Philosophy of Music

[wintertriangles]

Since the music portion of the forum seems basically dead it calls for a revamp. This being a forum where many people choose to see films as more than entertainment and try to discuss what makes them what they are, I would hope there are some people who have the same attention to detail in another equally provocative medium.

So the first thing to ask is how many of you actively look for bands or albums for you to learn about and listen to? Does anyone play any instruments? Does anyone have music in sight for their future? Who wants to boast their record collection? For those more involved or looking to get more involved, what stage are you at and where do you want to go?

This can take off in a million different ways, should be interesting, but for the "philosophy" notion I was curious as to whether anyone else has considered music as a philosophy, or rather a method of thinking without using your brain by letting the improvisation guide you willingly. There's philosophy in concept records, genre philosophy, why you prefer this record over this record, why the subtleties in this track make it or break it, the future, where you see things heading, etc.

Should've renamed this the general music thread, dammit

[genesis_pig]

I don't play any instruments.. But my job involves music.

[wintertriangles]

What do you do?

[genesis_pig]

What do you do?
I monitor various media formats... Television & Radio mostly.
I research & monitor advertisements & music.

[wintertriangles]

Sounds like the complete opposite of your prog interest, but do you have any say in what gets used?

[planet news]

Is this a government job? Like FCC type stuff?

[wintertriangles]

PN, what kind of "prog in general" do you listen to? What have you heard that you didn't like?

[planet news]

In the order from most listened to/most familiar with to least. It's your basic prog set, I would think. I've liked most of what I've heard outside of these bands. I can't name anything I detest in prog, since I respect the "genre/movement" as a whole.

1. The Mars Volta
2. King Crimson
3. Pink Floyd
4. Rush
5. Dream Theater

[genesis_pig]

Sounds like the complete opposite of your prog interest, but do you have any say in what gets used?

I just keep track/audit of what's playing.. We get daily unsorted data from tv/radio stations... I just have to research, title & sort them..

Mostly get to listen to hip-hop.. & it's one thing I can't stand....
Just hate everything about it...

[genesis_pig]

Is this a government job? Like FCC type stuff?

It has to do with Media Rating Council...

[wintertriangles]

Planet, have you heard of Camel or Comus or Goblins? Those are probably the only other main bands from that era, Goblins you would know from any of Dario Argento's movies, but on the soundtracks themselves they have a bunch of other songs besides the movie themes.

Progressive as a style and sound has almost completely changed since then. Now you have bands like Opeth, Thought Industry, (and I guess the mars volta even though I only liked their first two), but as it is now, a lot of new bands tend to defy genre, and I wonder if you could call those bands progressive in that sense, as if it's the new progressive.

I just keep track/audit of what's playing.. We get daily unsorted data from tv/radio stations... I just have to research, title & sort them..

Mostly get to listen to hip-hop.. & it's one thing I can't stand....
Just hate everything about it... Ah, sounds simple enough, but I'm sorry about having to listen to jingle after jingle...I'm surprised no one's released an EP of the jingle satire or something, it would be awesome

[planet news]

It has to do with Media Rating Council...Is that like the MPAA censors? *shudder*

[genesis_pig]

In the order from most listened to/most familiar with to least. It's your basic prog set, I would think. I've liked most of what I've heard outside of these bands. I can't name anything I detest in prog, since I respect the "genre/movement" as a whole.

1. The Mars Volta
2. King Crimson
3. Pink Floyd
4. Rush
5. Dream Theater

Nice ones.. I have heard one album of Mars Volta... can't remember which one though.

I absolutely love Pink Floyd!! & have high regard for King Crimson..
Rush, tried couple of their tracks.. but 2012 is a personal fave album.

[genesis_pig]

Is that like the MPAA censors? *shudder*

I don't have much knowledge of all that.. I am just a desktop jockey..

[planet news]

Thanks for the recs, WT. I can honestly say I have no idea what those proper nouns were in your last post.

As for prog, I would compare it to the avant-guard or the concept of progressivism in politics. It's time/era sensitive and always refers to the unknown.

[wintertriangles]

Nice ones.. I have heard one album of Mars Volta... can't remember which one though.

I absolutely love Pink Floyd!! & have high regard for King Crimson..
Rush tried couple of their tracks.. but 2012 is a personal fave album.
Frances The Mute was the most commercially successful, maybe it was that one

You should listen to more Rush if 2112 is your favorite, specifically Hemispheres

As for prog, I would compare it to the avant-guard or the concept of progressivism in politics. It's time/era sensitive and always refers to the unknown. That's a good way of putting it. Avant-garde is becoming increasingly hard to label as well, because with bands like Unexpect and Sigh, you can see classical metal coming into play, when those bands were once considered avant-garde. I've always thought avant-garde was anything that consisted of the weirdness of Scott Walker or Diamanda Galas...or anyone who uses raw meat as percussion

[genesis_pig]

Thanks for the suggetsion.. will try Hemispheres.
It wasn't Frances The Mute for sure.

I also like Hawkwind..

[planet news]

I don't have much knowledge of all that.. I am just a desktop jockey..Honestly, this sounds like an awesome job to me. Is it?

[genesis_pig]

It's fun...

[planet news]

...

[planet news]

It's fun...It's fun!

or

It's fun.........:bored:

[genesis_pig]

Kind of both... but lets not discuss office politics..

[wintertriangles]

Being a Dj for a business is generally not fun because you don't get to voice your own musical opinion, you just play what they want you to play, hence why podcasts became so popular...though most of them are poorly run

[planet news]

As for philosophy, I recently found Adorno's Aesthetic Theory in my local library (maybe a week ago), which covers a lot about music. He has some pretty harsh ideas about modern music. I didn't read much of it, but one of the things he talks about is the modern exploitation of the leitmotif, which began with Wagner. He says Wagner is the beginning of the commercialization of music. What d'yall think about Wagner?

[wintertriangles]

I think Wagner is the polar opposite of commercialized. He was probably the first composer next to Liszt to be considered "heavy". He had constructed a double bass that took two people to play it, that was some abrasive stuff. I do want to read that theory though, I hope it's online somewhere.

And since you mention it, the Music of the Spheres concept has always fascinated me. The ambient project Dahlia's Tear seems to have taken it to heart, but I've always used the theory as a way to perceive my own writing in that if it feels like I'm just becoming jumbled, I shrink everything back to simplicity, then immediately improvise.

[planet news]

"Heavy" is somehow non-commercial? I'm not sure I see your point.

I'm a Wagner fan myself. I can't say I agree that Wagner "abused" the leitmotif; I love how he repeats and brings back themes and stuff. But, then again, I have grown up in an era of 3-4 minute pop songs where its just utter repetition.

I wonder what Adorno has to say about minimalism like Philip Glass. I don't really understand his theory.

It's not an easy read. Adorno is probably one of the more interesting characters out there (especially for you) since he focuses so much on art. I'm more drawn to the secondary literature on him for this very reason.

Are you a fictionist by the way?

[wintertriangles]

"Heavy" is somehow non-commercial? I'm not sure I see your point.

I'm a Wagner fan myself. I can't say I agree that Wagner "abused" the leitmotif; I love how he repeats and brings back themes and stuff. But, then again, I have grown up in an era of 3-4 minute pop songs where its just utter repetition.

I wonder what Adorno has to say about minimalism like Philip Glass. I don't really understand his theory.Heavy in the sense I mentioned it is non-commercial because it wasn't understood then. Liszt's later stuff especially was completely insane and the public disregarded it because it broke rules, but then Rachmaninoff and Holst came along and introduced ffffffffffff into their scores and after that anything goes. Wagner is actually quite remarkable when it comes to his motifs, I agree, but you can't compare pop to classical, and it's kinda funny that you mention repetition and bring up Philip Glass. Obviously pop is is demented, bastard child of minimalism, but minimalism is probably my tied favorite style of composition, everything changes, just like Bruce Lee said.
It's not an easy read. Adorno is probably one of the more interesting characters out there (especially for you) since he focuses so much on art. I'm more drawn to the secondary literature on him for this very reason.

Are you a fictionist by the way? I'll buy the book next time I get paid for sure. Are there any more authors along the lines of analysis of aesthetics? I have no idea what a fictionist is

[planet news]

FICTION MOTHERF*CKER. DO YOU WRITE IT?

I hate to kill this, but I'm just going to hold off on name-dropping until I read more Adorno. Holst... dear gawd...

In your opinion, what makes art music? Also, is jazz more art music than rock and roll?

[wintertriangles]

lolocaust. I dabble. I've only written maybe 3 short stories, and 2 short shorts. The album I'm recording is going to be a short story as well, if that counts.

In your opinion, what makes art music? Also, is jazz more art music than rock and roll? Easy question first, jazz is more art than rock n roll only if you define rock n roll as heavier pop, which I generally do because that's what it evolved into. Unless we're talking Velvet Underground, or post-punk, then it's up in the air. Jazz has evolved a lot recently, becoming less sporadic and more contemplative, leaving more room for sudden bursts of improvisation.

Art music...art music could be described as anything that takes more work to understand than the general song or album. For example, lots of composers like Erik Satie, Glass, Steve Reich, Bela Bartok, or Debussy can come across quite boring (or pretentious if you're lazy) to the average listener, but when you pay attention to it and finally realize it, the music becomes all the more interesting and powerful. This can be said for lots of experimental rock/metal/electronica: Mr. Bungle, Tom Waits, Current 93, anything Ulver does, and more recently in the metal scene Sigh - Scenes From Hell, Pensees Nocturnes - Grotesque, Katatonia - Night Is The New Day. I'm now realizing it would help if you knew those albums haha, but I guess in a nutshell, art music just takes the means of more concentration from the listener for the ends of a more rewarding experience

[planet news]

Real quick Google yielded this page (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrzMcPqsvogC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=adorno+criticizes+wagner&source=bl&ots=3g6njcMmB2&sig=uWrfgDZDLYRsmN5PK063TVipTyQ&hl=en&ei=Lhd3TM-SJcGclgfy0_HsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=adorno%20criticizes%20wagner&f=false) of secondary literature on Adorno's view of Wagner. Nietzsche joins in on the bashing too.

---

The problem with jazz is how it's backbone is that of improvisation with very little actual composition. Aren't brute rock musicians like, I dunno, Green Day, actually more artists than Charlie Parker, even though it is said that if you slowed down his solos you would have a precise composition? Something about the incidental nature of a solo makes me doubt this very much. The Velvet Underground were never chaotic. Isn't precision and composition a part of art? And, if not, we're then back at the ground level of "what is art?", aren't we?

---

I'd agree with that idea; that it takes more work to understand. I would add that it's the kind of music that you really need to hear and be listening to in order to appreciate. You can't just recall it and hum it to yourself. You can't tap it out in some perverse, erzats manner. You've got to listen to it. Either performed or a recording. Songs that get stuck in your head... well that's just the slavery of the leitmotif; the tyranny of the pop hook.

[wintertriangles]

Real quick Google yielded this page (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrzMcPqsvogC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=adorno+criticizes+wagner&source=bl&ots=3g6njcMmB2&sig=uWrfgDZDLYRsmN5PK063TVipTyQ&hl=en&ei=Lhd3TM-SJcGclgfy0_HsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=adorno%20criticizes%20wagner&f=false) of secondary literature on Adorno's view of Wagner. Nietzsche joins in on the bashing too.The more I read it, the more it seemed like pre-magazine, whiny critics who wished they could write music but resort to bashing the big dog. Neither of them give good examples of where and why, so I can't really take it seriously.

The problem with jazz is how it's backbone is that of improvisation with very little actual composition. Aren't brute rock musicians like, I dunno, Green Day, actually more artists than Charlie Parker, even though it is said that if you slowed down his solos you would have a precise composition? Something about the incidental nature of a solo makes me doubt this very much. The Velvet Underground were never chaotic. Isn't precision and composition a part of art? And, if not, we're then back at the ground level of "what is art?", aren't we?I could be lazy and say listen to Jeff Beck's latest album and Green Day's latest album and then answer but really you're not wrong, it just depends where you look, which also doesn't make you right. The art of improvisation vs. composition has little to do with hooks, but when a jazz artist is based around composition (Avishai Cohen is a prime example), the improv becomes a sort of extra piece of pie if you will. Precision and composition are the backbone of art, but you should remember that the lack of either is as well. It all depends on context.
Songs that get stuck in your head... well that's just the slavery of the leitmotif; the tyranny of the pop hook. There are other styles of music besides pop that has that ability, and that's the strange part about indulging in different styles. The more you listen to, there's more kinds of music that render your brain defenseless.

[genesis_pig]

I like this thread.. please go on..

[planet news]

The more I read it, the more it seemed like pre-magazine, whiny critics who wished they could write music but resort to bashing the big dog.I'd hate to ever write about music. Seems impossible to me to not sound whiny when criticizing and not like a cellphone-waving fanboy when praising it. I dunno. Adorno's not a sap. Neither is Nietzsche, who knew Wagner personally and was probably his pro-Semitic voice of reason, at least until he went bonkers. Plus, it's supposed to be an external summary of their ideas.

when a jazz artist is based around composition (Avishai Cohen is a prime example), the improv becomes a sort of extra piece of pieI'm thinking of Coltrane's stuff right now. Especially his versions of standards like "My Favorite Things" or "Summertime". What's brilliant about Coltrane is how he takes the simple melody behind them and just distorts the crap out of the notes in every single permutation possible, all the while somehow still reminding us of the original. We can be sure, however, that a lot of it was pure serendipity.

Plus, take a look at jazz scales, blues scales, classical scales, or even the god forsaken pentatonic. It's music "by the numbers" any way you look at it, right? It's just your fingers combing across the keys within a pre-established set of lines drawn by somebody else a long time ago, isn't it? What's so artistic about that?

I think that's why Adorno (just the source, not the authority) loves Schoenberg so much and his ugly 12-tone stuff. With chromatics, music "by the numbers" sort of disappears. Well, it is forced to. One can never make the same jumps twice, so to speak.

It all depends on context.You're too damn sophisticated. Strict dogmatists would argue one or the other, and we'd omnislash to oblivion.

Back to your "Music of the Spheres" though. So... do you think music is just a little bit more than arbitrary transverse waveforms or what?

[wintertriangles]

I'd hate to ever write about music. Seems impossible to me to not sound whiny when criticizing and not like a cellphone-waving fanboy when praising it.My goal is to transcend that, because writing about music is unavoidable so why not make it...good?

Plus, take a look at jazz scales, blues scales, classical scales, or even the god forsaken pentatonic. It's music "by the numbers" any way you look at it, right? It's just your fingers combing across the keys within a pre-established set of lines drawn by somebody else a long time ago, isn't it? What's so artistic about that? Again another lazy answer is "going outside the scales and the key is the art" but that's just simple stuff. Also, it can't be music by the numbers if you were never taught it ;) Lots of composers have little to no experience with theory, and they come up with some wild, enigmatic pieces that would easily challenge anyone who follows the book of key signature changes.
You're too damn sophisticated. Strict dogmatists would argue one or the other, and we'd omnislash to oblivion.

Back to your "Music of the Spheres" though. So... do you think music is just a little bit more than arbitrary transverse waveforms or what? I'm not arrogant enough to be dogmatic, but if you want to argue about it more, then attack what I said BEFORE THAT CLAUSE.

What Pythagoras meant with his theory is that the human mind's ear (kinda like the third eye) is too "dirty" to hear the sounds of the universe (though Buddhists speculate once you are enlightened you can hear it), and was considered a divine science. The problem with the pythagoreans is they tried to use math to understand it, but you can't use a method of ultimatum with a neverending proof. So in that case, obviously music has the POTENTIAL to be more than just "wavelengths" even though that's technically all they physically are. Just gotta clean your brain and stuff

[planet news]

Sounds of the universe? The universe is dead quiet my friend, seeing as most of it is an emptiness or near-vacuum.

Varese's dirty little "organized sound" definition is more in my style.

I suppose I wanted something a little less ambitious than "sounds of the universe". Maybe I was expecting a little less anthropocentric, hell, Eurocentric ARROGANCE.

And just so you know, the Buddhist model of enlightenment (and apparently PythA^2+B^2=C^2gora's model as well) is precisely analogous to psychoanalysis and its aims. What is the unraveling of complexes and neuroses besides an assisted act of cleaning one's brain?

As for wild and enigmatic... Coltrane's "Jupiter Variation" comes to mind. But here again we have utter chaos through possibly drug-induced finger spasms. How can you compose without some kind of framework? Aren't you always either spazzing out or scrawling "by the numbers" on a staff? Isn't it always one or the other? True inspiration and true beauty from inspiration is never "calculated" as the Greeks seemed to discover.

[wintertriangles]

Sounds of the universe? The universe is dead quiet my friend, seeing as most of it is an emptiness or near-vacuum.

I suppose I wanted something a little less ambitious than "sounds of the universe". Maybe I was expecting a little less anthropocentric, hell, Eurocentric ARROGANCE.I snagged a recording of Neptune from Voyager and used it as a backdrop to an ambient song I recorded. Quiet my ass. If you want less ambitious then listen to Green Day :mad:

And just so you know, the Buddhist model of enlightenment (and apparently PythA^2+B^2=C^2gora's model as well) is precisely analogous to psychoanalysis and its aims. What is the unraveling of complexes and neuroses besides an assisted act of cleaning one's brain?That's exactly it though, but only if you don't take into account conscience's response to certain types of sounds/themes (utter aberration vs. disturbingly mirthful). Either way, it's better than cleaning it with acid. Or Nickelback. Which is worse I wonder?
True inspiration and true beauty from inspiration is never "calculated" as the Greeks seemed to discover. I believe I already said that. I'll listen to Jupiter Variation and get back to you

[planet news]

It was a reference to you. An "homage" if you will.

The thing about music is its specificity to Earth's atmosphere. It needs a medium. One of the biggest fails of Plato's Allegory of the Cave is how he thinks vision and image is the only thing that requires a "linking factor", in this case being light from the sun. Hearing and sound also require a medium, but it's not even as universal as light. The medium in this case is a chaotic emulsion gas molecules, a very specific mixture of gas molecules whirling about in space at a very specific speed. What you're hearing is not Neptune. Its Neptune through Earth. Unfortunately, our ears are too finely tuned to hearing in air to hear any other way. You'll never get to hear Neptune. Only Neptunians can.

---

I like psychoanalysis, but it's not exactly a philosophy of life. I would never take apart reality itself. I think we'd be helpless without our semiotic constructs. I think Nirvana is just perceiving the world through pure abstraction, and utter void of meaninglessness, not the other way around.

Pain is a biological fact, not some kind of neurosis.

[wintertriangles]

How can you compose without some kind of framework? Aren't you always either spazzing out or scrawling "by the numbers" on a staff? Isn't it always one or the other?In this song specifically, it sounds like he was influenced by, I'll presume, a still life, and chose to give it life in his imagination, because the ebb and flow of the track never really changes but is still very active. Composing without framework falls under either on-the-spot improv or conscious improvisation, which I define as recording a "session" and going back and reworking the best parts. So clearly there are more ways of composing than "spazzing out" or going "by the numbers. I've used conscious improv and it works well, but another method I've used is hearing sounds from nature (tempo and rhythm of trees brushing against each other in wind, owl hoots, etc.), perceiving them through certain timbres that I experiment with to find the appropriate one, and going from there. Yet another is, albeit more conceptual but still instinctive enough to avoid the label of framework, writing a 30 second-1 minute soundtrack to an image, then come back another day and do the same with a different image that gives off the complete different atmosphere, but a similar feeling, of the previous, and so on until you find the song it concluded, giving the song lots of texture.

What you're hearing is not Neptune. Its Neptune through Earth. Unfortunately, our ears are too finely tuned to hearing in air to hear any other way. You'll never get to hear Neptune. Only Neptunians can./stonewalled

Also I agree with your last point, I pretty much decided that when I visited a temple for a couple days to see what it was all about first hand. Though I can't technically elaborate on how I perceive Nirvana since they say I haven't reached it yet, but the silly thing is I embrace how I torture myself for aesthetic gain, so I have no need for their version of enlightenment

[planet news]

Finely written first line. I suppose a self-referential spaz, an "edited" spaz, is a little more than just pure "leave the mic on" spaz. Like all things, it is a dialectic between the two. I tend to agree. Nevertheless, the serendipity, even in those "snippets" in those "good takes", is the "genius" of the composition. The discretion between them is only an afterward retrospective. The composition is over. Recomposition--re-editing, or editing in general if you relate it to film--is indeed a form of composition in itself, but as the cuts get wider, the less thought is involved and more out of control you allow your "long take" to be.

It see this spectrum akin to sampling as well. Especially in the case of hip hop beats. J Dilla is a good example of a sampler who experiments with the size of his chunks. Sometimes he keeps them very short, two or three notes. Other times he might keep in a whole line of vocals from a song in Avalanches style. None of the work is originally his, but its his recomposition of these works, which may as well be serendipitous spazzings into something completely new.

[wintertriangles]

The composition is over. Recomposition--re-editing, or editing in general if you relate it to film--is indeed a form of composition in itself, but as the cuts get wider, the less thought is involved and more out of control you allow your "long take" to be.You just gave me a crazy idea for writing and mixing a new album holy ****

Sampling is something I haven't really analyzed as much as I should. I just know Liquid Swords and DJ Shadow do it well enough to not only respect the source but build upon it. I didn't know Avalanches sampled though

[planet news]

I'm pretty sure Since I Left You was 100% samples.

[wintertriangles]

Makes sense now that you mention it. Are the vocals sampled as well? They sound like they were recorded in the 60's

That song reminds me, what do you think about irony in music? Or do you not know what that means

[Blue Lou]

One of the more interesting areas of this thread is the discussion of improvisation. Organized sound (music by the #'s, etc.) and improvisation can be considered as art together and seperately. But the beauty of improvisation is creating art "in the moment". Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. But that is in essence the process of creating art. It takes a great deal of understanding a particular art form in order to improvise and create something meaningful. I think thats why there are those that believe (and I think WT may have alluded to) that impovisation is considered to be an art form in and of itself.

Anyone have any thoughts on whether those who havent practiced a particular art form (music, acting, etc.) to a fairly significant degree can truely apprecitate improvisation?

[wintertriangles]

It takes a great deal of understanding a particular art form in order to improvise and create something meaningful. I think thats why there are those that believe (and I think WT may have alluded to) that improvisation is considered to be an art form in and of itself. I think every musician learns this the hard way. Even though it comes more natural for some, you still need lots of listening experience just to get interesting ideas in your head for when you randomly bust something out, which is one part about live shows that makes them more of a show. Again it's hard to say it's an art form in itself, but once developed a bit, absolutely. Everyone does it differently, and the more music you've experienced the more unique your own playing will be.

Anyone have any thoughts on whether those who havent practiced a particular art form (music, acting, etc.) to a fairly significant degree can truly appreciate improvisation? I see this more as a double-edged sword if only because those people want to appreciate it, but how in depth can they? It's possible that the more a non-practicing person analyzes it, he'll understand it clearer, but I think at the end of the day it's active musicians who just simply get it. It's a good question...

[planet news]

Anyone have any thoughts on whether those who havent practiced a particular art form (music, acting, etc.) to a fairly significant degree can truely apprecitate improvisation?Music is as much an emergent experience as film or any art form. Sometimes just the overall feeling is important. Always, in my opinion, since music is a near-direct manipulation of human emotion. If you are a music theorist and read too close into Parker's moves, for instance, you might miss the overall effect that he's trying to communicate. It's like Eisenstein's montage theory. Every cut effects the other. Some things are intended to work on a subliminal level, which is certainly free from any necessary expertise. I probably have more idea how musical improvisation works, since I can do it fairly well myself, but I have no idea how actors can improvise and make things work. But aren't these details unimportant to the experience? I don't really want to think about the brilliance of the improvisation itself but the naturalism and spontaneity that results from it.

[mark f]

Sure, all improvisation is basically emotion translated into the physical and then interpreted emotionally by the listener/viewer. Actors are basically "improvising" their emotions every time they say a line. Watch/hear Jimi Hendrix play guitar on any of his "covers" (I've got several posted at the "What are You Listening... " thread) and you'll "see" raw emotion aka pure joy.

[planet news]

I guess my critique of Hendrix then is how he reacts when he hits a "wrong" note. Don't you think even he cringes a little bit for a split second? There are always "right" and "wrong" notes, unless its some kind of crazy chromatic dissonance like King Crimson or Hendrick's "Star Spangled Banner". My idea here is that even though it might seem like improvisation, it is still very much within a learned set of sensibilities that ultimately direct his movement in an unconscious manner. Like learning how to ride a bike. You never quite forget it.

In other words, mistakes are the only true moments of original thought.

[wintertriangles]

In other words, mistakes are the only true moments of original thought. What if they're conscious mistakes?

[planet news]

Interesting. Possibly an oxymoron. Possibly not. You mean like "forced" mistakes or free association? Like spin the bottle almost with notes or words? I can't say it's much different. I don't know how psychoanalysis keeps getting into this (oh yeah... me), but the "talking cure" is meant to produce a stream of consciousness that self-unravels its own precepts by mere chance. It's meant to reveal the base aspects of your mental life.

[mark f]

Some of Hendrix's "most-proficient" guitar playing was with his teeth, behind his head, in between his legs and one-handed. I'm just not sure how you can tell what's "wrong" and what's "right". Then he used feedback "melodically" which truly seems an oxymoron. I suppose the fact that Hendrix was a space alien who came down to live among us for a mere 27 years explains his "technique" as much as anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxd8tfPEDg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPvehX2aWb8

[wintertriangles]

I'm just not sure how you can tell what's "wrong" and what's "right". Then he used feedback "melodically" which truly seems an oxymoron. I suppose the fact that Hendrix was a space alien who came down to live among us for a mere 27 years explains his "technique" as much as anything.He's no alien. He's a prime example of feeling more involved in playing with feeling over playing correctly. He was just lucky his genre didn't require accuracy. The thing I liked about him, even though I generally don't think much of his material, is his live playing. He would hit wrong notes and bend the strings until they sounded in key, which is something I think many guitarists do instinctively but I just find that he did it really funny

It's meant to reveal the base aspects of your mental life. I can vouch for that :(

[Blue Lou]

Why do I feel a White Men Cant Jump quote may come into this discussion at some point?

More impov/jam: The Layla Sessions-Clapton/Allman

And this is just part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtxQ2ecfxMM

[Michael_10]

Some of Hendrix's "most-proficient" guitar playing was with his teeth, behind his head, in between his legs and one-handed. I'm just not sure how you can tell what's "wrong" and what's "right". Then he used feedback "melodically" which truly seems an oxymoron. I suppose the fact that Hendrix was a space alien who came down to live among us for a mere 27 years explains his "technique" as much as anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxd8tfPEDg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPvehX2aWb8

I read, he couldn't read music, too!

[planet news]

That would be an interesting fact, though not really if you think about the nature of guitar soloing (constantly manipulating timing etc.) and how Hendrix mostly sticks within pentatonics.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you'll never find a Mozart not being able to read music. In other words, pure improvisation can only reach a certain level of awesome. The next step requires some actual thought.

[mark f]

Well, the guy who basically invented "classical rock" and is considered one of the great composers of the 20th century, Paul McCartney, cannot read music. But maybe he's also "too hoi polloi" for the philosophy of music thread. :cool:

[wintertriangles]

First of all, no one band ever ever ever invents something all on their own. Paul McCartney didn't do anything remotely "classical rock" until the 90's (that was the stuff I liked by him though), whereas Zappa for example included a lot more classical elements in his stuff as early as Freak Out. Music theory is a stepping stone, regardless of who you are, and the only question about it is how far you should take it if you learn it because you can get to a point where it ruins your creative process

Hendrix mostly sticks within pentatonics. Most bands have this problem, I can only take so much of the same key for a band's career METALLICA

[planet news]

I don't see how it ruins anything. Just because McCartney can't read music doesn't mean he doesn't know "musical theory". The two are different things. There is a difference between understand a bit about the nature of chord progressions and whatnot and just composing by ear or messing around with your fingers.

[mark f]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREmdfQGpGs&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Itt02QOO0

[wintertriangles]

Since when does using strings mean you're classically influenced?

Especially for Eleanor Rigby, using a cello doesn't mean you're writing a classical song, especially when it has the same rhythm for most of the song

[mark f]

"Classical rock", not "classical". But I'm not going to argue about something so obvious. I don't think you realize the effect those songs had on the pop (and rock) music of their day. "Eleanor Rigby" uses a string octet, but that's neither here nor there.

[wintertriangles]

"Classical rock", not "classical". But I'm not going to argue about something so obvious.Classical rock would be rock music with classical elements, not classical instruments. Eleanor Rigby was a bad example of this, so I'll look at Yesterday. It has a string quartet which many bands did in the 60's (Smokey Robinson being a prime example). It's structure is A A2 B A2 B B2, looks pretty standard for the timeI don't think you realize the effect those songs had on the pop (and rock) music of their day.why do all beatles fans say this when you disagree with them, not to sound like an ass but it's almost always the only card played and believe it or not I know more than some 12 year old when it comes to "musical importance"

[Cries&Whispers]

ewhy do all beatles fans say this when you disagree with them, not to sound like an ass but it's almost always the only card played and believe it or not I know more than the average 12 year old when it comes to "musical importance"

They say this because it's true. The Beatles were the most influential band of all time. They did change the sound and boundaries of pop music in the 1960s, and their influence is still present today. A lot of the techniques they used and innovations they started to revolutionize music are taken for granted now because they are so popularly used. But back then, they were inventive and fresh sounding.

But for the record, I agree. First of all, Paul McCartney did not invent classical rock music. Not by any stretch of the imagination, in any way, at all. If anything, Eleanor Rigby is a quintessential George Martin arrangement. If any Beatles song sounds classically influenced in any way, it was usually under the compositional direction of Martin. I never knew that McCartney couldn't read music, but that doesn't really surprise me because he wouldn't really have to. Martin took care of most of the technical and production aspects of their songs. I do know that often John, George, or McCartney, usually John, would make requests on adding a flat-seventh here, or a jazz phrasing there or something, but it was usually Martin who said, okay, this bridge will have this many measures and contrast with the chorus by starting on the VI, blah blah blah...

I would say that just by virtue of using a string quartet (and btw it is technically a quartet not an octet; there are just two sets of each instrument playing the exact same thing, with minor soloing flourishes to add dimension), the song does have some classical element. But only in the simplest sense. It uses classical instruments in the traditional style, I guess, but the song is in Dorian mode (I think?) and the arrangement of melody and harmony, while featuring a few unique subtle technical details, is pretty much a standard box form, with a lot of traditional blues elements. It just sounds classical because one track of the recording is completely the double quartet, separated from the syncopated, bluesy part and Paul's singing track.

I also agree about Yesterday. Same thing, fairly standard arrangement, traditional pop song structure. But there are undeniably classical influences in both songs. And music, especially pop music, but really all Western music, did not sound anything like the songs on Rubber Soul and Revolver when they first came out. And even a few on Help, including Yesterday, hinted at a unique sound that was completely fresh in music when it first came out. Looking back, I guess the sound is too subtle to seem any different to us today, but at the time other musicians and musicologists would have noticed it.

This is more or less a fruitless argument of semantics, but if you were to define classical rock as rock with classical influences, not just classical instruments, then I'd agree 100% that Frank Zappa is the best example of an artist who frequently worked in this style. I think that stems from his obsession with Varese.

Anyway, what's really the point of this thread? I don't mean that in a d*ck way, I really just want to know what exactly the purpose or focus is. Music in general? Our thoughts on it? Music analysis?

[wintertriangles]

They say this because it's true. The Beatles were the most influential band of all time. No one band is the most influential of anything. They reversed tapes and got samples from the natural urban world, and a handful of other production oddities. They were not the only band from their time to experiment with song structure in pop music, which most people like to forget. Revolutions are never lead by one, they had The Kinks, Procol Harum, King Crimson, The Who, The Velvet Underground and many other acts doing just as much experimentation with their music, all of which were: back then, they were inventive and fresh sounding. and it was the culmination of the collective efforts that led to the progression.
Anyway, what's really the point of this thread? I don't mean that in a d*ck way, I really just want to know what exactly the purpose or focus is. Music in general? Our thoughts on it? Music analysis?All of the above really, there's just no real discussions going on about music so I made a general place for it

[planet news]

What about "Piggies"?

[planet news]

For their "weird era" look to Pierre Schaeffer.

The Vertigo-zoom is called the Hitchcock zoom, because he popularized it. He didn't invent the technique.

I don't see how The Beatles were fresh sounding at all even back then. I wouldn't take their mass popularity as anything else than a sign against this idea of being fresh. Especially if you listen to their earlier stuff, it's pure Elvis-imitation. The "freshest" bands today are some of the least popular. It just goes with the whole idea of the lowest common denominator in terms of popularity, hence rock music as a whole.

Any innovation in rock music has basically been just taking more traditional art music forms, simplifying them to nothing, creating ersatz hybrids with it, and slamming on a thudding beat.

It's entire existence is based on commercializing the concept of music itself, hence its unprecedented popularity. And now, anyone can play guitar.

[wintertriangles]

What about "Piggies"?

That was George again, it has a Baroque style intro so it works

[genesis_pig]

I agree...

The Who were innovative in so many ways... but they hardly get credit..

[wintertriangles]

Some people say The Who were stepping stones into progressive music, and want someone to show me how because it's an interesting notion.

[planet news]

Tommy must have been one of the first concept albums, no?

[wintertriangles]

That's the only thing I could think of that would make sense, but I think I just wanted a little more than that for some reason

[genesis_pig]

I don't know about their relation to Progressive Music.. but they were more popular for their live performances & improvisations....

But Tommy was the first Operatic rock album..

[planet news]

Epic length songs maybe? I don't know. It's not like Schzoid Man was anything like Tommy though, and that's considered to be the first furealz prog album.

[planet news]

Isn't part of prog integrating classical compositional forms like opera for example?

[wintertriangles]

Well I don't see how you could doubt that about In The Court, but Tommy came out the same year. In The Court must have went straight from jazz and classical to prog rock

Funny side note, on the King Crimson website, it says Pete Townshend called In The Court an "uncanny masterpiece"

[genesis_pig]

Honestly, I have always been confused with the definition of Prog.

But King Crimson & ELP are the quintessential example of Prog.....

[wintertriangles]

Progressive's definition changes all the time and I'll just quote planet since he summed it up really well.

It's time/era sensitive and always refers to the unknown. and add on that it's a genre that (used to) always tries to push forward, musical progression was a big concept. Nowadays, there are a lot of pseudo-prog bands that just copy other, better bands but use choruses to sell their ****. So in this light, progressive doesn't really pertain to the typical "prog sound" you may relate with it, but it's more of where in music things are starting to...bubble

[genesis_pig]

I refer to Progarchives.com. They have a nice list of Prog bands.

[planet news]

Crimson didn't just have classical and jazz influences (the past) they also did totally weird new stuff that didn't make sense in any context (though you could site Schoenberg or Stravinsky or whatever). Especially Fripp's atonal stuff. That didn't come from classic, jazz, or rock. It came from the future.

Crimson also has some totally normal songs that aren't in the least bit experimental.

[wintertriangles]

I refer to Progarchives.com. They have a nice list of Prog bands.
As far as their archives, they are wayyyy too lenient on who they include (Karnivool). But they do have a good database overall

Crimson didn't just have classical and jazz influences (the past) they also did totally weird new stuff that didn't make sense in any context (though you could site Schoenberg or Stravinsky or whatever). Especially Fripp's atonal stuff. That didn't come from classic, jazz, or rock. It came from the future.Atonal was sort of around before Fripp, but I think Fripp just smiled, hit 20 effects pedals, and "let it flow" like a mad scientist, taking atonal from a pebble to a fjord. I wouldn't cite Stravinsky and am not familiar with Schoenberg

[planet news]

ITT: The musical philosophy of being generally irreverence of individuals and modeling the progression of music in culture as a smoothly flowing gradient. In other words, individual artists are nothing more than sample DJs.

Accurate assessment for now?

[wintertriangles]

That sounds like a way to look at music if you hate music

[Michael_10]

This may be lame, or even juvenile, however! When I go to a gig, I want to be rocked. I want to see the artist bust their gut and really believe in what they're singing. Yeah, sure, it should and hopefully sound good, and if the band F'up a few keys so be it, but I want them to leave everything out there on the floor. I go to Pub gigs these days, the whole stadium extravaganza doesn't really impress me anymore. I want to be up close and personal, and see the sweat dripping from their forehead, whilst the lights improach on their hydration levels.

[wintertriangles]

Good, that's what bands should be doing. A live show is their chance to reform their styles to a different atmosphere and they should put everything into it especially because it's the band's main moneymaker. I agree about stadiums, they have nothing to offer the audience. The best shows I've seen are in bars where I'm two feet from my favorite artists while they're about to pass out from putting so much into their playing or vocals

[Blue Lou]

No doubt, great live music is the best. There was a time, in the U.S. at least, where MTV and traditional radio use to be able to control music. Napster and other P2P networks opened the door to expanding peoples interest in a wider variety of music. Now, Internet radio dominates and you can find any genre of music online. Some groups of the past wouldnt have a chance in this environment. Just think, people made a sh*t ton of cash off groups like Ace of Base and Milli Vanilli. Good ridance to that bullsh*t.

[genesis_pig]

good riddance?... what about Justin Bieber, 50 Cent, etc....

[Blue Lou]

50 cent is still making music? In a year or two, that Bieber kid will be a strung out crack addict.

[wintertriangles]

I cannot understand people's ignorance these days when it comes to anything artistic. You show someone nickelback and they *** in their jeans but show them something with power, with value, with emotion, hell, with talent, and they blow it off saying its pretentious and that music and lyrics should only be simple and anything else sucks because it's not popular. Music fans are few and far between each other, it's a sick game geography

[Blue Lou]

Yeah, well, to each his own I guess. Its not a crime to lack intellectual depth. But I do think the internet over the past decade or so has changed the game. There are a lot more options out there for those that are looking.

[wintertriangles]

The internet became a pro and a con in itself. Obviously the lesser known bands get an infinite amount of more opportunities to be discovered by anyone worldwide, and I know I wouldn't be nearly as knowledgeable about bands without filesharing, but again the lesser known bands almost have to bite the bullet. They trade no recognition and no money with a lot more recognition and hardly any money. That's clearly why live shows are so important, and it's why a lot of bands are trying to separate themselves from corporate or even regular labels so they can actually make a living. The whole game of marketing and selling is reinventing itself, and it's something I'm proud to not only be a part of, but also support

You can't experience mp3s the same way you can with vinyl, or even CDs. There's too much of a concept in certain circumstances for one to completely ignore the product and just listen to the music with your finger on the skip button

[planet news]

Just don't hit the skip button. I don't.

I'm not going to piss on the internet when that's how I grew up listening to music.

Also, I thought we agreed on what I said on my last post. Seems this thread has been doing that all along. Everyone time mark f or C&W rave about The Beatles, we just figure out ways of shutting them down.

[wintertriangles]

Just don't hit the skip button. I don't.

I'm not going to piss on the internet when that's how I grew up listening to music.I don't hit it either, listening to albums is for winners. And I wasn't pissing on the internet, but you can't ignore the blemishes.

Beatles arguments are just silly to me because the only argument on the beatles' side is "you don't get it". Hell I even had someone tell me Keith Moon was the drummer. It's like arguing with Rolling Stone about why the first 4 Black Sabbath records got zero stars but A Hard Day's Night was a classic, there's no logic

[planet news]

People think that there was something deep about it when it was, is, and forever will be just pop music. Just because it's not on the charts today does not excuse it from the commercialism that went into its production. I'm all for redefining art in different time period, indeed, great art is precisely the kind of art that can survive through different eras and take on different meaning, but I don't see The Beatles ever being anything more than just another pop band. They stand out only because of their extreme popularity. Not enough inquiry is made into whether or not they deserved this or how much of their art was allowed by this phenomenon alone as opposed to their art being the cause of their popularity. Sure, they made a lot of interesting stuff in their hippie period, but even that was a collective trend. Just look at any other band at that time. The truly innovative thing would have been to buck the trend and keep playing Buddy Holly style. And for all the talk about how "weird" their albums were, the only truly anti-commercial song they ever made was "Revolution 9".

[wintertriangles]

Which is now in sneaker commercials. Anyway, new topic

Musical Irony. One example of this is a juxtaposition between music and lyrics, but I'm sure there's more ways this is possible; here's some examples: The Cure - Just Like Heaven, Opeth - Hex Omega (less obvious), Amesoeurs - Bonheur Ampute, Dog Fashion Disco - Pogo The Clown, Faith No More - Everything's Ruined

[planet news]

Who granted you the right to change the topic?????

Actually, I remember you bringing this up a few PAGES ago. :laugh:

---

Take a look at this for another example of ironic lyrics. It's from Prokofiev's Wikipedia page:
Biographer Daniel Jaffé has argued that Prokofiev, "having forced himself to compose a cheerful evocation of the nirvana Stalin wanted everyone to believe he had created" (i.e. in Zdravitsa) then subsequently, in these three sonatas, "expressed his true feelings".As evidence of this, Jaffé has pointed out that the central movement of Sonata No. 7 opens with a theme based on a Robert Schumann Lieder, 'Wehmut' ('Sadness', which appears in Schumann's Liederkreis, Op. 39): the words to this translate "I can sometimes sing as if I were glad, yet secretly tears well and so free my heart. Nightingales... sing their song of longing from their dungeon's depth... everyone delights, yet no one feels the pain, the deep sorrow in the song." Ironically (though probably because, it appears, no one had noticed this musical allusion) Sonata No. 7 received a Stalin Prize [:laugh:] (Second Class), and No. 8 a Stalin Prize First Class, even though the works have been subsequently interpreted as representing Prokofiev "venting his anger and frustration with the Soviet regime."I also heard a theory about how "irony" is the key to what Stalin actually wanted in his music. The Soviet state itself is one of the most formally ironic governments in history.

[Yoda]

I was going to say that The Beatles are awesome, and that being "just a pop band" isn't really much of a criticism, and that it'd be more accurate to say that they were the pop band, and that it takes genuine talent to create accessible music with such broad appeal, and that not everything is about complexity and virtuosity.

But then I realized this would get in the way of you guys telling each other how right you are, so nevermind. ;)

[wintertriangles]

I was going to say that The Beatles are awesome, and that being "just a pop band" isn't really much of a criticism, and that it'd be more accurate to say that they were the pop band, and that it takes genuine talent to create accessible music with such broad appeal, and that not everything is about complexity and virtuosity.The Cure's The Top combines both aforementioned elements in a disturbing way that makes me forget The Beatles

But then I realized this would get in the way of you guys telling each other how right you are, so nevermind. ;) on the contrary if you can prove me wrong in anything I say I implore you to

I also heard a theory about how "irony" is the key to what Stalin actually wanted in his music. The Soviet state itself is one of the most formally ironic governments in history. That was an..interesting choice to point out haha. If you have more info about it I'd gladly read. What I was pointing out initially was..well let's take Faith No More's track for example to keep with the WWII theme. The lyrics show the decrescendo of the fall of Stalin but the music and vocals are so upbeat and I guess encouraging, especially in the part where he repeats "now everything's ruined"

[planet news]

Um... it's not accurate to say they were "the pop band" just because they were the most popular. They were not substantially better than several of their contemporaries. Lots of screaming girls and celebrity mania isn't really something that has anything to do with art. It makes for a good social study, but I don't see how mass fandom contributes to the band's worth as musicians. Also, pop isn't anything to be proud of. Pop in this case doesn't refer to pop the genre as in peppy major key rock but popular music that tops the charts. If you mean pop the genre, I still see no reason why they should be credited as the greatest just because they are the most popular.

it takes genuine talent to create accessible music with such broad appealThe broad appeal already existed. They only played in existing styles. The world took a poll a while before they arrived, and the answer was rock and roll. Bandwagon jumping takes no talent whatsoever.

[linespalsy]

music irony: michael nyman having anne pigalle sing "images were introduced, because many people cannot retain in their memories what they hear, but they do remember if they see images..." in 'the kiss.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILWva8AZus

[wintertriangles]

Is this ironic because it's a music-video? Because that's a great point with those lyrics

[planet news]

You could even call it "romantic" music irony since it refers to the medium itself.

[linespalsy]

Is this ironic because it's a music-video? Because that's a great point with those lyrics

i think the video makes it work in a different way but wouldn't it still be ironic as just a song?

it's too bad it got cut off in that video because my favorite part is the end of the song.

[Yoda]

The Cure's The Top combines both aforementioned elements in a disturbing way that makes me forget The Beatles
While I love The Cure, I don't think they approach The Beatles in either of those "elements." They're clearly on their own level in terms of popularity, broad appeal, and having the most influence over how we think of pop music today.

If you prefer The Cure's more "disturbing" slant, hell, I wouldn't talk you out of it, because I like it quite a bit myself. I just don't think The Beatles have an equal (or even a challenger of any seriousness) under the criteria I mentioned. But really, I don't want to say anything that could be interpreted as denigrating The Cure, so rock on. :)

on the contrary if you can prove me wrong in anything I say I implore you to
I most certainly can't. :) I was just poking fun at how certain and lock-step you both seem about some of this stuff. I have no way of demonstrating to anyone that The Beatles have genuine artistic merit and warrant significant admiration, just as there's no way of demonstrating the opposite. I think it's the hardest art form to discuss on solid ground.

Um... it's not accurate to say they were "the pop band" just because they were the most popular.
I think it's accurate to say they were the pop band because they were the most significant (and not just the most popular). They had the greatest amount of influence throughout the industry. And yes, I do think it's reasonable to take popularity into account. I wouldn't use it as the only criteria, or even the primary one, but the level of fame and devotion they achieved can't be ignored. It's staggering.

They were not substantially better than several of their contemporaries. Lots of screaming girls and celebrity mania isn't really something that has anything to do with art. It makes for a good social study, but I don't see how mass fandom contributes to the band's worth as musicians.
Depends on how you're defining that worth. In terms of raw technial skill? Nope. But as I said, creating music that appeals to that degree, to that many people, is a serious accomplishment.

The broad appeal already existed. They only played in existing styles. The world took a poll a while before they arrived, and the answer was rock and roll. Bandwagon jumping takes no talent whatsoever.
You make it sound like becoming the most famous group in the history of the world involved only choosing a "style." As if making music in that style wasn't the hard part! "Well, we've chosen rock, gentlemen. It's all downhill from here." Basically, you're penalizing them for, what, not inventing a genre of music?

There's really not much way to argue about this. There are lots of music-related discussions that can have a semblance of objectivity laced throughout them, but the simple issue of whether or not you give inherent credit to a group which can make such wildly accessible and popular music, whether or not you find that instrinsically valuable, is an abstract one, and not one that can really be argued much. I think it's valuable in part because it brings a tremendous number of people joy, and gives them a common interest and experience on a scale that most of us don't have for our personal tastes. If you don't, I'm quite sure I can't say much else to convince you to.

[wintertriangles]

While I love The Cure, I don't think they approach The Beatles in either of those "elements." They're clearly on their own level in terms of popularity, broad appeal, and having the most influence over how we think of pop music today.

If you prefer The Cure's more "disturbing" slant, hell, I wouldn't talk you out of it, because I like it quite a bit myself. I just don't think The Beatles have an equal (or even a challenger of any seriousness) under the criteria I mentioned. But really, I don't want to say anything that could be interpreted as denigrating The Cure, so rock on. :)The only reason I brought them up was because I personally see today's popular music influenced far more by post-punk in general than anything before, and post-punk didn't really grab from The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or even The Kinks, so that remains a mystery. Nick Cave is probably the only one of them I could pinpoint influences. I most certainly can't. :) I was just poking fun at how certain and lock-step you both seem about some of this stuff. I have no way of demonstrating to anyone that The Beatles have genuine artistic merit and warrant significant admiration, just as there's no way of demonstrating the opposite. I think it's the hardest art form to discuss on solid ground.Just so you don't consider my remarks too caustic, I don't hate them. I think they have two solid albums, and a handful of other decent tracks outside them, but I feel the need to be consistent in keeping their alleged prowess in check.Depends on how you're defining that worth. In terms of raw technial skill? Nope. But as I said, creating music that appeals to that degree, to that many people, is a serious accomplishment.You can't compare technical skill between the bands of that era naturally, but just as songwriters appealing to "that many people" doesn't seem like a big enough deal to me just because there are many acts that have done similar worldwide. The Beatles may have become the most popular because they took what rock became and made it accessible to the working men and the women were helpless for McCartney obviously, and frankly that kind of success can be compared to Nickelback, but they're unfathomably successful worldwide. Success shouldn't be measured by album sales.

You make it sound like becoming the most famous group in the history of the world involved only choosing a "style." Elvis did it.Basically, you're penalizing them for, what, not inventing a genre of music?That's not the issue, but rather people think they did, which is just silly.

There's really not much way to argue about this. There are lots of music-related discussions that can have a semblance of objectivity laced throughout them, but the simple issue of whether or not you give inherent credit to a group which can make such wildly accessible and popular music, whether or not you find that instrinsically valuable, is an abstract one, and not one that can really be argued much. I think it's valuable in part because it brings a tremendous number of people joy, and gives them a common interest and experience on a scale that most of us don't have for our personal tastes. If you don't, I'm quite sure I can't say much else to convince you to. That's the only social positive. If more Beatles fans were like you, having more to say than "shuddup", there probably wouldn't be any serious arguments. You know, I like you kid

[mark f]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=216f99BlAHg

[planet news]

Cool dismissal, bro!

Haha I guess some things are just so self-evident we needn't ever consider them! Yep! Yeah!

[mark f]

Maybe you should not not consider them. That's the point of an open mind.

However, you've already set everything up where "you" can never admit that somebody else has "anything" to share. I am wrong, plain and simple.

Please post your grades at this site. I'm truly interested in seeing what your "professors" give you for grades.

[planet news]

No idea what that last bit's meant to imply (well...), but I'm not the one who's rigidly fixed on works like Schindler's List or artists like The Beatles. It's interesting that you think I don't care about other people's opinions when my opinions are always the opinions of others whom I have come to embrace (often, at first, only experimentally---in this case with Adorno and The Beatles, but later, as with SL, absolutely seriously).

Regardless, me "being rigid" doesn't really apply to any argument here, and, as far as I can tell, neither does your Art Brut song.

Plus, this is a message board and not real life. :shrug:

[mark f]

OK, as I said, you're always correct.

Later, Gator!

[planet news]

Weird response to a discussion thread. I'm not suppose to defend positions? We're not supposed to argue, only agree? Sorry that you're taking it so personally.

[wintertriangles]

I'm lost, that made no sense

[mark f]

Like I said, tell me what your "professors" grade you. I wouldn't be surprised if your grades also made no sense to you. Maybe after the fact I can explain them to you. Please don't forget.

[wintertriangles]

I'm on the dean's list somehow, what does that prove

[planet news]

I think he was talking to me, since he's a bit miffed at me, I think. I can't say I'm not worried about college grades, but I've got a pretty good track record. Not that track record really matters since its a whole different kind of environment.

[wintertriangles]

Sounds like a good time to change the subject before he thinks we're talking about him yes? What about, just since I'm ever so curious, your, or anyone's views, on the metal genre? It's beginning, it's underground most importantly, it's evolution, etc...classical metal IE: Virgin Black, Sigh

Or there's always the option of video game music if I'm the only metal kid here

or or or or a listening party :eek:

[planet news]

Seems metal is just about the only music anyone ever talks about on the Eva boards. Metal and J-pop.

Well... I guess the metalheads on here don't want to comment much. I personally don't know much about it, so anything I say will just be prejudice. Nevertheless, I'll say something somewhat provocative and see how you respond.

To my mind, currently having heard very little metal, the entire genre encompasses essentially one emotion, albeit the seemingly obligatory "soft song" in just about every album.

Right or dead wrong? I sense the latter, and, in that case, please educate me.

It's beginning, it's underground most importantly, it's evolutionMetal as an art both starts and ends with Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. :laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I5OtlKjzJo

[wintertriangles]

Metal as an art both starts and ends with Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. :laugh:Just to get this out of the way: there's a difference between the noise metal sheets make when you swish them together like apple sauce and Lou Reed's satire.

Right or dead wrong? I sense the latter, and, in that case, please educate me.Dead dead dead dead wrong I don't even know

Ok so based off that comment it's safe to assume the metal you've heard isn't experimental whatsoever and especially based on your inclusion of the "token soft song" probably wasn't anything good, however I would like to know what you have heard so I can re-clarify.

The "entire" genre encompasses as many emotions as any other genre, but, just as with any other genre, is composed of mostly poor releases that rely on one emotion and that softer, accessible song as a single. It should be implied exceptions run amok, but anyhow, I'll give a hopefully translatable example. Animal Collective generally do not rely on dynamics as far as emotional atmosphere is concerned, but lots of people like them only because that's the band they go to when they want to feel "this way". In the same light, there are lots of good metal bands exemplifying a similar outlet.

Outside that realm lies immense room for exploration. If you want examples for metal bands that don't rely on being HEVY METHUL as I'm guessing you were implicating, you have the bare bones basics: the doom genre, started by Black Sabbath on Masters Of Reality, that gives off either a strong sense of sadness (Warning - Watching From A Distance) or mysticism (Cathedral - Endtyme). Black metal is mainly a winter genre based on the atmosphere of the recordings (Coldworld - Melancholie), but there are loads of more experimental examples where classical influences and structures are abound (Emperor - Prometheus). There's far more but I'll elaborate only if it's unconvincing.

As far as metal genre transcendence, which is my personal favorite, you can see that not only is a record metal, but equally jazzy, classical (Virgin Black - Requiem Mezzo Forte), soundtrack-like (Diabolical Masquerade - Death's Design), avant-garde (Unexpect - In A Flesh Aquarium), folk (Moonsorrow - V: Havitetty), post-punk (Amesoeurs - Ruines Humaines), 70's prog (Opeth - Watershed), and so on. In the same way bands like King Crimson and especially Magma were doing literally whatever the song wanted rather than the artists themselves, there's lots of the same experimentation going on in metal but obviously in different ways, and with it comes any and all means of trying to express emotions one doesn't know exist.

So to answer your question, clearly.

[planet news]

Most win post on this thread yet.

You rock, bro! No pun intended. Um... I have no idea how to thank you for this. Some part of me actually believed you were going to agree with me, but if there's one thing I know about art, it's that I know nothing about art.

All I ask now is for some time to listen to those titles and get back to you. Knowing that there's a metal album pretentious enough to call itself Requiem Mezzo Forte warms my heart.

I'd have to disagree with the AnCo comparison, 'cause I feel like they move around a lot in specific emotions as their work as a whole and even within any particular album (barring their latest) is pretty varied. I'm not as huge a fan now as I was though, so I'm really more inclined to agree with you on their commodization.

---

In relation to Lou Reed, what do you think about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXKJSTZeU7k

[wintertriangles]

I'd have to disagree with the AnCo comparison, 'cause I feel like they move around a lot in specific emotions as their work as a whole and even within any particular album (barring their latest) is pretty varied. I'm not as huge a fan now as I was though, so I'm really more inclined to agree with you on their commodization.Well that was just me trying to not bash them haha so I guess I succeeded in a way.

And I love Enslaved, it's too bad you found their worst album. I forgot they used to use keys though, so thanks for reminding me. Also since you brought up black metal again, the production is one of the instruments. After you become desensitized to it, the music makes a lot more sense rather than sounding like trash cans

[planet news]

Really? I've heard from others that it was one of the top black metal records e-var. It's not that I don't like it either. I'm just making the comparison. Even Reed's craziness has its own sublime esthetic especially if you listen to it right after blasting mainstream radio.

[wintertriangles]

Oh totally, especially the last track on that album. Bizarre and wonderful

Really? I've heard from others that it was one of the top black metal records e-var.It was the start of the Norwegian wave, which makes it more important than good. To me the top black metal records are those that not only stood apart from others in the genre but were also quality records that progressed the genre. Enslaved definitely fits that category, only a few albums later however. Plus it's a bad idea to talk to black metal fans about the best albums because the people that think they know are just blinded by anything more cult/obscure than something else, and they're usually elitist asshats

[planet news]

the people that think they know are just blinded by anything more cult/obscure than something else, and they're usually elitist asshatsYou've just insulted my mother. :|

By the way, what are your thoughts on Mastodon and Atheist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OgNftP8oU8&feature=related

[wintertriangles]

Atheist is pretty great, though I haven't heard that song. I like how when they came out in Florida, most of the bands focused on brutality and they just confused everybody by throwing in jazz breakdowns.

Mastodon...basically hit and miss for me. I liked Remission and Blood Mountain because they're pretty groovy, but Leviathan never really grew on me, and I just flat out dislike the new record, it comes across as not knowing when to introduce its purpose and ends up sounding redundant. But that's just me. That criticism may also come from it being praised up the ass

You've just insulted my mother. :indifferent:She don't mind, I've done worse to her

[planet news]

I'm at this pathetic point where Atheist and Mastodon sound like they could be the same band to me.

DIANNA NEWS IS A SAINT!

[wintertriangles]

Saint-Seans perhaps, era Danse Macabre :licklips:

I'm at this pathetic point where Atheist and Mastodon sound like they could be the same band to me.Maybe after you go through those albums you were talking about, you'll train your ear enough to where you'll want to delete that post. Also I'm really interested in your feedback for those records

[planet news]

Continued from here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=741665).

i view albums as a work of art. i hate compliations or "best of" mixes for this reason.The fact that albums are the original construction doesn't preclude the artistry of each song and certainly not in the single-dominated writing that pervades today. Even the movements of a symphony are separable because of their very separation as movement by the artist. A symphony, however, is a much more cohesive work than your typical album is; that is, it displays much more interdependence among its parts. Still...

Today's music has been fetishized to the point where very few albums and their songs approach the necessary cohesiveness of, say, a symphony and its movements. What little artistry is involved in ordering the songs is the same minimal artistry that someone creating a "best of" mix is likely to put into their work. And, indeed, a mix is a work of art, albeit a derivative work mirroring that of an album. A mix is the art of singles album or putting utterly disparate together songs into a pleasing order. Indeed, it is possible that if a mix is "themed" the songs chosen from different artists could somehow fit together more harmoniously than any of them relegated to their native albums!

And what of Daedalus or The Avalanches or Susumu Yokota? There is art even in the derivative re-presentation of art. Indeed, almost all music or art ever created -- and certainly all the works that ever became even remotely popular -- emerged as a shuffling of previous influences. A "best of" mix is just considerably less randomized. We can only ever create from what we already have before us.

the artist intended it to be listened to as a complete work of art.The artist intent can be recognized but what of the time after its recognition. Are we then forbidden to recognize it in any other way?

you wouldn't read the chapters of a book out of order, would you?Many books are written with this intent. The Atrocity Exhibition for one. Other books are purposely written in a nonlinear way. The anime The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was created linearly but broadcast purposely out of order.

The point is, unless the integrity of the work calls overwhelmingly for it, I see no reason to draw a hateful boundary between original form and derivative works. And even if the work looses everything in its separation, why can't it disperse after we have already become familiar with it and explored its nuances, giving it the proper respect. Maybe some works are so great that they deserve infinite respect, that it is tantamount to sacrilege to modify them. Maybe... but something tells me this limits creativity instead of preserves it. In short, why close yourself off?

[Gabrielle947]

I am an open-minded person for music and I like many various styles and musicians.I can listen to rock classics which I took from my parents and found some from myself and I can listen to mtv music or some club hits like David Guetta,Calvin Harris,Justice and other.The only thing is that I know that some musicians which I like are crap and they have no talent.I can't stand people who listen to Bruno Mars or other same type 'talent' and tells that he is best singer of all time. :/ Usually when I'm in good mood I listen to this crappy music and when I feel sad or serious or want to think I turn to the classics. ;)