Champion Rabbit, I want to go back to the child's art vs. Picasso analogy that you started off with a while back. Picasso and Paul Klee (among others) collected children's art and found it to be inspirational. There is a kind of freedom that children are capable of achieving in their art that most adults cannot reach. As we grow up our art changes and we often try to make it more "correct" or representational. Most people give up on it altogether. I don't deny that a good classical musician will bring some creativity or self-expression to a piece of music, but so long as they are interpreting something that already exists, they will only be capable of reproduction, not creation. The starting point is already "right way" and "wrong way". When we look back at the initial reaction to Les Demoiselles d'Avingon or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring for that matter, audiences were shocked by the raw power of these works. They are great not just because they were (are) technically difficult to execute, but because of the uncompromising vision of their creators. The technical expertise is only a means by which the artist executes his or her creative vision. Sure, they had to be technically accomplished to create those works, but technical expertise is in no way THE measure of the greatness of a work of art. I don't mean to say that rock musicians are like children, but rather that rock can capture something that we tend to lose as we grow up. Artists who work in rock music are often very accomplished musicians, but I would argue that it's their passion, energy, creativity and unique artistic vision that makes so many rock bands great. Underground rock music is more alive and exciting than classical or academic music now in part because it can grow and exist free of pressure to conform to rules and preconceptions. Innovation takes place at the periphery, not the center of power.

lee wrote:Champion Rabbit, I want to go back to the child's art vs. Picasso analogy that you started off with a while back. Picasso and Paul Klee (among others) collected children's art and found it to be inspirational. There is a kind of freedom that children are capable of achieving in their art that most adults cannot reach. As we grow up our art changes and we often try to make it more "correct" or representational. Most people give up on it altogether. I don't deny that a good classical musician will bring some creativity or self-expression to a piece of music, but so long as they are interpreting something that already exists, they will only be capable of reproduction, not creation. The starting point is already "right way" and "wrong way". When we look back at the initial reaction to Les Demoiselles d'Avingon or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring for that matter, audiences were shocked by the raw power of these works. They are great not just because they were (are) technically difficult to execute, but because of the uncompromising vision of their creators. The technical expertise is only a means by which the artist executes his or her creative vision. Sure, they had to be technically accomplished to create those works, but technical expertise is in no way THE measure of the greatness of a work of art. I don't mean to say that rock musicians are like children, but rather that rock can capture something that we tend to lose as we grow up. Artists who work in rock music are often very accomplished musicians, but I would argue that it's their passion, energy, creativity and unique artistic vision that makes so many rock bands great.

I agree; I hope I didn't give the impression that I regard a child's art as being any less valid as an art-form than a skilled adult's art.

I merely would argue that it is not useful to dissect the child's art, as it might be to dissect an 'artists' art.

The child's art is primal and it's essence cannot better (or in my opinion even remotely successfully) be expressed in ways other than itself.

This is why I suggested that perhaps analysing the child's art is merely an analysis of the child. Given that the artist is removed from the 'product' by skill, intent and so-forth, I would suggest that we CAN usefully analyse his art, and indeed that might well be the wish of the artist.

Again; I am not in any way suggesting that the child's art is of lesser VALUE, merely that one cannot usefully apply the same set of criteria to a child's art.

Speaking in very broad terms, I would argue that the same is true of rock.

Underground rock music is more alive and exciting than classical or academic music now in part because it can grow and exist free of pressure to conform to rules and preconceptions. Innovation takes place at the periphery, not the center of power.

I absolutely do not agree with this.

1. I hear 'left-field' bands every day; it's rare to hear anything much of interest. Sure there are great bands around, but fewer truly seminal bands than in the 80s (for example). Why? Because (as much as we all pretend it isn't the case) only so many songs can be sung with two lips, two lungs and one tongue. Or more accurately two guitars, bass and drums.

The differences twixt bands are getting fewer and more subtle.

2. There is PLENTY in modern orchestral composition to get excited about.

I dunno.

I'm an old man (32) and perhaps I should just shut the fuck up and leave it to the kids; that's what rock was meant for wasn't it?

Rock is superior because it is created by a group rather than a singular vision. This group (its ideas and its limitiations) shape a song into something totally unique which cannot be replicated by an outside source. In classical music, virtually any municipality's orchestra could play any number of "classics" to a T. In fact, since they were not meant to be performed by the "artist," there is no inherently correct performance of the work.

Champion Rabbit wrote:Again; I am not in any way suggesting that the child's art is of lesser VALUE, merely that one cannot usefully apply the same set of criteria to a child's art.

Speaking in very broad terms, I would argue that the same is true of rock.

By equating rock music with a child's art, you diminish it. You argue that you don't, yet you draw a distinction between children's art and adult art.

Okay... I would say that my reasoning is like that of an adult, and yours is like... a log of shit. Now, I don't mean your reasoning is of lesser VALUE, than mine, just different.

Whether you cop to the judgement you have placed on it or not, you are equating rock music with a child's art, and that is enough to understand your intent. I cannot agree with this association. I think it's a way of forcing rock music into a ghetto it doesn't deserve, and it provides a basis to disagree with you.

Sorry about the log of shit, I was making a point.

Sorry about the log of shit, I was making a point.

Oh boy, I've said that before.

Champion Rabbit I think it would help if you made a clear distinction between child-like and childish.

For example: Carl Orff's Musica Poetica is child-like and not childish.

You then might redeem yourself from arguing like a log of shit.

one thing i don't like about classical music is that it's restricted to what can be written out on a chart. an aspect of rock music that is usually taken for granted is how certain things are 'felt out'. certain beats or rhythms might have split second delays or anticipations between the notes.. dynamic changes so delicate they couldn't be written.. certain rhythms or chord changes that actually sound better when played with a certain degree of sloppiness, etc. it would be disastrous to tell an orchestra of 80 people, most likely relative strangers to each other, to "play it how you feel it". yet, this is built into any good, well rehearsed rock band.

every chamber group adaptation of a rock song i've ever heard sounds retarded, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why.

steve wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:Again; I am not in any way suggesting that the child's art is of lesser VALUE, merely that one cannot usefully apply the same set of criteria to a child's art.

Speaking in very broad terms, I would argue that the same is true of rock.

By equating rock music with a child's art, you diminish it. You argue that you don't, yet you draw a distinction between children's art and adult art.

Okay... I would say that my reasoning is like that of an adult, and yours is like... a log of shit. Now, I don't mean your reasoning is of lesser VALUE, than mine, just different.

Whether you cop to the judgement you have placed on it or not, you are equating rock music with a child's art, and that is enough to understand your intent. I cannot agree with this association. I think it's a way of forcing rock music into a ghetto it doesn't deserve, and it provides a basis to disagree with you.

Sorry about the log of shit, I was making a point.

Meh; it was just an analogy, nothing more nothing less.

I love rock as deeply as anybody else, obviously you have no idea whether that's true or not, but if you are inclined to believe me then...I do.

I'm certain that the points I have attempted to make have not been well explained by me; I cannot otherwise understand why anybody would imply that I mean to undermine the value of rock (or a child's art).

Ho hum.

Cranius wrote:Champion Rabbit I think it would help if you made a clear distinction between child-like and childish.

For example: Carl Orff's Musica Poetica is child-like and not childish.

You then might redeem yourself from arguing like a log of shit.

I think I have been VERY clear about the fact that I consider a child's art to be of no lesser potential value than an adult's.

I'm uncertain as to why one might choose to claim that I stated otherwise?

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Cranius wrote:Champion Rabbit I think it would help if you made a clear distinction between child-like and childish.

For example: Carl Orff's Musica Poetica is child-like and not childish.

You then might redeem yourself from arguing like a log of shit.

I think I have been VERY clear about the fact that I consider a child's art to be of no lesser potential value than an adult's.

I'm uncertain as to why one might choose to claim that I stated otherwise?

Yeah but I wanted to use piece of classical music, by way of analogy, to show that it is not only rock that can appear reductive, simplistic or unsophisticated. Remember there was a time when black music was referred to as 'Race Records'. So you have to be careful when you say one artform is superior to another. Which kind of seems to be you particular hobbyhorse.