Romanticism vs. Modernism
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
of the stereotypical big-name prog bands -- Genesis and Yes, in
particular -- follow in a largely Romantic tradition. That is, they
revolt against traditional notions of form in music yet remain
respectful of the concept of 'high art' and a European classical music
tradition; they often look to pastoral themes; and they elevate the
individual musicians to heroic status within the context of highly
ritualised concerts. Notions of individualism, interest in myths and
legends, exploring a tension between past and present, extended
ambition for works, often melodramatic... I'm practically reviewing
Wakeman's 1970s solo albums here!
However, many of the avant-garde and experimental rock bands that also
get included in prog -- from Art Bears to Frank Zappa -- are much more
Modernist. They seek to sweep aside traditional forms completely, be
both experimental and populist, reflect the mechanisation of society
and embracing destruction, often pessimistic, sometimes primitivist,
art that isn't necessarily trying to be nice. There's also that
association with left-wing revolutionary politics or look at, say,
Brian Eno's use of collage and randomness.
That tension between Romanticism and Modernism is, I dare to suggest,
reflected in tensions in prog fandom between those who like Romantic
bands like Genesis and Yes and their successors in neo-prog and those
who like Modernist bands, the avant-garde, e.g. Henry Cow.
To go on, one can look at ELP and King Crimson as being somewhat
inbetween the two camps. Both were more Romantic than Modernist in
their music, but both more willing to be influenced by Modernist music
in the classical tradition. Both also had Pete Sinfield, who offered
lyrics that were more Modernist like "21st Century Schizoid Man"
(although he could be Romantic too (e.g. "Prince Rupert")).
Yes's 1980 album _Drama_ also stands out. Trevor Horn is a
self-declared Modernist and _Drama_ reflects both the Yes Romantic
tradition, but also Horn's thoroughly Modernist lyrics. With _90125_,
Horn then started applying his Modernist approach to production,
although we also see in Horn's production work the love/hate
relationship Modernism has with mass consumer culture.
So, yeah, what do you think?
--
Henry
Alstead
started out quite about 90% Romantic and wound up mostly Modernist,
with some exceptions, "Exiles", "The Night Watch", even "Fallen Angel".
The tension is there, for sure, I find a similar dichotomy between
those that are looking primarily for "affect" in music, and those who
are foremost seeking formal or literary novelty. I will whip out Moody
Blues on the one hand and Throbbing Gristle on the other.
Punk has similar splits - even at its inception, there was Tom Verlaine
on the one hand, who owed much to Lou Reed and 19th century French
poets, sounding
rhapsodic on the Television debut. On the other hand, Eno glommed on to
much of what was coming out of CBGB - no wave especially, because of
its modernistic bent; Wire, painting _their_ tabula rasa in a spartan
hue; Joy Division left a very modernistic oeuvre but struck many as a
supreme expression of "doomed" romanticism. Contrast their two studio
album covers!
Here's a link to more chatter on another well-trodded bifurcation: this
time, Robert Christgau gets uppity as usual about Robert Palmer's
screed on Apollo-Dionysus polarity:
http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/dionysus-emp.php
Mind you, I really dislike both of these writers.
Hopefully this isn't the end of this thread.
Alstead Walpole III
cap...@hotmail.com
>Hopefully this isn't the end of this thread.
Let's take a quick vote on this, shall we?
Pseudo-intellectual wankers, keep posting.
All others......
moh...@charter.net
>On 12 Apr 2005 19:19:05 -0700, "Alstead" <als...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully this isn't the end of this thread.
>
>Let's take a quick vote on this, shall we?
What say ye? Can't say because your lack of voting is a No vote.
>Pseudo-intellectual wankers, keep posting.
Nice... Speaking of pseudo-intellectual wankers, they were bit close
to that. :^) The Nice, that is. Between the bar room lyrics /
antics / growls to the classical... but some of us like 'em.
>All others......
Do what? Say what? eh?
Better topic than some of the other wanking going here at times...
=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================
cap...@hotmail.com
>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:10:03 GMT, cap...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Let's take a quick vote on this, shall we?
>What say ye? Can't say because your lack of voting is a No vote.
>
>>Pseudo-intellectual wankers, keep posting.
>Nice... Speaking of pseudo-intellectual wankers, they were bit close
>to that. :^) The Nice, that is. Between the bar room lyrics /
>antics / growls to the classical... but some of us like 'em.
>>All others......
>
>Do what? Say what? eh?
>Better topic than some of the other wanking going here at times...
You've.....changed, somehow, from what I remember....
Big Z
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1113347842.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That tension between Romanticism and Modernism is, I dare to suggest,
> reflected in tensions in prog fandom between those who like Romantic
> bands like Genesis and Yes and their successors in neo-prog and those
> who like Modernist bands, the avant-garde, e.g. Henry Cow.
I believe the world of prog could be divided into at least four different
fields of expression: Romanticism (beauty, lyricism, tranquility); Baroque
(melodrama, tension, dichotomy); Modernism (technology, optimism,
urbanization); and Post-Modernism (apocalypse, deconstructivism, nihilism.)
While I agree that 70's Genesis and Yes are Romantic, and that 80's Yes are
Modernist, I'd refer to ELP as Baroque and the Art Bears as Post-Modernist.
And I'd consider King Crimson's 70's output to be an extension on Baroque
notions, as I would Magma and Van Der Graaf Generator (with a touch of
Post-Modernism in there as well, especially with Magma.) Kraftwerk would
epitomize Modernism at its most obvious, whilst Gentle Giant (at their
quirkiest) would represent the most idiosyncratic bend on Modernism.
TK
Unrest [Red, 1979]
Finally released in the States five years after it came out in Britain,
this demanding music shows up such superstar "progressives" as Yes for
the weak-minded reactionaries they are. The integrity of Cow's
synthesis is clearest in "Bittern Storm Over Ulm," based on the
Yardbirds' "Got to Hurry"--instead of quoting sixteen bars with two or
three instruments, thus insuring their listeners another lazy
identification, they break the piece down, almost like beboppers.
Though the saxophone is still second-rate and the more lyrical rhythms
flirt with a cheap swing, the band is worthy of its classical
correlatives--Bartok, Stockhausen, and Varese rather than Tchaikovsky
and predigested Bach. A-
Steven Sullivan
> Pseudo-intellectual wankers, keep posting.
> All others......
...continue wanking stupidly.
--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Steven Sullivan
Then again, I doubt Christgau ever made it to side three of Tales from
Topographic Oceans.
And of course, rock would be nowhere without periodic 'reactionary'
movements. How many 'return to basics' ahs rock gone through now anyway?
Big Z
"Alstead" <als...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113358744.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Here's a link to more chatter on another well-trodded bifurcation: this
> time, Robert Christgau gets uppity as usual about Robert Palmer's
> screed on Apollo-Dionysus polarity:
>
> http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/dionysus-emp.php
Edward Macan based a great deal of his book _Rocking the Classics_ on that
contrast, with prog representing the former and heavy metal equating the
latter. He then subdivided prog's Apollonian course into Aquarian (Yes,
Genesis, Renaissance) and existentialist (Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Van Der
Graaf Generator) paths.
> Mind you, I really dislike both of these writers.
Ah, even if one disagrees with their stance on prog, their wit, humor and
insights into numerous other areas can still make for quite an amusing read.
Christgau often provokes thought with his culturally inclusive way of
referencing, which naturally assumes the reader knows everything he's
talking about. One of his most succinct pieces of hilarity was this review
(sourced from memory) for the album _Dream Into Action_ by Howard Jones:
"Smarter than Cat Stevens; sexier than Norman Vincent Peale. But not vice
versa, and a lot less soulful than either."
All I really know from Robert Palmer (the writer) are his chapters in _The
Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock n' Roll_. Can't say they left any
impression as to his particular angle of writing (of course, most of these
writers leave their journalistic tendencies at the door when submitting for
these books) but I found his chapter on Jazz Rock to be a pretty fair,
unbiased and informative read.
cap...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Edward Macan based a great deal of his book _Rocking the Classics_ on that
>contrast, with prog representing the former and heavy metal equating the
>latter. He then subdivided prog's Apollonian course into Aquarian (Yes,
>Genesis, Renaissance) and existentialist (Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Van Der
>Graaf Generator) paths.
Man - I gotta run, not walk, to get a copy of that right away...
>Christgau often provokes thought with his culturally inclusive way of
>referencing, which naturally assumes the reader knows everything he's
>talking about. One of his most succinct pieces of hilarity was this review
>(sourced from memory) for the album _Dream Into Action_ by Howard Jones:
>"Smarter than Cat Stevens; sexier than Norman Vincent Peale. But not vice
>versa, and a lot less soulful than either."
Oh, stop, please. My aching sides. Have mercy, I beg of you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I do have a low reputation here, you have achieved
little beyond lowering your stature to my level."
"Yaaaaaaaay, music!"
- Eric "Gondola Bob" Broome
"A Case Study" : http://home.earthlink.net/~elbroome/
Prisoner 129953
> Let's take a quick vote on this, shall we?
>
> Pseudo-intellectual wankers, keep posting.
>
Once, I used to wonder why people would jump
on a thread just to trash it and the people
who found it interesting, but no longer.
Now I realize, it's entirely because they feel bad
because of acne, lack of male 'endowment',never
being picked for kickball teams, etc.
>>>All others......
>Do what? Say what? eh?
Yeah, lazy, what's with the ellipsis?
cap...@hotmail.com
<prisone...@bighouse.org> wrote:
>Once, I used to wonder why people would jump
>on a thread just to trash it and the people
>who found it interesting, but no longer.
I still do wonder about people who've never (or very rarely) been seen
feeling the need to jump in and make their own little comments. My
theory is it has something to do with their boss at work yelling at
them that day.
>Now I realize, it's entirely because they feel bad
>because of acne, lack of male 'endowment',never
>being picked for kickball teams, etc.
Or maybe it's a combination of those things. Good point.
>>Do what? Say what? eh?
>Yeah, lazy, what's with the ellipsis?
I......really......couldn't.......tell........you.........
moh...@charter.net
Naaaahhh, just checking up on ya, is all... carry on! :^)
DVinyard
"Big Z" <weasel...@rungtrun.com> wrote
news:jC37e.1666$t85...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com ...
> I believe the world of prog could be divided into at least four different
> fields of expression: Romanticism (beauty, lyricism, tranquility); Baroque
> (melodrama, tension, dichotomy); Modernism (technology, optimism,
> urbanization); and Post-Modernism (apocalypse, deconstructivism,
nihilism.)
Isn't it vice versa: modernism (dark, apocalyptic, experimental,
avant-garde...) and post-modernism (less dark, going back to romanticism,
emotions, balance, optimism... but retaining new discoveries,
minimalism...)?
That's how I would interpret those terms.
In this view: Yes, Genesis, Renaissance (romanticism), ELP (Emerson -
baroque feel but musically modernistic, Lake - romanticism, lyrics -
modernistic), King Crimson (at the beginning romanticism but later modernism
mostly), RIO/avant/zeuhl (modernism), Tangerine Dream (early TD - modernism,
later - postmodernism), Popol Vuh (early - modernism, later - romanticism
and postmodernism). Ash Ra (New Age, Blackouts), Isildurs Bane (recent),
After Crying, Terje Rypdal (e.g. Lux Aeterna) --> post modernism. Pink Floyd
(Ummagumma - modernism, DSotM - postmodernism)...
Public Image Ltd
Romantics aren't always tranquil, and in fact are often bombastic. The
baroque is hardly melodramatic, more cool and formal in my view (and
usually with smallish ensembles). Post-modernism to me has to have an
ironic, deconstructivist slant, typically obscuring the distinction
between pop and high art.
With those definitions out of the way, I would disagree with some of
the labels being attached to bands here. Genesis for example employ
harmonies which owe a lot to the likes of Debussy, which is more
post-romantic (modernist?) than romantic. And then there are bands like
Magma who are either incredibly romantic if you believe they are
playing it straight, or are more post-modern if you believe they are
engaging in deconstruction. Zappa practically owns the post-modernist
tag, but he also has a huge reverence for modernism which tends to
undermine that. Most RIO I would regard as modernist, except for those
bands who start taking the piss. The "counterpoint" bands are somewhat
problematic. Gentle Giant are way too diverse to be simply labelled as
disciples of Bach, and so I would agree that modernism fits them best.
On the other hand, Gryphon and The Enid sound to me like they are
having an each-way bet on the baroque and romantic traditions. Probably
the best example of the baroque in prog would actually be the more
metronomic end of krautrock, but you could very well find some RIO in
there as well.
Eduard Antoniu
> I was thinking the other day...
[...]
> Yes's 1980 album _Drama_ also stands out. Trevor Horn is a
> self-declared Modernist and _Drama_ reflects both the Yes Romantic
> tradition, but also Horn's thoroughly Modernist lyrics. With _90125_,
> Horn then started applying his Modernist approach to production,
> although we also see in Horn's production work the love/hate
> relationship Modernism has with mass consumer culture.
>
> So, yeah, what do you think?
Thoughts inspired by the synful self-re_definition of prog modernists ;) ?
OryzHein [Greek for Horizon] (Montreal 1998) - self-defined prog-revisionists.
Edi
Jeff Blanks
> ...most of the stereotypical big-name prog bands -- Genesis and Yes, in
> particular -- follow in a largely Romantic tradition.
Yes, but as happy inhabitants of a Modernist world (maybe less so in
Genesis' case).
A complicating factor is the history of Modernism itself, with respect
to the various artistic traditions it's touched and those traditions'
courses of development. I've always maintained that "Post-Modernism" is
essentially a word in search of a definition. Why not just refer to it
in the same way we refer to "post-Romanticism"? It's an open question
sometimes just what's Modernist and what's post-modern (or
Post-Modernist). I've heard of sympho called "post-modern", while you
could say that what we call "post-modern" in the pop world actually has
its roots in a sort of conservative Modernism. And what of the
neoclassical movements in 20th-century classical music (mid-period
Stravinsky and Hindemith, *Les Six*, etc.)? In fact, you could call
some neoclassicism essentially Romantic in inspiration (someone
mentioned Gryphon; I'd add Tull and certain aspects of the folk revival).
--
"There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
strangeness in the proportion." --Sir Francis Bacon
Jeff Blanks
> Christgau reviewing Henry Cow. I always liked these comments.
I'm familiar with this, but "bleah." There's *very* little of
"Tchaikovsky and predigested Bach" in the basic musical languages of the
likes of Yes; Christgau should know better. After all, whose music does
Yes keep using to introduce them? (At the same time, *The Firebird* is
essentially Romantic in motivation. I think lots of prog bands don't
get credit for the effort to synthesize the Romantic and the Modernist,
or else to rearticulate a Romantic perspective in a Modernist context.)
Jeff Blanks
> How many 'returns to basics' has rock gone through now anyway?
One. But it started about 1975 and hasn't really ended; it's just gone
through various endless permutations.
Jeff Blanks
> Romantics aren't always tranquil, and in fact are often bombastic. The
> baroque is hardly melodramatic, more cool and formal in my view (and
> usually with smallish ensembles).
Don't forget, though, that that's often just the way it sounds to us, in
the wake of Romanticism.
> Genesis for example employ
> harmonies which owe a lot to the likes of Debussy, which is more
> post-romantic (modernist?) than romantic.
Some of it is downright Brahmsian. But there are the touches of modern
language that come through, and are just as essential to the Genesis
language. Progressive conservatism, maybe?
> Gentle Giant are way too diverse to be simply labelled as
> disciples of Bach, and so I would agree that modernism fits them best.
Call them a postmodern neoclassical act in the mid-period Stravinsky
mold. If you like them, you'll probably like something like, say,
Stravinsky's operatic treatment of *The Rake's Progress*.
> On the other hand, Gryphon and The Enid sound to me like they are
> having an each-way bet on the baroque and romantic traditions.
Well, Gryphon's take on the (really pre-)baroque has an essentially
Romantic motivation.
Public Image Ltd
>
> > How many 'returns to basics' has rock gone through now anyway?
>
> One. But it started about 1975 and hasn't really ended; it's just
gone
> through various endless permutations.
I actually think the first identifiable movement kicked off with _John
Wesley Harding_ and _Sweetheart of the Rodeo_, ie, the back-to-basics
turn which the acid folkies took. Then there was the 70s punks railing
against not just prog but AOR and anything that smelt a bit too
corporate. We had a mini blues revival in the 80s courtesy of SRV,
although I wouldn't really say that caused too many other bands to jump
on the wagon. Grunge is an interesting case, because it provokes the
issue of whether it superseded anything at all, or whether it just
added to the scene. Hair metal certainly wasn't in great shape
afterwards, although it is hard to know whether that may have just been
coincidence. One thing grunge did do was put small record labels back
in the spotlight, although most of the big grunge bands rapidly signed
with the majors. Oddly enough, we could probably regard techno as just
as subversive when it comes to the corporate-independent power balance.
Then most recently, we have had a garage revival or new rock or
whatever you want to call it, coexisting with a pop-punk revival that
has been going on for about a decade.
Public Image Ltd
>
> A complicating factor is the history of Modernism itself, with
respect
> to the various artistic traditions it's touched and those traditions'
> courses of development. I've always maintained that "Post-Modernism"
is
> essentially a word in search of a definition. Why not just refer to
it
> in the same way we refer to "post-Romanticism"?
I suppose the argument is that it is not simply a development but a
much greater break with tradition. A true post-modernist doesn't appear
to respect tradition, doesn't evince any commitment to professional
values, etc. Think Andy Warhol.
> It's an open question
> sometimes just what's Modernist and what's post-modern (or
> Post-Modernist). I've heard of sympho called "post-modern", while
you
> could say that what we call "post-modern" in the pop world actually
has
> its roots in a sort of conservative Modernism.
I don't think I'd use conservative and post-modernism in the same
breath. If anything, post-modernism tends to gleefully trash what has
gone on before, frequently by sending it up, using bizarre
juxtapositions, etc. Another aspect is that modernist work may
frequently be confronting, whereas the confronting factor in
post-modernism is in deciding how much talent it involves!
> And what of the
> neoclassical movements in 20th-century classical music (mid-period
> Stravinsky and Hindemith, *Les Six*, etc.)? In fact, you could call
> some neoclassicism essentially Romantic in inspiration (someone
> mentioned Gryphon; I'd add Tull and certain aspects of the folk
revival).
Well, for completeness's sake, a classical category probably should
have been proposed in addition to the baroque and the romantic. I guess
I'd be inclined to say that whether a neo-something or other approach
is modernist or not depends upon how much it simply revives the past,
and how much it adds something new. The likes of early Stravinsky and
Bartok used folk (ie, pre-baroque) traditions to make something new and
modern. However, I'm not sure that they should be lumped in together
with the serialists, who strike me as somewhat more radical. On the
other hand, you could maybe view serialism as a "back to maths" kind of
movement, which gives it some sort of link to Bach. The French
impressionists are also slightly problematic in that they clearly have
romantic tendencies, with their main distinction I guess being that
they reject German expressionism, which itself spans both romantic and
modern traditions.
Steven Sullivan
> In article <KWa7e.2455$dT4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> weasel...@rungtrun.com wrote...
> > Edward Macan based a great deal of his book _Rocking the Classics_ on that
> > contrast, with prog representing the former and heavy metal equating the
> > latter. He then subdivided prog's Apollonian course into Aquarian (Yes,
> > Genesis, Renaissance) and existentialist (Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Van Der
> > Graaf Generator) paths.
> And of course Macan wasn't a pretentious tossrag. Hell no.
Pretentious tosserism seems to go with the territory of writing analytical
books about popular music.
He's no Greil Marcus in that department, that's for sure. That guy is far
and away the kind of PTs.
Or even a Bill Martin.
Or that tosser who wrote that 'poodle play' book about Zappa.
Or Eric Tamm and his eno and fripp books.
I'd say Macan is more Syd Smith level --minor league PT, in other words.
His book was more enjoyable to read than not.
Steven Sullivan
> > How many 'returns to basics' has rock gone through now anyway?
> One. But it started about 1975 and hasn't really ended; it's just gone
> through various endless permutations.
Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to psychedelia,
back in the late 60's, too.
Steven Sullivan
> Mike Dickson <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <KWa7e.2455$dT4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> weasel...@rungtrun.com wrote...
> > > Edward Macan based a great deal of his book _Rocking the Classics_ on that
> > > contrast, with prog representing the former and heavy metal equating the
> > > latter. He then subdivided prog's Apollonian course into Aquarian (Yes,
> > > Genesis, Renaissance) and existentialist (Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Van Der
> > > Graaf Generator) paths.
> > And of course Macan wasn't a pretentious tossrag. Hell no.
> Pretentious tosserism seems to go with the territory of writing analytical
> books about popular music.
> He's no Greil Marcus in that department, that's for sure. That guy is far
> and away the kind of PTs.
('king', not kind)
Peter Ward
posted....
>"Public Image Ltd" <muck...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Gentle Giant are way too diverse to be simply labelled as
>> disciples of Bach, and so I would agree that modernism fits them best.
>
>Call them a postmodern neoclassical act in the mid-period Stravinsky
>mold.
Fuck that, call them Gentle Giant.
--
Peter
I'm an Alien
Jeff Blanks
> Fuck that, call them Gentle Giant.
You're no fun anymore!
Panurge
> There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to psychedelia,
> back in the late 60's, too.
OK, two. Point is, it seems there's always been a back-to-the-roots
movement of note going on somewhere. Since '75, even what's ostensibly
off-in-the-zone tends to have a BACK TO GOOD OL' ROCK'N'ROLL quality to
it, if only due to its positioning in the wake of, well, progressive
rock.
Michael Starosta
> Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to psychedelia,
> back in the late 60's, too.
Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
Staso
--
Schizophrenic? I'm bleeding quadrophenic.
cap...@hotmail.com
Dickson) wrote:
>> Or Eric Tamm and his eno and fripp books.
>Spare me. Please spare me. He takes pretentious tosseritude to a totally
>differised levelisation.
Oh, what you said. Hear, hear.
Big Z
"DVinyard" <as...@email.com> wrote in message
news:s8q7e.11426$F6.22...@news.siol.net...
>
> "Big Z" <weasel...@rungtrun.com> wrote
> news:jC37e.1666$t85...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com ...
>> I believe the world of prog could be divided into at least four different
>> fields of expression: Romanticism (beauty, lyricism, tranquility);
>> Baroque
>> (melodrama, tension, dichotomy); Modernism (technology, optimism,
>> urbanization); and Post-Modernism (apocalypse, deconstructivism,
> nihilism.)
>
> Isn't it vice versa: modernism (dark, apocalyptic, experimental,
> avant-garde...) and post-modernism (less dark, going back to romanticism,
> emotions, balance, optimism... but retaining new discoveries,
> minimalism...)?
> That's how I would interpret those terms.
I understand modernism to be the positive embrace of innovation and
technology. The idea that anything is possible; the concept of building
things greater and more advanced; the space age (think of the 60's, 70's and
80's.) Post-modernism is the disillusioned notion that all has been done
already. That the best is all behind us and there's nowhere left to go but
down and backwards (kind of like the 90's.) It's not about building or
creating, it's about destroying.
So in those respects, I view many of the rock styles that emerged between
the late-60's and early-80's as being modernistic, because they rode upon a
continuum of innovation. And they were innovative by exploring the music's
creative recourses: harmony, rhythm, melody and timbre. Prog was exceptional
in its ability to synthesize the present with the past, making for a
timeless sound that encompassed such other elements as romanticism and the
baroque.
Post-modernism in music is best summed up by this quote:
"Western popular music, having totally exhausted the tonal,
consonant, dynamic side of the musical spectrum, is now exploring the
atonal,
dissonant, static side of things."
Halmyre
> In article <d3omcv$os9$6...@reader1.panix.com> ssu...@panix.com wrote...
>
>
>>>And of course Macan wasn't a pretentious tossrag. Hell no.
>>
>>Pretentious tosserism seems to go with the territory of writing analytical
>>books about popular music.
>
>
> That's actually 'pretentious tosseritude'.
>
>
>>Or Eric Tamm and his eno and fripp books.
>
>
> Spare me. Please spare me. He takes pretentious tosseritude to a totally
> differised levelisation.
>
> Mike Dickson - Mellotron M400 #996 - Hammond T500 #252302
> Systems Theory - http://www.systemstheory.net
You are George W Bush AICMFP.
Halmyre
DVinyard
"Big Z" <weasel...@rmptrollmorgue.com> wrote
news:Rrd8e.4818$dT4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com ...
> I understand modernism to be the positive embrace of innovation and
> technology. The idea that anything is possible; the concept of building
> things greater and more advanced; the space age (think of the 60's, 70's
and
> 80's.) Post-modernism is the disillusioned notion that all has been done
> already. That the best is all behind us and there's nowhere left to go but
> down and backwards (kind of like the 90's.) It's not about building or
> creating, it's about destroying.
>
> So in those respects, I view many of the rock styles that emerged between
> the late-60's and early-80's as being modernistic, because they rode upon
a
> continuum of innovation. And they were innovative by exploring the music's
> creative recourses: harmony, rhythm, melody and timbre. Prog was
exceptional
> in its ability to synthesize the present with the past, making for a
> timeless sound that encompassed such other elements as romanticism and the
> baroque.
>
> Post-modernism in music is best summed up by this quote:
>
> "Western popular music, having totally exhausted the tonal,
> consonant, dynamic side of the musical spectrum, is now exploring the
> atonal,
> dissonant, static side of things."
This quote totally describes modernism. Are you saying composers like
Stravinsky and Schönberg were post-modernists???
I heard and read many times a different explanation (at least conserning
music):
Musical modernism - atonality, emancipation of dissonance, experimentalism,
increasing complexity ...
Musical post-modernism - emancipation of consonance, minimalism, return to
romanticism, new simplicity ...
Steven Sullivan
> > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to psychedelia,
> > back in the late 60's, too.
> Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
Not for certain, but I can tell you where you can read about it. Go to the library
and look up issues of Melody Maker from 1968-70.
Steven Sullivan
Jeff Blanks
> I don't think I'd use conservative and post-modernism in the same
> breath. If anything, post-modernism tends to gleefully trash what has
> gone on before, frequently by sending it up, using bizarre
> juxtapositions, etc.
Still, the relationship with the past seems to be the driving force
behind what we call post-modernism. Someone once wrote that a
post-modernist is a pre-modernist who can't admit it to himself.
Modernism, for its part, could certainly be "conservatized".
www.ConservativePunk.com actually exists, but a corresponding
ConservativeHippie.com is practically inconceivable.
> The likes of early Stravinsky and
> Bartok used folk (ie, pre-baroque) traditions to make something new and
> modern. However, I'm not sure that they should be lumped in together
> with the serialists, who strike me as somewhat more radical.
Bartok once said something about freeing music from the tyranny of the
major-minor system, so I suppose Bartok and the serialists have at least
got that in common.
Jeff Blanks
> Post-modernism is the disillusioned notion that all has been done
> already. That the best is all behind us and there's nowhere left to go but
> down and backwards (kind of like the 90's.) It's not about building or
> creating, it's about destroying.
Not destroying--more like making ironic commentaries on the decline
going on all around. But some of it's just genuine conservatism.
> Prog was exceptional
> in its ability to synthesize the present with the past,
Which for many is *exactly* what postmodernism is about, especially if
you characterize "modernism" as the effort to reject the past.
Jeff Blanks
> This quote totally describes modernism. Are you saying composers like
> Stravinsky and Schönberg were post-modernists???
How can you listen to something like the "Dumbarton Oaks" Concerto and
*not* call it "postmodern"? ;-)
> I heard and read many times a different explanation (at least conserning
> music):
> Musical modernism - atonality, emancipation of dissonance, experimentalism,
> increasing complexity ...
> Musical post-modernism - emancipation of consonance, minimalism, return to
> romanticism, new simplicity ...
I wouldn't call it "emancipation of consonance" as much as a mere return
to its tyranny. Unless you're Giya Kancheli, I suppose. And the "new
simplicity" strikes me for the most part as a mere "new
simplistic-ness". See my other comment here: it's a slightly
disingenuous pre-modernism.
Michael Starosta
> Michael Starosta <Staso.S...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to psychedelia,
> > > back in the late 60's, too.
>
> > Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
>
> Not for certain, but I can tell you where you can read about it. Go to
> the library and look up issues of Melody Maker from 1968-70.
Thanks,but do you think this works in Germany?
Terrell Miller
> www.ConservativePunk.com actually exists, but a corresponding
> ConservativeHippie.com is practically inconceivable.
Roine Stolt?
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon RE: George Harrison
Steven Sullivan
> > Michael Starosta <Staso.S...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to psychedelia,
> > > > back in the late 60's, too.
> >
> > > Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
> >
> > Not for certain, but I can tell you where you can read about it. Go to
> > the library and look up issues of Melody Maker from 1968-70.
> Thanks,but do you think this works in Germany?
Frankly, I don't want to specualte on what works in Germany.
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Michael Starosta <Staso.S...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to
psychedelia,
> > > back in the late 60's, too.
>
> > Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
>
> Not for certain, but I can tell you where you can read about it. Go
to the library
> and look up issues of Melody Maker from 1968-70.
Status Quo or Humble Pie, maybe?
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
Big Z
"Terrell Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Zpt8e.78658$vL3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
>> www.ConservativePunk.com actually exists, but a corresponding
>> ConservativeHippie.com is practically inconceivable.
>
> Roine Stolt?
Think maybe Ted Nugent or Jeff "Skunk" Baxter would cooperate?
Michael Starosta
> Michael Starosta <Staso.S...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Michael Starosta <Staso.S...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > > > Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to
> > > > > psychedelia, back in the late 60's, too.
> > >
> > > > Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
> > >
> > > Not for certain, but I can tell you where you can read about it. Go
> > > to the library and look up issues of Melody Maker from 1968-70.
>
> > Thanks,but do you think this works in Germany?
>
> Frankly, I don't want to specualte on what works in Germany.
Frankly,nothing really works in this country,but this isn't my fault.:-)
DVinyard
"Jeff Blanks" <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> "Big Z" <weasel...@rmptrollmorgue.com> wrote:
> > Prog was exceptional
> > in its ability to synthesize the present with the past,
>
> Which for many is *exactly* what postmodernism is about, especially if
> you characterize "modernism" as the effort to reject the past.
That's also how I understand these terms. The whole prog genre can be
described as postmodernistic (except most of RIO and avant - modernistic).
Public Image Ltd
>
> > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to
psychedelia,
> > back in the late 60's, too.
>
> Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
Some people thought the Beatles for example were making a statement
with "Get Back", ie, turning their backs on psychedelia. You also see
the odd view expressed that rock had got too "heavy", coincident with
the demise of hippiedom. And if you really wanted to draw a long bow,
this was about the time of the first 50s greaser revival with Sha-Na-Na
et al. However, I don't think any of this really qualifies as a
back-to-basics movement. It was not nearly as iconic as, say, _Music
from Big Pink_.
DVinyard
"Jeff Blanks" <jbl...@mindspring.com> je napisal v sporočilo
news:jblanks-A0BE32...@news1.east.earthlink.net ...
> DVinyard wrote in response to Big Z:
>
> > This quote totally describes modernism. Are you saying composers like
> > Stravinsky and Schönberg were post-modernists???
>
> How can you listen to something like the "Dumbarton Oaks" Concerto and
> *not* call it "postmodern"? ;-)
OK :) Stravinsky was an exception. He was a chameleon who tried everything
and was always in the course of time ...
> > I heard and read many times a different explanation (at least conserning
> > music):
> > Musical modernism - atonality, emancipation of dissonance,
experimentalism,
> > increasing complexity ...
> > Musical post-modernism - emancipation of consonance, minimalism, return
to
> > romanticism, new simplicity ...
>
> I wouldn't call it "emancipation of consonance" as much as a mere return
> to its tyranny. Unless you're Giya Kancheli, I suppose. And the "new
> simplicity" strikes me for the most part as a mere "new
> simplistic-ness". See my other comment here: it's a slightly
> disingenuous pre-modernism.
"Emancipation of consonance" maent a renewed introducton of tonal elements
that were rejected in modernism. With "new simplicity" I meant less emphasis
on complexity (that went to extremes in modernism).
Steven Sullivan
> DVinyard wrote in response to Big Z:
> > This quote totally describes modernism. Are you saying composers like
> > Stravinsky and Sch?nberg were post-modernists???
> How can you listen to something like the "Dumbarton Oaks" Concerto and
> *not* call it "postmodern"? ;-)
But by the end of his career, he'd settled back into 'modern'.
Steven Sullivan
> >
> > > Nope. There was a 'roots' movement in the UK in response to
> psychedelia,
> > > back in the late 60's, too.
> >
> > Could you name a band belonging to this movement?
> Some people thought the Beatles for example were making a statement
> with "Get Back", ie, turning their backs on psychedelia. You also see
> the odd view expressed that rock had got too "heavy", coincident with
> the demise of hippiedom.
Well, not particularly with that song -- which was more often interpreted
as a bit of anti-immigrant sentiment, IIRC, though Paul strenuously denied
it was that -- but certainly the Beatles wanted to 'strip down' after the
Sgt Pepper album, with The White Album and tracks that eventually came
out as Let It Be. I guess by the time of Abbey Road they were feeling
a bit more prog again.
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > www.ConservativePunk.com actually exists, but a corresponding
> > ConservativeHippie.com is practically inconceivable.
>
> Roine Stolt?
Non-Left, maybe, possibly even a bit libertarian, but not
"conservative", I don't think--certainly not by American standards.
Definitely neither a Randist not a Reaganist nor a Dispensationalist nor
a South Park Republican. Maybe a Green.
Jeff Blanks
> Grunge is an interesting case, because it provokes the
> issue of whether it superseded anything at all, or whether it just
> added to the scene. Hair metal certainly wasn't in great shape
> afterwards, although it is hard to know whether that may have just been
> coincidence.
It's more coincidence than people tend to think. OTOH, it's often
forgotten that there was some cross-talk going on, at least until Kurt
Cobain put a stop to all that. Just think of Shannon Hoon in the video
for Guns n' Roses' "Don't Cry."
> One thing grunge did do was put small record labels back
> in the spotlight, although most of the big grunge bands rapidly signed
> with the majors.
Don't forget I.R.S., R.E.M's label, in the '80s.
> Then most recently, we have had a garage revival or new rock or
> whatever you want to call it, coexisting with a pop-punk revival that
> has been going on for about a decade.
What do you say when the revival is many times longer than the original
movement (which, of course, was itself a rather conscious throwback)?
What else can you call it but "conservative"? Much more conservative
than even AOR was.
cap...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>"Public Image Ltd" <muck...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> One thing grunge did do was put small record labels back
>> in the spotlight, although most of the big grunge bands rapidly signed
>> with the majors.
>Don't forget I.R.S., R.E.M's label, in the '80s.
If you're trying to say I.R.S. was some kind of "indie" (or even
"small") label, you're streching things quite a bit. More like A&M's
"indie" arm at the time. (Not to mention MC's Police/Sting percentages
keeping them nice and solvent.)
Jeff Blanks
> If you're trying to say I.R.S. was some kind of "indie" (or even
> "small") label, you're streching things quite a bit.
Fair enough. What about SST, then?
In any event, I first started hearing a lot about "indie labels" in the
mid-'80s.
Jeff Blanks
> "Emancipation of consonance" maent a renewed introducton of tonal elements
> that were rejected in modernism. With "new simplicity" I meant less emphasis
> on complexity (that went to extremes in modernism).
Well, yes. But I stand by my perspective. We don't just have "renewed
introducton of tonal elements" or "less emphasis on complexity"; we have
basic tonality and utter simplicity.
Stu Mark
jblanks-319E29...@news1.east.earthlink.net, "Jeff Blanks"
<jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> cap...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> If you're trying to say I.R.S. was some kind of "indie" (or even
>> "small") label, you're streching things quite a bit.
>
> Fair enough. What about SST, then?
>
> In any event, I first started hearing a lot about "indie labels" in the
> mid-'80s.
I was a disk-jockey at a non-commercial radio station near Atlantic City
back in the latter half of the 80s. We *loved* the records that we'd get
from the smaller labels (and be didn't give a tinker's cuss who actually
owned the label, we were just thrilled to get music that wasn't top 40).
Stu
(who misses those days)
NP: Silent Service by Systems Theory
cap...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>cap...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> If you're trying to say I.R.S. was some kind of "indie" (or even
>> "small") label, you're streching things quite a bit.
>Fair enough. What about SST, then?
What about them? Certainly far more of an "indie" enterprise than IRS,
that's for sure.
>In any event, I first started hearing a lot about "indie labels" in the
>mid-'80s.
Which is when "indie" became more entwined a term describing both the
labels and the music they released. Back in the day, lest we forget,
Virgin was an "indie". And Island. And Chrysalis. And plenty of
others.
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
cap...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Back in the day, lest we forget,
> Virgin was an "indie". And Island. And Chrysalis. And plenty of
> others.
An old example of a prominent "indie" was Atlantic, back in the
days of Ray Charles, Coltrane, Ornette et al. Warners acquired the
label sometime around '69. Elektra was also an "indie" before they
went with Warners a few years after Atlantic.
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL