and I love it to death. I hear the
>
> You remind me of Plato, who designated philosophers as the leaders of a
> perfect state.
>
> If to appreciate "Marteau sans Maītre" I have to either undertake years
> and years of musical training or listen to the piece fifty or sixty times,
> and I don't, who is to blame? Pierre or me?
>
Neither, really. But it's also not fair to call Boulez an "immature"
composer when there are people who really enjoy the piece. I'm not
saying steblick /has/ to make the effort to understand RIO -- but if
he's going to come on RMP and say it lacks x y and z, when it's clear
that he's not hearing something that fans of the music do, I think it's
fair to suggest that he make an effort to hear x y and z, since they are
obviously qualities he appreciates in music and THEY ARE THERE IN SPADES.
Anyway, as I said elsewhere in this thread, training should not be
necessary to appreciate any music. I mentioned my knowledge of music
theory because it gives me more credibility when I say that there IS
development in the music in question -- not only do I hear it
intuitively, but I could analyze it for you, if you really want.
And as for repeated listens, while they are important (how can you
possibly expect to 'get' a really complex piece on one listen? I can't
even remember most things after hearing them only once), a familiarity
with the style is much more so. There have been many 'avant' pieces and
albums that I liked immediately (even if I didn't fully understand
them), because I was already accustomed to the vocabulary of modernism.
A final point: it's perfectly possible to understand a piece and dislike
it. :)
> A thirty-minute tape of toilet flushing will start to make artistical
> sense if you listen to it enough.
>
Doubtful. More likely it'll start to induce thoughts of suicide.
--
Alex Temple - NP: Miriodor - Jongleries Elastiques
DTohir
>consider how to connect with an audience. Without an audience the
>musician is like the tree falling in the forest unheard...
>
>This means that a good artist tempers and tames that muse and
>formulats it in it a COMMUNICATIVE way, not turned inward into a kind
>of isolated onanism.
Nope.
Music's not communication, it's about making good sounds. The composer has only
his/her own ears to decide when this goal has been acomplished. Having done
this, an audience may or may not agree.
>This type of compromise- going from the
>inspirational muse to communicating it to >others- takes talent!
>The
>former, with its disdain for the audience, takes mere indulgence.
>
You have it more or less backwards. Once you begin compromising to gain an
audience you are no longer creating art, you are no creating a product. No
thanks.
TOIB
> If to appreciate "Marteau sans Maītre" I have to either undertake years
> and years of musical training or listen to the piece fifty or sixty times,
I appreciate that it gives me a headache :).
Regards,
--
Sean McFee
Sven Milliam
> steblick wrote:
>
> > My comment about some RIO refers to
> > compositional limitations. I truly wonder if they could come up with
> > first-class melodies;
>
> And I keep telling you they DO!
>
> I'm sorry that YOU don't enjoy the types of melodies these bands create, but there are plenty of us who think they're
> wonderful.
>
> Hey btw -- check out Art Bears _Hopes and Fears_ and News from Babel _Work Resumed on the Tower_. Two of the most
> freakin' gorgeous melodic RIO albums ever, especially the latter. If you think THOSE don't have any "first-class
> melodies" ... well, I'd question whether you're even listening to it.
I just got _Hopes and Fears_ a few weeks ago and it is how you
describe. With all due respect to steblick, having read his postings
for as long as I've been on this list (6 months), and deeming him a
rather open-minded fellow, I sense a little bit of the old (naive)
"dissonance =! melody" channeling itself through him. Some people,
even the most open-minded (that I know), still cling to that
comfort-zone known as major chord-driven melodies. They believe that
major chords = melody, and anything else is bordering on noise, even
if they do, respectfully, grudgingly, deem it genuinely experimental.
And though it may be present in a conflicting way, I do find some
context in the original post to suggest a bit of this. Why would one
need to casually observe that "do you ever notice that some RIO bands
tend to sound like they can't write a catchy melody/abandon themes?"
if not either to get reactionary responses (which I don't believe to
be the case here), or as a philisophical martyrdom, knowing others
will attack you for what appears to be a loaded generalization, so
said person may feel that stubborness borne out of other stubborness
is somehow justified, if the latter comes in droves (-me against the
world- syndrome).
I have debated a relevant issue with myself for a while now, and it is
this: I break up music, not by genre, but by its organic nature. That
is, how I feel the musicians weigh the creation of their music as pure
internal inspiration, or as a commercial endeavour. Of course, there
are extremes, but most artists fall somewhere in between. I then
looked at how most artists who I positioned towards the latter ("pop"
music, catering to the lowest common demoninator) tend to compose in
major chords. Simple major chords. Then I noticed that on the other
end of the spectrum (those who venture towards pure artistry) have a
much more diverse compositional palette. So why, when we think of
avant-garde, is the first thing that comes to mind usually "atonal"
and "dissonant"? Yes, many of the bands do explore these realms much
more than they do major chords (because there are more compositional
possibilities, perhaps?), but it is not so one-sided, as is the case
with the "pop". I have tended to conclude that this is the case
because of one's natural human reaction to extremes. Take for instance
the fact that most Christians in the United States identify their
religion with capitalism. Yet if you look at its origin, philosophy,
they would follow much more closely in line with that of communism. So
why does such a contradiction exist today? Because in the 19th
century, when Marx attached atheism to communism, Christianity then
needed to provide a counterpoint, rather than show political
compromise. The same case can be made between what is seen as
"commercial" and "non-commercial" musics. While it is clear ignorance
to say one type of music is "commercial", just based on the sound
created (and it would be irrational to say that one "gets a feeling
from a band's sound" and can thereby determine their musical
intentions, though I will admit to being guilty of this occasionally),
one can definitely find reason to believe that, culturally, there was
a point when mass-marketed (more accuratelly, mass-motivated) music
attached itself with major chord-driven composition, and the
artistically pure preferred to bind with the other extreme, so as not
to compromise its ideals. The question now is: Why would one be
motivated to expose the fraudulance of some who may not be able to
"write a catchy melody," without presenting any insight into such
musicians' musical philosophies. What struck the most attention in the
aforementioned para-quote was the inductive reasoning from which the
stereotype - commercial = major chords = "catchy" - is expounded. That
said, if steblick was trying to say that there are no catchy melodies,
as in memorable, that is pretty subjective. And even though I tend to
despise the use of the "but that's subjective" argument due to its
cop-out friendliness, in this case it would be pointless. In art,
pure, there is no melody. There is no structure. There are no rules.
> > I will not hesitate to admit that you (and most regulars on this
> > board) know more about music and musical history than I. But I have
> > trouble hearing the three above composers in RIO. The former two
> > seemed to me to incorportate a far greater element of Romanticism than
> > does RIO and although Bartok has that jumpy, dissonant edge, the hint
> > of Eastern folk melody ties it together more cohesively.
>
> Univers Zero is so Bartok-influenced that I sometimes feel like Denis is a rip-off. Stravinsky -- well, he was
> romantic sometimes, and sometimes not. Listen to "Le Sacre du Printemps," "Symphonies of Wind Instruments," "Concerto
> for Piano and Winds," "Agon," and "The Owl and the Pussycat" and then compare to RIO bands (which, btw, it seems you
> haven't heard that much of -- perhaps you'd enjoy some other ones more than TP/5uu's.)
Though some (pretentious people) would deem it sacrelige for me to say
meager rock bands have made advancements on the solidified
intellectaul/historical phenomenon that is Igor Stravinsky, I do
believe that to be the case; sonically, if anything. Stravinsky, while
being quite rebellious, lived in a time when the envelope was just
beginning to be pushed. And though, arguably, he may have taken the
musical envelope further than anyone in history, he was only able to
work under conditions not yet condusive to total radicalism.
Therefore, it can be determined that yes, he did work within certain
accepted compositional parameters, from time to time. That does not
subtract from his accomplishments; rather, makes it more
understandable why someone may consider his experimentations "tame" by
today's standards.
> As for Prokofiev, while he was often very Romantic, his 6th and 7th piano sonatas are UNBELIEVABLY RIO-ish at times,
> especially the first movement of the 6th. Check it out -- it's fucking amazing stuff.
>
> More importantly, I was talking about the compositional methods and structures more than the actual sounds of the
> composers, each of whom tend to have their own distinct harmonic and melodic language, though the tendency seems to be
> influences from dodecaphony, Middle Eastern folk music and jazz.
Right, and I think that invalidates someone's point, which was
(paraphrased) "the cohesive element that held Stravinsky's music
together was the folk element," as if to accuse him of the same
originating accusation of RIO bands, i.e. atonality cannot credibly
stand on its own, compositionally. That seems like a bias to me.
> > Anyway, thank you for a thougfhtful post. I am interested in hearing
> > more about RIO bands and the connection to 20th century classical
> > music. I'm always aiming to educate my ear.
>
> The best you could do to educate your ear in this department would be to take some difficult piece of music and listen
> to it really carefully, a lot. If you find TP and 5uu's incoherent, maybe you could try some 'easier' RIO -- Volapük,
> or Univers Zero, or Stormy Six's _L'Apprendista_. I've often found that I need to hear X to appreciate Y -- for
> instance, when I first heard Henry Cow, I found them incoherent, but after I was familiar with TP, 5uu's, Biota, Art
> Bears and U Totem, I fell in love with them. I think a familiarity with the aforementioned classical composers really
> helps too.
I agree.
Sven
Sven Milliam
> Reply to Alex, all snipped-
>
> I do appreciate your well-thought out responses. Please understand
> that I DO want to appreciate all kinds of music so your comments are
> helpful in that department.
>
> BUT at some point I wonder, is it my lack of appreciative skills or is
> there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
> former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter. I worry
> about the underlying notion hinted at here that every piece of
> 'complex' high art is somehow sacrosanct and thus beyond criticism. At
> some point, if my ear is not getting it I have to at least contemplate
> the possibility that the music is 'failing' in some respect.
Why make "complex" part of the issue? Some RIO is just as simple as
any pop music. What if an RIO band decides not to write in major
chords so as not to be musically redundant. Maybe they just think it
sucks. Maybe their desire is within a specific compositional realm,
without a care of any others. Why does it matter if they can or cannot
compose melodies that you find catchy? It doesn't, because,
ultimately, the only people of any relevance to a given piece of music
is the composers themselves. The listener may take what they will from
it, but the single important aspect is the consciousness that is
articulated through sound, when and only when those sounds are
originated. As long as the music originates from a pure artistic
standpoint, it is a porthole into the brilliance of the individual
human being, regardless the structure or sound. From all the music
I've listened to in my life (admittedly not much, compared to some),
in the rock context, I would definitely say that RIO is the closest to
artistic purity of any other rock genre.
> BTW- I DO like these bands (OK- I don't like Henry Cow) but I feel
> that this is a common weakness among them. And, yeah, maybe you're
> right- I'm just not getting it. I'll keep trying, but I am
> appreciative of 'difficult' arts, have a decent understanding of them
> and believe I have a 'trained' ear. At some point, can't I
> legitimately say, "I think the music is coming up short here"? After
> all, as a reviewer you do that, don't you?
I don't think this is directed towards me, specifically, so it would
be unfair to respond to any of it.
Sven
Sven Milliam
> Just like Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Captain Beefheart, Heldon,
> Magma, etc, etc--all could and did play "catchy melodies" when they so
> felt like it. But, to return to Picasso, "When you're 18 and you've
> painted out pristine realistic subjects [like Picasso in his blue
> period], then where do you go?"
>
> Any sensible artist goes where the muse leads, and if audiences don't
> grasp it, whose problem is that?
Amen!
Sven Milliam
> >> Any sensible artist goes where the muse leads, and if audiences
> don't
> > grasp it, whose problem is that?
> >
> I don't agree with this as a principle. Some would call it elitist. I
> wouldn't go that far but I would say that it encourages
> self-indulgence. In such cases music can become self-referential, a
> kind of musical 'in-joke' accessible only to the brain of the
> composer. It'd be like a comedian doing a takeoff on the eccenticities
> of his Uncle Mortie, who no one in the audience knows. Whose fault is
> THAT?
I take it you hated Andy Kaufman.
You don't have to be able to fully grasp the literal, because that's
not why your imaginary comedian goes on about his uncle Mortie. The
humor the comedian would be trying to present, clearly, would be
irony. Just as there isn't one solid definition of what is comedy,
there isn't one for music. There are different levels.
As far as music becoming self-referential, why would there be any
other good reason to compose? Pure, organic music: art, the exposition
of individual consciousness and imagination through sound. That is
self-referential. That is art.
> Surely the artist has to play to an audience, thus he/she has to
> consider how to connect with an audience. Without an audience the
> musician is like the tree falling in the forest unheard...
If I released an album, and no one "got it," but it made me feel great
performing or listening to it, I would be perfectly happy. If others
find something worthy in it, that's great, too. But that's a bonus,
not the reason I create music. The reason I create music is, as
previously stated, the exposition of my consciousness and imagination
through sound. The beautiful sounds in my head have a shimmering
effect when I can feel them, not just concieve them. You would call
that elitist because of your clinging to the teets of social
acceptance, as intellectual buffer-zone. If you drop that mentality
and really dive into the limitless possibilities of human
consciousness, you can separate art from entertainment.
> This means that a good artist tempers and tames that muse and
> formulats it in it a COMMUNICATIVE way, not turned inward into a kind
> of isolated onanism. This type of compromise- going from the
> inspirational muse to communicating it to others- takes talent! The
> former, with its disdain for the audience, takes mere indulgence.
Your justification of artistic compromise is almost as bad as your
comparing avant-garde composition to suburban teenage girls' fashion
habits.
Sven
steblick
> Comparing it to a teenage girl who has no attention span was silly and
> doesn't deserve a response (and this sentence doesn't count :)
>
Sorry about that. I was trying to make a concrete comparison to the
jumpiness and changeability I see in the music but I realize that my
comparison was far too perjorative. My apologies.
BTW- Alex, i can't help but wonder whether Mike Johnson's reactions to
your criticism of IE is similar to how you are responding to me...
steblick
Om shanti
<fibeREMOVE...@yTHISTOOahoo.com> wrote:
> I would say that composing music is INHERENTLY self-indulgent. After
> all, writing for a large audience gives us the crap that populates top
> 40 radio, or some of the pointless, trite crap that Mozart wrote for
> royalty (as opposed to the good stuff that he wrote because HE wanted
> to). On the other hand, writing out of personal conviction has given us
> music like the late Beethoven string quartets, Le Sacre du Printemps and
> Faust -- music that was largely unappreciated at the time but has come
> to be loved by many after people "got used to it."
>
> Because here's the thing -- while an artist (sort of) needs an audience,
> it isn't necessary to write for that audience to get one. Most people
> can create music that they love, and chances are there will be people
> who enjoy it. If it's John Lennon, a ton of people will love it. If
> it's Bob Drake, the audience will be smaller. But there is an audience
> for both, and, in fact, for pretty much any music that can be created.
Couldn't have said it better, Alex.
This idea that there is ONE hegemonic audience is really poisonous.
Audiences are always ad hoc, and they are always changing. To define
"their" tastes in some broad way is kinda silly.
Since you mention Beethoven, I'm sure you know this study, but I
thought I'd repeat it anyway. Upon handing his Quartet No 13 to the
chamber group, Beethoven heard the musicians tell him, "It is
unplayable! Violins cannot play this." To which Ludwig's response was,
"What do I care for your fucking fiddles?"
Later that day, Beethoven wrote in his diary, "Someday in the future,
people will be ready, and my Great Fugue will be there for them."
Of course, the Grosse Fugue is considered one of the masterpieces of
classical music now, but it certainly wasn't at the time. So, again,
whose problem is that?
Om shanti
steblick
> steblick wrote:
> >
> > BUT at some point I wonder, is it my lack of appreciative skills or is
> > there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
> > former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter.
>
> OK, I'm going to be blunt because I'm tired of you saying the same thing
> over and over again: it IS the former. How do I know? Because I've
> taken years of music theory, listened to highly complex music for ages,
> and I write music in this style and I love it to death. I hear the
> development very clearly. For you to say it isn't there is basically
> for you to say that I'm hearing something that isn't there, which I
> think is pretty presumptuous. So yes, I'm sorry to say it, but I
> honestly think you don't get this music. It's just like when I listen
> to mid-period Elliott Carter -- I can enjoy it on some level, but I know
> I'm not getting it the way real Carter fans are. Now, I'm not saying
> you can never get it -- the ear is highly trainable, and when I first
> heard The Rite of Spring I thought it was meaningless chaos -- but, as
> of now, no, I'm sorry, you're not hearing the music the way the composer
> or most fans do.
>
up.
> > At some point, can't I
> > legitimately say, "I think the music is coming up short here"? After
> > all, as a reviewer you do that, don't you?
> >
> Actually, no. As a reviewer, I write about MY taste and why I don't
> like something. OK, I might say something akin to what you're saying
> here (say, about John Zorn), but I wouldn't pose it as objective fact --
> and I certainly wouldn't argue about it with Zorn fans on a public forum.
Hey hey hey! I did not post it as an objective fact! The original
hedge was, "Do you ever get the impression...". I've hedged throughout
this thread, saying "It seems to me..." or "Could it be X?" even
offering the likelihood of my shortcomings as a listener. You do have
a habit of taking inquiry as a zero-sum argument and treating your
interlocutor as making blanket statements.
And, btw, this isn't a RIO forum. My question has allowed some people
to articulate positive qualities about the music. That's a good thing.
I assume that this is what these boards are for. I'm disturbed (not
REALLY but...) that you seem to take my approach as aggressive and
intrusive. I feel (save my comment to Bob) that I've gone out of my
way to be honest and open-minded.
btw- I've seen a number of your reviews and yes you do seem to make
many statements and criticisms that are much like mine in substance. I
could quote a bunch but I don't have the time. I think its unfair that
you can question certain features of composition in certain
genres/bands in your reviews but then treat my highly hedged comments
as somehow infelicitous because I'm bringing into question (and only
question- not objective fact) music that you like. Disagree and
explain to me why, fine. But don't treat me like a rhetorical pariah
for bringing it up!
steblick
steblick
> steb...@hotmail.com (steblick) wrote in message news:<3f0bb5ba.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>> >
> > there a flaw in the composition? I am open to the possibility of the
> > former but I don't think we can always rule out the latter. I worry
> > about the underlying notion hinted at here that every piece of
> > 'complex' high art is somehow sacrosanct and thus beyond criticism. At
> > some point, if my ear is not getting it I have to at least contemplate
> > the possibility that the music is 'failing' in some respect.
>
> Why make "complex" part of the issue? Some RIO is just as simple as
> any pop music. What if an RIO band decides not to write in major
> chords so as not to be musically redundant. Maybe they just think it
> sucks. Maybe their desire is within a specific compositional realm,
> without a care of any others. Why does it matter if they can or cannot
> compose melodies that you find catchy? It doesn't, because,
> ultimately, the only people of any relevance to a given piece of music
> is the composers themselves. The listener may take what they will from
> it, but the single important aspect is the consciousness that is
> articulated through sound, when and only when those sounds are
> originated. As long as the music originates from a pure artistic
> standpoint, it is a porthole into the brilliance of the individual
> human being, regardless the structure or sound. From all the music
> I've listened to in my life (admittedly not much, compared to some),
> in the rock context, I would definitely say that RIO is the closest to
> artistic purity of any other rock genre.
You're right. Complexity should not be an issue here. It can be used
well or shoddily. I certainly balk at some artists who I THINK are
using complexity for complexity's sake or reviewers who laud
complexity simply because it is complex, and not because it is
'successful'.
btw- If the only agent of importance is the composer how can you argue
the importance of 'articulation through sounds'. Surely the latter
requires the concept of communication, which involves a contract with
a listener and turns the unmeditated art form into (at least at some
level) a product. I see an inconsistency in your argument here.
steblick
steblick
Well I've always wondered about the notion of taste as a kind of
bottom line. Let me put it this way. I'm sure there is some music out
there that you think is pure crap or nonsense. How would you justify
your feelings about this music? Would you say that it is just taste
and that if another person likes it has as much legitimacy as your own
likes? My feeling is that a lot of people who play the 'taste card'
when someone expresses doubt about the music THEY like, are very quick
to apply quite different criteria when talking about, say, Michael
Bolton (or Deyss).
Let me pre-empt one possible objection here. By not wanting to reduce
all aesthetic appreciation to matters of taste I am not saying that
there are scientific, objective standards for likes and dislikes (this
false dilemma is often presented on RMP). But are there not
identifiable, reasonable criteria for justifying likes/dislikes that
goes further than merely saying, "It suits/doesn't suit my taste"?
And isn't that what good reviewers and critics do? Not merely STATE
their taste but justify it too?
steblick
steblick
> aren't adept at creating catchy melodies (even 'non-commercial' ones)?
Actually, the reason this comes to mind is that some excellent local
musicians that I've known who were jazz or avant-oriented really DID
have trouble coming up with hummable melodies. They were great with
avant-jazz themes but really could not create more catchy (and I mean
this in the good- not top 40 pap- sense) stuff.
No huge criticism here. Everybody has their own musical strengths and
weaknesses. Remember Gentle Giant singing, "Betch a thought we
couldn't do it!"? I remember listening to that and thinking, "Actually
guys you DIDN'T do it".
Not that GG didn't create catchy melodies, they did, but in fact it
seems that they weren't so adept at using- ahem- straighter forms.
steblick
steblick
>> Nope.
> Music's not communication, it's about making good sounds. The composer has only
> his/her own ears to decide when this goal has been acomplished. Having done
> this, an audience may or may not agree.
So there is no intended audience?!? These sounds are not being
'communicated'?
Also- it seems that by this criteria that any work of
(self-proclaimed) art is sacrosanct, beyond criticism. Come on- isn't
this just a failsafe device for an artist ("Well it means something to
me!")?
>
>
> >This type of compromise- going from the
> >inspirational muse to communicating it to >others- takes talent!
> >The
> >former, with its disdain for the audience, takes mere indulgence.
> >
>
> You have it more or less backwards. Once you begin compromising to gain an
> audience you are no longer creating art, you are no creating a product. No
> thanks.
Why this dichotomy between art and product? What is artistically
reprehensible about making a product? All art is a form of
communication. If it is not a product it would seem to me to have no
viability as an art form. By analogy what point would there be in
speaking to you in Japanese (assuming you don't understand Japanese)
if I knew you couldn't understand? Could I justify it by saying that I
felt my Japanese was beautiful to me? Surely I have to consider the
object in a communicative process and not just the whims of the agent!
steblick
Alex Temple
> BTW- Alex, i can't help but wonder whether Mike Johnson's reactions to
> your criticism of IE is similar to how you are responding to me...
Nah. I never called him a bad composer. (In fact, I've said just the
opposite many times.) My criticism of In Extremis is mostly that I don't
like a lot of the synth tones on it, and that I don't like "Les Etudes
d'Organism" (which, according to MJ, was not originally intended to be
released). While it's quite possible that I don't "get" what he was trying
to do, it's more likely just a difference of taste -- which is not the same
as what you're saying.
--
Alex Temple
DTohir
sounds are similar to her's/his.
>These sounds are not being
>'communicated'?
Yes. That is what I said.
>Also- it seems that by this criteria that any work of
>(self-proclaimed) art is sacrosanct, beyond criticism.
Not true at all.
> Come on- isn't
>this just a failsafe device for an artist ("Well it means something to
>me!")?
No.
>> >This type of compromise- going from the
>> >inspirational muse to communicating it to >others- takes talent!
>> >The
>> >former, with its disdain for the audience, takes mere indulgence.
>> >
>>
>> You have it more or less backwards. Once you begin compromising to gain an
>> audience you are no longer creating art, you are no creating a product. No
>> thanks.
>
>
>Why this dichotomy between art and product? What is artistically
>reprehensible about making a product?
Depends how one goes about it. You can certainly make a product of art, but if
the notion of product comes first the art almost always is absent.
>All art is a form of
>communication.
Nope. Certainly not music, at least not in any concrete way.
>If it is not a product it would seem to me to have no
>viability as an art form.
The number of composers & artists who we now revere who were "failures" in a
product sense in their lifetimes are enormous.
>By analogy what point would there be in
>speaking to you in Japanese (assuming you don't understand Japanese)
>if I knew you couldn't understand? Could I justify it by saying that I
>felt my Japanese was beautiful to me?
Bad analogy. Music is not language. It is communicating nothing.
>Surely I have to consider the
>object in a communicative process and not just the whims of the agent!
>
Though, as I have already stated, your analogy is flawed, let's go ahead & use
it here anyway. You seem to be finding fault with the composer/artist who
"speaks to [one] in Japanese", without caring that Japanese is that
composers/artists native language. Why expect her/him to learn a new language
to suit you?
steblick
> other good reason to compose? Pure, organic music: art, the exposition
> of individual consciousness and imagination through sound. That is
> self-referential. That is art.
Sounds more like solipsism to me.
>
> If I released an album, and no one "got it," but it made me feel great
> performing or listening to it, I would be perfectly happy.
If I created something but no one 'got it' or appreciated it, I would
assume that I had failed. Pleasing myself is hardly a criteria to
judge artistic worth.
> If others
> find something worthy in it, that's great, too. But that's a bonus,
> not the reason I create music. The reason I create music is, as
> previously stated, the exposition of my consciousness and imagination
> through sound. The beautiful sounds in my head have a shimmering
> effect when I can feel them, not just concieve them. You would call
> that elitist because of your clinging to the teets of social
> acceptance, as intellectual buffer-zone.
Damn right I am! What you are saying that whatever an individual feels
is worthy MUST BE worthy because he feels that way about it. That's
solipsism.
Worth is a collective notion. You can have legitimate private feelings
about something you create but unless it is appreciated by others it
is not 'worth-y'. You can tell yourself that you are special until you
are blue in the imagination but I think most people would see this as
a state of denial.
>If you drop that mentality
> and really dive into the limitless possibilities of human
> consciousness, you can separate art from entertainment.
Don't you mean solipsism from communication? C'mon play catch up here
and don't go cosmic on me. I'm not buying this tired old mantra!
>
> > This means that a good artist tempers and tames that muse and
> > formulats it in it a COMMUNICATIVE way, not turned inward into a kind
> > of isolated onanism. This type of compromise- going from the
> > inspirational muse to communicating it to others- takes talent! The
> > former, with its disdain for the audience, takes mere indulgence.
>
> Your justification of artistic compromise is almost as bad as your
> comparing avant-garde composition to suburban teenage girls' fashion
> habits.
Compromise is a wonderful skill. There is a world out there from which
we are inspired and which we subsequently must address. Interaction
demands compromise. We are not monks isolated in prayer. Get over it.
;-)
steblick
Bob Drake
> opposite many times.) My criticism of In Extremis is mostly that I don't
> like a lot of the synth tones on it, and that I don't like "Les Etudes
> d'Organism"
Well Alex you know I agree with you about that, in fact it was during Les
Etudes when I thought we'd lost the TP vibe and I left. And "Weird Wind"
wasn't TP at all, it was a different project that never got off the ground
(perhaps it's a good thing :) and I wasn't so happy that it was included on
the last CD....Mike and I have talked a lot about that too.
steblick
> >So there is no intended audience?!?
> Not exactly. There is the composer and there are those who's notion of good
> sounds are similar to her's/his.
OK. I didn't mean that one should tailor one's sound to a 'succesful'
formula. I think we'd both agree that this would be a negative
compromise or, a sellout. But I do think the composer has to think
about the listener, to take the listener's perspective, to understand
how this work may be perceived by a listener. I would think that this
is a basic responsibility of an artist.
Let me put it another way. If I was making cds that virtually no one
bought, and my live performances drew virtually no positive reaction,
I would think I was doing something wrong. Or at least, I would be
hard pressed to think of myself as an artist, any moreso than someone
who sits around thinking can call himself a Philosopher. I would
assume that the beauty I am hearing in my ideas is not being
adequately passed through to my audience, that there is a flaw in my
work.
> >These sounds are not being
> >'communicated'?
>
> Yes. That is what I said.
The communication may not be propositional in nature but you'd be hard
pressed to find any philosopher, aesthetician or social scientist
who'd agree with that statement.
>
> >Also- it seems that by this criteria that any work of
> >(self-proclaimed) art is sacrosanct, beyond criticism.
>
> Not true at all.
Why not? What I hear you (and Sven) saying is that if it sounds right
to the composer and the audience doesn't accept it that it is NOT the
composer's fault! Well virtually every composer can then make this
claim!
Moreover, I don't think it's a helpful or inspirational one for
struggling musicians. Taking the attitude that no one understands my
music but I know it is beautiful is a cop-out and a good excuse to
stay in the bedroom twiddling your thumbs, telling yourself that
you're ahead of your time or that society doesn't care about art of
other self-serving bunk. Better to say, OK, I'm fallling short somehow
here. I've got some good ideas but dammit I've got to tweak them and
adjust them to get my music across, to allow the audience to hear what
I'm doing. The latter is positive and helps advance the musician's
skill in communication. The former is more akin to masturbation.
>
> > Come on- isn't
> >this just a failsafe device for an artist ("Well it means something to
> >me!")?
>
> No.
See above.
>
> >
> >Why this dichotomy between art and product? What is artistically
> >reprehensible about making a product?
>
> Depends how one goes about it. You can certainly make a product of art, but if
> the notion of product comes first the art almost always is absent.
True but I don't see art and product as polar opposites, which was the
way you presented them. Good art turns out to be a damn good product.
The art shold come first but the notion as to how that art will
project outside the artists' mind into the surrounding world is an
absolutely crucial variable for any artist.
>
> >All art is a form of
> >communication.
>
> Nope. Certainly not music, at least not in any concrete way.
see above.
>
> >If it is not a product it would seem to me to have no
> >viability as an art form.
>
> The number of composers & artists who we now revere who were "failures" in a
> product sense in their lifetimes are enormous.
I hope struggling artists don't keep telling themselves this as a
pacifier instead of working on their product. How many of us can
honestly go around believing that we are misunderstood Mozarts (and
keep a straight face).
Anyway, most 'failed' artists who were subsequently revered DID have
admirers, even though they weren't the general public.
>
> >By analogy what point would there be in
> >speaking to you in Japanese (assuming you don't understand Japanese)
> >if I knew you couldn't understand? Could I justify it by saying that I
> >felt my Japanese was beautiful to me?
>
> Bad analogy. Music is not language. It is communicating nothing.
>
> >Surely I have to consider the
> >object in a communicative process and not just the whims of the agent!
> >
>
> Though, as I have already stated, your analogy is flawed, let's go ahead & use
> it here anyway. You seem to be finding fault with the composer/artist who
> "speaks to [one] in Japanese", without caring that Japanese is that
> composers/artists native language. Why expect her/him to learn a new language
> to suit you?
OK I think this analogy has gone way off course- I don't quite follow
your point here (the composer having to learn a NEW musical language
to suit the intended listener???). My basic point is that any
EXPRESSION is meaningful not only in terms of an agent making the
expression but also in terms of the uptake of that expression (aka
'object'). If music is not meant to be heard by somebody then I really
don't know what it's for. In denying this, you are on very weak
discursive ground, similar to what I called solipsism to Sven.
steblick
steblick
> VS wrote:
> >
> > >
> Neither, really. But it's also not fair to call Boulez an "immature"
> composer when there are people who really enjoy the piece. I'm not
> saying steblick /has/ to make the effort to understand RIO -- but if
> he's going to come on RMP and say it lacks x y and z, when it's clear
> that he's not hearing something that fans of the music do, I think it's
> fair to suggest that he make an effort to hear x y and z, since they are
> obviously qualities he appreciates in music and THEY ARE THERE IN SPADES.
>
>
merely suggested that to me, SOME of these works reek of immature
(jumpy, pastiche) composition. That's all. Please don't overreach what
I have stated.
The fact is that I AM trying to understand/appreciate this music which
I why I'm responding on this thread to what you say. I'm trying to get
a grasp on it by questioning some of it and, yes, I've admitted that
perhaps my ear does fall short with some of this stuff. Your
explanations and suggestions have been very helpful and I appreciate
them. I will keep listening and fine tuning.
Also, please understand that I DO like most of this stuff. As I write,
I'm listening to Tipographica and it sounds wonderful. I just had to
work out whether people thought there might be a compositional problem
with this 'pastiche' element in the genre. You have argued otherwise.
Fine. But don't get the impression that I'm not making the effort or
(worse) that I'm trolling RIO fans on RMP. I think I've made too much
of an effort to express my ideas to be put into that category.
You seem to portray me as someone who come in and done a hackjob on
music you like and that you are tired of my insolence. That's
unfortunate because I've found this discussion enlightening and
helpful.
steblick
Noah Samuel Lesgold
> >By analogy what point would there be in
> >speaking to you in Japanese (assuming you don't understand Japanese)
> >if I knew you couldn't understand? Could I justify it by saying that I
> >felt my Japanese was beautiful to me?
>
> Bad analogy. Music is not language. It is communicating nothing.
"There are those who say that music is a universal language. To test
this, try telling an Eskimo that his pants are on fire using only a
kazoo." -- Tom Weller, _Cvltvre Made Stvpid_ (possibly slightly
paraphrased)
--
Noah Lesgold http://cif.rochester.edu/~nlesgold/
nles...@cif.rochester.edu AIM: nlesgold ICQ: 132716231
"It is clear to me, and to other thinking people, that when someone says
"I just got this Contraction album and I find it very enjoyable," they
really mean, "ME HAVE BIG DICK!! YOU LITTLE DICK! HA HA HA BIIIIG DICK!
(Spock's Beard sucks)." Such people must be stopped before their
intolerance impinges on the comeback of prog."
--Sean McFee
Alex Temple
Mm, but the opening and the ending of Weird Wind are delicious...
Alex Temple
> > If I released an album, and no one "got it," but it made me feel great
> > performing or listening to it, I would be perfectly happy.
>
> If I created something but no one 'got it' or appreciated it, I would
> assume that I had failed. Pleasing myself is hardly a criteria to
> judge artistic worth.
>
> Worth is a collective notion. You can have legitimate private feelings
> about something you create but unless it is appreciated by others it
> is not 'worth-y'.
Prog must really suck then, seeing how its audience is so small.
> Compromise is a wonderful skill.
In art, it's often called "selling out."
DTohir
>formula. I think we'd both agree that this would be a negative
>compromise or, a sellout. But I do think the composer has to think
>about the listener, to take the listener's perspective, to understand
>how this work may be perceived by a listener. I would think that this
>is a basic responsibility of an artist.
>
And I would disagree. The only responsibility a composer has (if you want to
call it that) is to create.
>Let me put it another way. If I was making cds that virtually no one
>bought, and my live performances drew virtually no positive reaction,
>I would think I was doing something wrong. Or at least, I would be
>hard pressed to think of myself as an artist, any moreso than someone
>who sits around thinking can call himself a Philosopher. I would
>assume that the beauty I am hearing in my ideas is not being
>adequately passed through to my audience, that there is a flaw in my
>work.
>
Assuming that you had done the requisite work in honing your craft, why assume
that there is a flaw? Why not assume that what pleases you is something that
most others don't find so pleasing?
>> >These sounds are not being
>> >'communicated'?
>>
>> Yes. That is what I said.
>
>The communication may not be propositional in nature but you'd be hard
>pressed to find any philosopher, aesthetician or social scientist
>who'd agree with that statement.
>>
Among the many composers & musicians with whom I've discussed this, it is the
view of the vast majority.
Very rarely.
>The art shold come first but the notion as to how that art will
>project outside the artists' mind into the surrounding world is an
>absolutely crucial variable for any artist.
>>
>> >All art is a form of
>> >communication.
>>
>> Nope. Certainly not music, at least not in any concrete way.
>
>see above.
>>
>> >If it is not a product it would seem to me to have no
>> >viability as an art form.
>>
>> The number of composers & artists who we now revere who were "failures" in
>a
>> product sense in their lifetimes are enormous.
>
>I hope struggling artists don't keep telling themselves this as a
>pacifier instead of working on their product. How many of us can
>honestly go around believing that we are misunderstood Mozarts (and
>keep a straight face).
>Anyway, most 'failed' artists who were subsequently revered DID have
>admirers, even though they weren't the general public.
>>
Which would describe the RIO artists who you were complaining about to start
this thread, no?
Jim Chokey
news:3f0bb5ba.02051...@posting.google.com...
> rcar...@aol.computer (Robert Carlberg) wrote in message
news:<20020517190139...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
> > >reminds me of folks who go into the
> > >modern art sections of museums and
> > >make commments about Picasso,
> > >Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not
> > >knowing how to paint"
> >
> > Or Coltrane to play.
>
> A few comments from the original poster.
>
> I think you are misinterpreting my original point here. > I was VERY
> careful NOT to say that these RIO-Avant bands can't PLAY.
No, instead you said that they CAN'T come up with catchy
melodies... Perhaps it will help if I amend my above comment to "that
Picasso, Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock, etc. CAN'T paint
realistically". (That is, after all, what folks who make
such comments actually mean when they say that this-or-
that artist "can't paint".) Their assumption, apparently, is
that anyone who could paint realistically would choose
to do so... just as your assumption seems to be that anyone
who could write "catchy melodies" would choose to
do so.
I'll leave Robert to respond re: his comment on Coltrane, if
he chooses to do so.
> So the two
> comments above seem to have willfully missed my point.
If I've missed your point, it wasn't willfully so. But to be
honest, I don't think we missed your point at all. I think
we just disagree with it and responded in a somewhat
teasing/mocking fashion.... which, I think, was wholly
in the same spirit with which you began this thread.
-- Jim C.
Jim Chokey
responded to steblick:
> No, instead you said that they CAN'T come up with catchy
> melodies... Perhaps it will help if I amend my above comment to "that
> Picasso, Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock, etc. CAN'T paint
> realistically".
Oh wait... I DID write that the first time:
>> Why does this remind me of folks who go into the modern art
>> sections of museums and make commments about Picasso,
>> Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not knowing how to paint"
>>(by which, of course, they mean "not knowing how to paint
>> recognizable objects in a realistic manner").
It's just that you hadn't quoted my comment in full.
-- Jim C.
Jim Chokey
> > Mondrion, Kandinsky, Pollock "not knowing how to paint"
> > (by which, of course, they mean "not knowing how to paint
>
> Actually, does anybody really do this in a museum?
Sure they do. I've heard it many a time. Then again, it's true that I've
probably heard such comments more often outside of museums when
the subject of those painters (or about abstract painting, or "modern
art" in general, for that matter) came up.
>Even if they really
> thought so I doubt they'd say it out loud out of fear of being
> labeled ignorant or a philistine.
And not without reason, I'd add. I can certainly understand
someone not necessarily *liking* some of the above artists--
or even abstract painting in general. (It's just not to their
tastes or whatever... that's how I feel about most baroque
and rococo painting.) But to condemn an artist as
"not knowing how to paint" simply because s/he paints
in a style one don't appreciate-- or to assume that
painting can only be worthwhile if it's a versimilitudinous
realism-- well, I think that *does* show a good deal
of ignorance about the history of painting.
> More likely that they try to wax
> philosophical about it.
In my experience, folks who make such comments usually
don't actually think enough about art to be able to wax
philosophically about it. In fact, engaging in a brief dialogue
with them over just some basic questions like "What is
art?" will often reveal that they're not actually interested
in it at all... Then again, it sometimes often leads to great
discussions that may get them (or you) to open their eyes
to something that they had never considered before.
This is at somewhat of a tangent to the discussion of music,
I know, but I think the situation is analogous (which is why
I made the analogy in the first place).
-- Jim C.
Zero the Hero
> this, try telling an Eskimo that his pants are on fire using only a
> kazoo." -- Tom Weller, _Cvltvre Made Stvpid_ (possibly slightly
> paraphrased)
Hey, I have/had this book. I think I remember that line too :-)
0
Noah Samuel Lesgold
Heh. Yeah, both that one and _Science Made Stupid_ have some
exquisite parody and satire, and a ton of groaner puns. Apparently
it's pretty hard to find these days, being OOP. Pity.
--
Noah Lesgold http://cif.rochester.edu/~nlesgold/
nles...@cif.rochester.edu AIM: nlesgold ICQ: 132716231
"But mostly, I pondered revenge. Revenge and monkeys. Monkeys are funny."
-- Gregor Mendel
Alex Temple
> Are you of the opinion that one must be 'selling out' if you suddenly
> start selling more records than before?
No.
> Are you of the opinion that
> anyone who Shifts Big Units must be making inferior art to those that
> don't?
No.
> Are you of the opinion that commerce always produces mediocrity?
No.
Keep in mind that you're talking to someone who listens the Beatles, the Doors, and Radiohead.
Obviously I have nothing against music that happens to sell well. What I said was that
deliberately compromising your artistic vision in order to get an audience tends produce
mediocrity.
--
Alex Temple - NP: Volapük - Le Feu du Tigre
TOIB
> In article <3CE94B93...@yahoTHISTOOo.com> fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com wrote...
>> > Are you of the opinion that commerce always produces mediocrity?
>>
>> No.
> Then why do your posts smell somewhat different to this stated opinion?
I think you've already placed Alex into a convenient (for you)
category, and nothing he says at this point will dissuade you. Since your
posts are just a thinly veiled pretext for unloading with your
pre-existing assumptions, why waste everyone's time with the rhetorical
questions?
Regards,
--
Sean McFee
Alex Temple
> In article <3CE94B93...@yahoTHISTOOo.com> fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com wrote...
>
> > > Are you of the opinion that commerce always produces mediocrity?
> >
> > No.
>
> Then why do your posts smell somewhat different to this stated opinion?
Because you chose to see that in my statement that artists should follow their own vision rather
than trying to expand their audience at the expense of that vision. I certainly didn't say it.
> > What I said was that deliberately compromising your artistic vision in
> > order to get an audience tends produce mediocrity.
>
> Like who? I mean, name me some examples where you know that the band
> have sat round a table and said 'well, all this prog crap isn't paying
> my drug fines...let's Go Disco...'
Gentle Giant comes to mind. (Though I do like the tracks I've heard from "Civilian"). Others
might cite Genesis or Yes, though I don't particularly like what they were doing in the first
place, so...
> Or do you keep the word 'tends' in
> your statement to avoid having to nail down specifics? Really, you sound
> like the very kind of 'prog snob' that gives the genre a bad name. (*)
Prog has nothing to do with this at all. If an artist's personal vision happens to be to create
accessible pop music, I have absolutely no problem with that. If it leads them to create
Japanoize, that's fine too. I'm just saying people should do what they love, rather than what
other people love. Anyone who creates music they don't like that much is bound to create an
inferior product simply by virtue of their lack of conviction. (Of course, sometimes there's an
overlap between what the artist loves and what the masses love -- and again, I have NO problem
with that.)
--
Alex Temple - NP: After Dinner - s/t
steblick
> steblick wrote:
>
> > > If I released an album, and no one "got it," but it made me feel great
> > > performing or listening to it, I would be perfectly happy.
> >
> > If I created something but no one 'got it' or appreciated it, I would
> > assume that I had failed. Pleasing myself is hardly a criteria to
> > judge artistic worth.
> >
> > Worth is a collective notion. You can have legitimate private feelings
> > about something you create but unless it is appreciated by others it
> > is not 'worth-y'.
>
> Prog must really suck then, seeing how its audience is so small.
Alex- you know your music but your logic needs some work. There is no
reason to assume that 'worth' is exponential (i.e., like arguing that
if I love my two kids I'd really love 50!"). There is no logical
reason to assume that I mean 'the bigger the audience, the greater the
worth'.
>
> > Compromise is a wonderful skill.
>
> In art, it's often called "selling out."
That perception is both narrow, presumptuous and artistically
limiting.
steblick
Robert Carlberg
>have sat round a table and said 'well, all this prog crap isn't paying
>my drug fines...let's Go Disco...'
Asia.
steblick
>> >Anyway, most 'failed' artists who were subsequently revered DID
have
> >admirers, even though they weren't the general public.
> >>
>
> Which would describe the RIO artists who you were complaining about to start
> this thread, no?
Actually I have inadvertently drawn this discussion more into RIO than
I had wanted. I do see SOME of the features I talked about in some
RIO, and I think the stop/start/all change motif is a feature of that
genre. But some RIO bands do it better than others, the segues seem
more musically cohesive (TO ME!). Perhaps I should expand my point to
include the type of artists found on Recommemnded Records (I know that
ReR carries a tremendous variety, but for lack of a better
definition). Now, again, some of that stuff is wonderful and I have
bought several cds from them. But I still find the jumpiness
disturbing (ok, not to my taste, whatever). I hear a bit of music
where I'm thinking "Hey, this is cool, I like this. I wonder where
it's going" but then it seems (TO ME) that it often goes into a brick
wall.
Anyway, I wouldn't describe such RIO artists as 'failed' at all. They
have found their niche and have devoted fans. There are some aspects
that don't appeal to me but obviously they appeal to others (i.e.,
they have an audience) so that's groovy. They may well be appreciated
more later in life but that doesn't mitigate the fact that they have
worked at their sound to appeal to a certain type of aesthetic
appreciation, since (as Alex has pointed out) they have borrowed
heavily from both 19th and 20th century classical motifs. They surely
have their creative muses but surely they also exhibit discipline in
re-articulating those muses into a cd format or into a live
performance that others (albeit a limited audience) can appreciate.
steblick
Alex Temple
> [RIO composers] have
> worked at their sound to appeal to a certain type of aesthetic
> appreciation, since (as Alex has pointed out) they have borrowed
> heavily from both 19th and 20th century classical motifs. They surely
> have their creative muses but surely they also exhibit discipline in
> re-articulating those muses into a cd format or into a live
> performance that others (albeit a limited audience) can appreciate.
I think you misinterpret the purpose of this discipline. As a composer of experimental music
myself, I certainly value discipline and revision and improvement -- but it's so /I/ like my
music better, not in order to communicate better with some hypothetical audience. I suspect that
most avant-prog composers would feel similarly, though I guess you'd have to ask them. (Bob?)
--
Alex Temple
Alex Temple
> > > If I created something but no one 'got it' or appreciated it, I would
> > > assume that I had failed. Pleasing myself is hardly a criteria to
> > > judge artistic worth.
> > >
> > > Worth is a collective notion. You can have legitimate private feelings
> > > about something you create but unless it is appreciated by others it
> > > is not 'worth-y'.
> >
> > Prog must really suck then, seeing how its audience is so small.
>
> Alex- you know your music but your logic needs some work. There is no
> reason to assume that 'worth' is exponential (i.e., like arguing that
> if I love my two kids I'd really love 50!"). There is no logical
> reason to assume that I mean 'the bigger the audience, the greater the
> worth'.
OK, that's fair. I did jump to that conclusion.
But consider this: without the internet, a musician like Bob Drake could very well create the exact same music he
does now and not find a single person who enjoyed it, just because it's esoteric stuff and it would have much more
limited exposure. Based on that, you would have him assume that he had failed. But if he happened to find a friend
with similar musical taste, and then he would have an audience. So how come that friend's opinion counts but his own
doesn't?
You can either say that an accidental audience of one is completely different from an audience of zero (which I'd ask
you to justify), or you can say that an audience of one is just as worthless as writing for oneself (in which case
I'd ask: where do you draw the line between a worthless audience and a meaningful one?).
A side-note: what exactly is so bad about masturbation anyway?
> > > Compromise is a wonderful skill.
> >
> > In art, it's often called "selling out."
>
> That perception is both narrow, presumptuous and artistically
> limiting.
What does it presume?
(And see also my response to Mike Dickson)
--
Alex Temple - NP: Can - Tago Mago
Garth Wallace
> jel...@unf.edu (Zero the Hero) writes:
>
>
>>Noah Samuel Lesgold <nles...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote in message >
>>
>>>"There are those who say that music is a universal language. To
>>>test
>>>this, try telling an Eskimo that his pants are on fire using only a
>>>kazoo." -- Tom Weller, _Cvltvre Made Stvpid_ (possibly slightly
>>>paraphrased)
>>
>>Hey, I have/had this book. I think I remember that line too :-)
>
> Heh. Yeah, both that one and _Science Made Stupid_ have some
> exquisite parody and satire, and a ton of groaner puns. Apparently
> it's pretty hard to find these days, being OOP. Pity.
I wish I still had my old copy of Science Made Stupid. It was hilarious.
steblick
>
>
> In art, it's often called "selling out."
I think this attitude represents a problem with a lot of modern art.
It has become insular and academic in that it makes less effort to
speak to people. It refers only to the in-crowd of the elite. Compare
it to art before the twentieth-century.
Or, better still, compare it to sex. Yes, you can get a good feeling
playing by yourself and imagining ideal scenarios in which all the
babes in the universe fulfill your every need. Likewise you can get
your rocks off by just using a partner (i.e., you do what YOU want and
just hope your partner happens to like it too). OR you can make an
effort to help your partner enjoy it and, at the same time, have a
good time yourself.
Perhaps you would consider the latter an unacceptable compromise. Or,
better still, prostitution. You get my drift.
steblick
Bob Drake
I did say I'd made my last comment in this thread (I didn't think I had
anything else to add without repeating myself) but -
I've also already said in this thread that I don't try to please an
imaginary listener. I don't want to spend my life trying to imagine what
someone else may or may not approve of. Most people I've worked with are the
same.
As for classical motifs, I don't know about that...some writers may borrow
from those and I work with a few "real" "educated" classical composers like
Stevan Tickmayer, but as you know Alex I'm musically illiterate and don't
know any classical rules except perhaps unconsciously. (Now Steblick, don't
go BLAMING my "failed" compositions on that :)
And yes Alex as you say, like most musicians and songwriters I know, I love
the refining and exploring and magic of neverending search and discovery,
learing new things every day etc. Not so I can better please imaginary
listeners, but for it's own sake and my own enjoyment. I know people who
like my music will appreciate that as well, but also that some particular
album might not appeal to one person, while another person says "it's the
best thing you've ever done". Trying to specifically please every listener
would be impossible anyway.
Constantly improving one's craft isn't specifically for the audience's
benefit, consider that most of us worked for years (in my case a decade) in
utter poverty without ever putting out an album (not that we wouldn't have
loved to, we were all just totally broke and totally unknown) and most
people just thinking we were crazy or stupid for doing "weird" music or
feeling sorry for us as if we just didn't notice we weren't trying to be pop
stars. I just kept at it because it was the most important thing in my life
and still is.
Steblick, about putting the stuff on CDs so others can appreciate it - yes
that's exactly true. If I "didn't want anyone else to appreciate it" I
wouldn't bother putting out CDs. I know that someone WILL always enjoy and
appreciate it though.
OK I said more than I wanted to now.
Enjoy listening to and making music!
BD
www.bdrak.com
Bob Drake
I was almost tempted to ask that too but I hated to imagine the "discussion"
that might follow, which by the way, I really WILL keep out of :)
Have fun,
bd
steblick
>
> But consider this: without the internet, a musician like Bob Drake could very well create the exact same music he
> does now and not find a single person who enjoyed it, just because it's esoteric stuff and it would have much more
> limited exposure. Based on that, you would have him assume that he had failed. But if he happened to find a friend
> with similar musical taste, and then he would have an audience. So how come that friend's opinion counts but his own
> doesn't?
>
> You can either say that an accidental audience of one is completely different from an audience of zero (which I'd ask
> you to justify), or you can say that an audience of one is just as worthless as writing for oneself (in which case
> I'd ask: where do you draw the line between a worthless audience and a meaningful one?).
There's no set line per ce. In Bob's case he has an audience, it would
just be that much harder to reach if the technology were not
suficient. But the question of the means of promotion is somewhat
outside the debate on whether the creator is only answerable to
himself.
btw- The creator's opinion matters (of course!- there goes your
zero-sum fetish again) but it is not the final or sole arbiter of
worthiness.
>
> A side-note: what exactly is so bad about masturbation anyway?
Well, can I say without argument that having a partner is
intrinsically better?
>
>
> > > > Compromise is a wonderful skill.
> > >
> > > In art, it's often called "selling out."
> >
> > That perception is both narrow, presumptuous and artistically
> > limiting.
>
> What does it presume?
> (And see also my response to Mike Dickson)
It presumes that compromise (which, by definition, means a meshing of
interests between agents)leads to or equals "selling out" (which is
beyond compromise- it is a wholesale submission to outside forces).
Equivocating these two is another example of your either/or, zero-sum
logic at play again. Oh you Americans! ;-)
steblick
steblick
>. What I said was that
> deliberately compromising your artistic vision in order to get an audience tends produce
> mediocrity.
Let me make one more argument in response to this. Why is it always
assumed that consideration for the audience means pandering to the
lowest common demoniator? If you look throughout history, most great
artists tried to raise the level of the audience by ENGAGING it. That
is why they have left their mark upon history, they were able to make
their genius understood at some level to the average person. This is
what makes culture move, societies progress.
Only in the twentieth century has art largely become to be thought of
an academic insider's exercise, holding a type of catch-me-if-you-can
disdain for the audience. So many artists are not trying to engage the
audience, meeting the audience halfway so as to raise the
consciousness of that audience. Rather it becomes an ivory tower
exercise in which the audience has to scale all the heights to meet
the artist on his cloud of glory.
In a small but nonetheless perceptible way, the prog musicians in the
late 60's/early 70's were very succesful at meeting the audience. They
created good, challenging music that was still reasonably accessible
and thereby helped raise the musical consciousness of people like
myself who are not music academics. That is why they got air play
then, sold some units and had an influence on society. Today prog
seems pretty cliquish and museum-like in its insularity. I'm not sure
thinking like yours, and others on this thread, helps.
Know what I mean?
steblick
Arthur Boff
> >> Nope.
> > Music's not communication, it's about making good sounds. The composer
has only
> > his/her own ears to decide when this goal has been acomplished. Having
done
> > this, an audience may or may not agree.
>
> So there is no intended audience?!? These sounds are not being
> 'communicated'?
> Also- it seems that by this criteria that any work of
> this just a failsafe device for an artist ("Well it means something to
> me!")?
The thing is with music is that if the composer likes the sound of it,
chances are at least a few other people will to.
Your comparison with Japanese is erroneous since the aim with music isn't to
communicate in the same way we do when we're speaking (using words that the
people around us understand and sentences which have fairly precise
meanings), it's more to do with getting across impressions and feelings. And
making an enjoyable sound while you're at it.
Arthur Boff
> Let me put it another way. If I was making cds that virtually no one
> bought, and my live performances drew virtually no positive reaction,
> I would think I was doing something wrong. Or at least, I would be
> hard pressed to think of myself as an artist, any moreso than someone
> who sits around thinking can call himself a Philosopher. I would
> assume that the beauty I am hearing in my ideas is not being
> adequately passed through to my audience, that there is a flaw in my
> work.
Alternately, you are promoting yourself to the wrong audience for the sort
of music you're making.
Play death metal to folk expecting a pastoral folk concert and none of them
will be too happy. Play it to folk who want death metal, and they'd love it.
You seem to be continually seeing the whole world as your audience. Nobody,
even in commercial media, thinks this way. Every piece of work has a "target
audience" of people who will appreciate it.
Arthur Boff
news:CheetahPRO_v...@blackcat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3CE94B93...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>
fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com wrote...
> > order to get an audience tends produce mediocrity.
>
> have sat round a table and said 'well, all this prog crap isn't paying
> your statement to avoid having to nail down specifics? Really, you sound
> like the very kind of 'prog snob' that gives the genre a bad name. (*)
ISTR that on Channel 4's "Top Ten of Progressive Rock", Phil Collins was
talking about Genesis' decision to go from being a prog band to an AOR band,
and he said that the band said to themselves (and these are his exact
words): "Fuck it, let's sell out."
Arthur Boff
news:<3CE8F13A...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>...
> > steblick wrote:
> >
> > > > If I released an album, and no one "got it," but it made me feel
great
> > > > performing or listening to it, I would be perfectly happy.
> > >
> > > If I created something but no one 'got it' or appreciated it, I would
> > > assume that I had failed. Pleasing myself is hardly a criteria to
> > > judge artistic worth.
> > >
> > > Worth is a collective notion. You can have legitimate private feelings
> > > about something you create but unless it is appreciated by others it
> > > is not 'worth-y'.
> >
> > Prog must really suck then, seeing how its audience is so small.
>
> Alex- you know your music but your logic needs some work. There is no
> reason to assume that 'worth' is exponential (i.e., like arguing that
> if I love my two kids I'd really love 50!"). There is no logical
> reason to assume that I mean 'the bigger the audience, the greater the
> worth'.
Okay steblick, name one musician who has produced music that nobody (other
than himself/herself) likes at all.
Toughie, isn't it? Fact is, whatever a musician makes somebody will like it.
As a result, your argument that "musicians should consider their audience or
they'll fail and make something only they like" is flawed because someone
else, somewhere, is bound to like anything anyone produces.
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com> wrote in message news:<3CE8F13A...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>...
> >
> > > Compromise is a wonderful skill.
> >
> > In art, it's often called "selling out."
>
> I think this attitude represents a problem with a lot of modern art.
> It has become insular and academic in that it makes less effort to
> speak to people. It refers only to the in-crowd of the elite. Compare
> it to art before the twentieth-century.
Please read my response to Mike Dickson. I have no problem with art that appeals to a large audience -- as long as
it's really what the artist wanted to do, not a "compromise."
> Or, better still, compare it to sex. Yes, you can get a good feeling
> playing by yourself and imagining ideal scenarios in which all the
> babes in the universe fulfill your every need. Likewise you can get
> your rocks off by just using a partner (i.e., you do what YOU want and
> just hope your partner happens to like it too). OR you can make an
> effort to help your partner enjoy it and, at the same time, have a
> good time yourself.
Art is not sex. The analogy doesn't work.
--
Alex Temple - NP: Can - Tago Mago
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com> wrote in message news:<3CE94B93...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>...
> >. What I said was that
> > deliberately compromising your artistic vision in order to get an audience tends produce
> > mediocrity.
>
> Let me make one more argument in response to this. Why is it always
> assumed that consideration for the audience means pandering to the
> lowest common demoniator? If you look throughout history, most great
> artists tried to raise the level of the audience by ENGAGING it. That
> is why they have left their mark upon history, they were able to make
> their genius understood at some level to the average person. This is
> what makes culture move, societies progress.
Once again I point you to the example of Beethoven. Or Gesualdo. Or Zelenka.
> Only in the twentieth century has art largely become to be thought of
> an academic insider's exercise, holding a type of catch-me-if-you-can
> disdain for the audience.
Now THAT is not what I was advocating at ALL.
> Today prog
> seems pretty cliquish and museum-like in its insularity.
You'll have to define "prog" to clarify this statement, but I will say that I and probably most of the rest of this
ng try to expose "weird music" to people outside the so-called clique as much as possible.
--
Alex Temple
Jim Chokey
> >
> > In art, it's often called "selling out."
>
> I think this attitude represents a problem with a lot of modern art.
> It has become insular and academic in that it makes less effort to
> speak to people. It refers only to the in-crowd of the elite. Compare
> it to art before the twentieth-century.
Yep, it looks like my analogy re: ignorant folks talking about modern
painters not knowing how to paint hid the nail right on the head. ;-)
> Or, better still, compare it to sex. Yes, you can get a good feeling
> playing by yourself and imagining ideal scenarios in which all the
> babes in the universe fulfill your every need. Likewise you can get
> your rocks off by just using a partner (i.e., you do what YOU want and
> just hope your partner happens to like it too). OR you can make an
> effort to help your partner enjoy it and, at the same time, have a
> good time yourself.
>
> Perhaps you would consider the latter an unacceptable compromise. Or,
> better still, prostitution.
I've used the same masturbation/prostitution metaphor before regarding
prog. It came up on a thread about a year or so ago about the use
of the term "wanking" to describe prog. ("Wanking" of course means
means "masturbation" in UK slang.) The point I made then-- and
which I'll repeat now-- is that I, for one, have a lot more respect for
a "wanker" who at least enjoys the music he makes, even if no-one
else does, than for a musical whore who isn't passionate about what
he plays, but does it anyway just because it brings in money.
-- Jim C.
Jim Chokey
> Yep, it looks like my analogy re: ignorant folks talking about modern
> painters not knowing how to paint hid the nail right on the head. ;-)
That should, of course, be "hit the nail".
-- Jim C.
Seth Neustein
I am reminded of the dressing room (?) recordings on Zappa's
_Playground Psychotics_ where the band members are sitting around
explaining they are tired of playing "comedy music" why don't they
play something that will 1) have real commercial potential ("that rock
music the kids love these days") and 2) will get them laid ("who wants
to fuck a comedian?")
~Seth Neustein
Robert Carlberg
>_Playground Psychotics_
"After all, what is all this shit in the newspapers, if we've got such a big
name, how come we're STARVING, man? This fucking band is starving."
"If we'd all been living in California..." from UNCLE MEAT.
Seth Neustein
First, one chooses the audience.
Second, one stands back from the process and asks some questions:
a) Are these message(s)/emotion(s) relevant and of interest to the
intended audience?
b) Is this effectively communicating the intended
message(s)/emotion(s) to the intended audience?
Note: The audience can include or exclude the creator. The audience
may even exclusively be the creator. In addition, it is possible that
those outside the intended audience may or may not appreciate and/or
understand the creation. This side effect is irrelevant to the
process.
~Seth Neustein
steb...@hotmail.com (steblick) wrote in message news:<3f0bb5ba.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> Alex Temple <fiber_opti...@yahoTHISTOOo.com> wrote in message news:<3CE9AAC5...@yahoTHISTOOo.com>...
> >
> > But consider this: without the internet, a musician like Bob Drake could very well create the exact same music he
> > does now and not find a single person who enjoyed it, just because it's esoteric stuff and it would have much more
> > limited exposure. Based on that, you would have him assume that he had failed. But if he happened to find a friend
> > with similar musical taste, and then he would have an audience. So how come that friend's opinion counts but his own
> > doesn't?
> >
> > You can either say that an accidental audience of one is completely different from an audience of zero (which I'd ask
> > you to justify), or you can say that an audience of one is just as worthless as writing for oneself (in which case
> > I'd ask: where do you draw the line between a worthless audience and a meaningful one?).
>
> There's no set line per ce. In Bob's case he has an audience, it would
> just be that much harder to reach if the technology were not
> suficient. But the question of the means of promotion is somewhat
> outside the debate on whether the creator is only answerable to
> himself.
> btw- The creator's opinion matters (of course!- there goes your
> zero-sum fetish again) but it is not the final or sole arbiter of
> worthiness.
> >
> > A side-note: what exactly is so bad about masturbation anyway?
>
> Well, can I say without argument that having a partner is
> intrinsically better?
> >
<snip>
>
> steblick
Garth Wallace
> steblick wrote:
>
>>Or, better still, compare it to sex. Yes, you can get a good feeling
>>playing by yourself and imagining ideal scenarios in which all the
>>babes in the universe fulfill your every need. Likewise you can get
>>your rocks off by just using a partner (i.e., you do what YOU want and
>>just hope your partner happens to like it too). OR you can make an
>>effort to help your partner enjoy it and, at the same time, have a
>>good time yourself.
>
> Art is not sex. The analogy doesn't work.
"Information is not knowledge
Knowledge is not wisdom
Wisdom is not truth
Truth is not beauty
Beauty is not love
Love is not music
Music is THE BEST..."
- Joe's hallucination of Mary, "Packard Goose", Frank Zappa, _Joe's
Garage_