Being from space may be a diliberate and concious metaphor, okay. Stating "I am from space" instead of saying "To most of you, the details of my life and lineage are unimportant, or should be, and your history and culture have made it impossible to truly know them anyway." Is an obfuscation -- one that worked on me -- and I still consider it bullshit.

I have read interviews with Sun Ra, and I have witnessed his antics on film, and I think he was about eighty percent bullshit in how he conducted himself publicly. I don't think this invalidates his music, I don't think his music is insincere or phony in the least, and I don't pretend to know why he behaved the way he did.

His shtick was obviously for my benefit (that's not the right word, but it'll do), or for the consumption of those outside his immediate circle, and that's precisely the sort of obfuscation and self-reinventing mythmaking I said earlier that I cannot be impressed by.

I feel the same about most made-up stories people tell when they are uncomfortable about the truth (or expressing it) in public. If you don't want to say something, then don't. If you want to say something else entirely, then say that.

I would rather remain unimpressed by showbusiness than pretend it is beyond me, or that it should be indulged.

steve wrote:
It's $20,000 more than any rock musician gets. Unless you live in Canada, where rock band subsidies exist, rock musicians have to earn everything they get, one way or another.

To deny that this subsidy is a pampering of one category of artist over another is beyond reason.

Yes, I absolutely agree that the high/low distinctions which continue to dictate federal arts resources, especially in the states from what I gather, are highly unfair, structured as they are within institutional and academic prejudices and privileges and so on.


However, it does not follow that because incredibly talented and hard working (rock) musicians have to scrape by working shit day-jobs any federal stipend paid to musicians in a different genre is “pampering.â€

154 wrote: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.

this sums the whole classical v jazz v rock music up for me, especially the bit about playing "with a certain degree of sloppiness". awesome. well done 154.

yeah but it was only in the 19th Century when classical music became rigid. Quite a number of composers allowed for improvisation in some form or another up until that point. So again, generalities don't really work.

benmichell wrote:

154 wrote: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.

this sums the whole classical v jazz v rock music up for me, especially the bit about playing "with a certain degree of sloppiness". awesome. well done 154.

Prepared piano.

hstencil wrote:yeah but it was only in the 19th Century when classical music became rigid. Quite a number of composers allowed for improvisation in some form or another up until that point. So again, generalities don't really work.

Equally I think it's pretty disingenuous to imply that rock musicians are largely adept at improvisation, unless we rate Satrivaisteen or any number of pentatonic hacks or widdling metal-heads...

I have fallen a bit behind having been in transit, but I would like to go back to the earlier argument regarding whether rock music is less worthy of analysis than more established forms. I think that this is very important, since to me, stating that rock is somehow beneath analysis devalues it as a form and is insulting to the artists who work therein.

A very practical and positive aspect of rock analysis is its ability to communicate. It is not possible for us to evaluate every single record released. Analysis, whether by professional critic, friends, or other artists can point us towards new discoveries that we might have missed. Would you seek out a record were the only indication of its content and quality a faceless thumbs up?

Just because personal taste shapes our opinions does not mean that these opinions are worthless. I genuinely do not believe that one can offer more objective analysis of jazz or classical music than of rock music. One person's criteria for judging a piece may be completely different from someone else's. It is up to the reader to decide which criteria most suit his own tastes or beliefs.

"Our Band Could Be Your LIfe" is a terrific example of a passionately written, subjective opinion filled book that has brought new fans to bands that they may never have otherwise heard. I found it a pleasure to read, and I refuse to accept that the analysis and criticism therein is pointless.

Good written analysis of rock is rare. False accepted canons and lazy causal chains (Band X + Band Y = Band Z, mais oui) abound. But good critics have enhanced my personal appreciation of music and have brought to my attention new delights that I may have overlooked, even when I have disagreed with most of their views. Sometimes especially when I have disagreed with their views. Lester Bangs and Simon Reynolds fit this category for me. (David Thomson is a perfect example of this for cinema, by the way - check out his "New Biographical Dictionary of Film".)

Champion Rabbit, coincidently I was listening to "A Love Supreme" a few days ago. I stand by my comments regarding the sophistication of great rock records being equivalent to that exhibited in the jazz/orchestral canon. Going back to the MBV argument, all kinds of textures, riffs and tones are present in any given "Loveless" song. Point to Coltrane for greater formal composition intricacy. Point to Kevin Shields for transcending formal composition and altering the sonic components to fit his vision. I do not believe there is a greater element of chance at play: Shields was obsessively deliberate. Your jet engine analogy does not work for me. Great bands know exactly what they're doing, I believe.

I've been travelling for a while now and a constant companion has been Mission of Burma's "Vs". I've listened to it about once a week on average, say 25 times over five months. Why have I listened to it so much? Because, except for when I've been in a semi-comatose state, every time has brought new insights. Be it "where did that weird feedback come from?", or "never noticed that cute little bass play there", or "why is he playing his drums like that?" Surely this density of material refutes any accusation of simplicity or lack of sophistication? And I'd wager good money that 95% of these facets were deliberately engineered: wicked records are not flukes.

I'll leave it there before I dig myself deeper into the mud. Thanks for the discussion - it has alleviated some dull, exhausted and ill days waiting for buses and planes to take me home.

Merry Christmas

Mark

steve wrote:

aaron wrote:if you think metafiction and the like is played out, i agree with you (though i'd replace "genuine" with something like "insightful"), and therein lies part of why you responded to Endo's book in the way you did (again, more context).

I don't see how a unique insight has any debt to my appreciation of it. I don't see how the room I'm reading a book in (or the education I've had, or the length of my cock) changes the words on the paper. The words are what did it to me, and I only wish I could take some of the credit. I can't.

I feel that a unique insight is important in taking things like this in. in the example of Endo's Silence, knowledge and education and background may have moved you to bother reading the book in the first place. I'd argue that without an 'enlightened' viewpoint towards culture or art or literature, the book wouldn't have had as profound of an effect.

It's an excellent piece of work, but I feel that for me, because I'm prone to finding works of beauty and wrenching moments particularly moving, I got more out of Silence than someone who would rather be reading, say People or Newsweek or whatever niche of printed word that they fit into. My father, as an example, would most likely find it depressing or morose or uninteresting because it doesn't reflect current politics or issues of the day.

One's personal tastes (which are developed through background and experiences) do play a role in whether or not a piece of written word will have an effect on you regardless of your knowledge of the cultural background of the piece in question. It's not an active role, but something under the skin that makes books like Silence resonate a lot more strongly.

shagboy wrote:loud music is always more viscerally powerful than soft music. bass is always more thrilling than treble.

No way is this universal. The first thing I recalled was Bonnie Billie's Raining in Darling, a song so delicate and hazy that it's barely there. A thousand Slints couldn't match the power that song has over me. I don't mean to say volume isn't powerful, but often the lack of being punched in the face with music can be equally, if not more thrilling.

Volume to me is often the heavy handed crutch of those who can't play. Note that I said often. if it's actually good, I don't mind the volume, but there are oodles of bands who only have volume going for them because their music lacks heart or purpose. Loud for Loud's sake? Fuck that.

areopagite wrote: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.

Keep in mind that when the original composers played their pieces (say, for piano) emotion and tics showed up. Now that performances of classical music can be oft lumped under "glorified coverband" status the argument has a little merit, but just a little. The pieces you hear aren't necessarily supposed to be rigid (based on the intentions of the long-dead composer) but have been forced to do so for the sake of convention.

I ask you to look at some of the Russian composers. The pieces are supposed to be played with emotive pauses and rests. It's a different school of musical approach than most of the rest of Europe. This of course, is why it shouldn't all be lumped together, but okay.


Faiz

sparky wrote:I'd wager good money that 95% of these facets were deliberately engineered: wicked records are not flukes.

I feel this is the crux of what is being discussed. This is not really a genre war of classical vs rock or jazz vs rock. I think it would more useful to look at it in terms of compositional music and improvisational music. The process by which composers and groups arrive at their musical destination says alot about what they finally express. Alot of Bach is born out improvisational scale work. Jazz groups work around pre-agreed chord progressions and a reliance technique to give themselves expressive freedom. Phillip Glass works in a highly regimented structural manner. Rock groups sythesize both regimentation and visceral expressive qualities to produce a new tradition of music (rock is not a folk music, it is a modern tradition). Some electronic groups like kraftwerk suppress individualistic qualities deference to group aesthetic. Bob Log III is a motherfucking one-man-band. I could keep going. What is important is that whilst some deny the accident others embrace it; you could say almost worship it. Sometimes your best inventions are mistakes.

Orchestras are a dictatorships, lead by conductor/composer. The voices of the musicians are controlled in this regard to produce the mood that the piece requires, although there are usually one or two key players. Rock and Jazz groups are far more democratic although obviously there are different degrees of this.

Personally I prefer music that is born out of improvisation, wether that comes from group rehearsal or is based on tacitly agreed theoretical precepts. There is political element to why I think this. This has something which to with the model society I favour. The CIA during the cold war funded international tours of the works of abstract expressionists such as Pollock in order to showcase for American individualism. They certainly seemed to think there was a political capital to be made from expressive freedom. Which kind of brings us back to good and bad faith and wether you believe you have free will. For instance I don't like Frank Zappa's music because I think he composes in bad faith, which seems to be in contradiction to values he espouses. There was a reason Hitler preferred Wagnerian Opera to Jazz.

As regards 'schtick', alot of very straight forward performers employ it. When James Brown is down on his knees and they bring him his cape, is that 'schtick'? Or is it merely exuberant showmanship that lies at the heart of a genuine persona?

Wierdly enough free will is today's featured article on wikipedia.

sparky wrote:I have fallen a bit behind having been in transit, but I would like to go back to the earlier argument regarding whether rock music is less worthy of analysis than more established forms. I think that this is very important, since to me, stating that rock is somehow beneath analysis devalues it as a form and is insulting to the artists who work therein.

A very practical and positive aspect of rock analysis is its ability to communicate. It is not possible for us to evaluate every single record released. Analysis, whether by professional critic, friends, or other artists can point us towards new discoveries that we might have missed. Would you seek out a record were the only indication of its content and quality a faceless thumbs up?

Just because personal taste shapes our opinions does not mean that these opinions are worthless. I genuinely do not believe that one can offer more objective analysis of jazz or classical music than of rock music. One person's criteria for judging a piece may be completely different from someone else's. It is up to the reader to decide which criteria most suit his own tastes or beliefs.

"Our Band Could Be Your LIfe" is a terrific example of a passionately written, subjective opinion filled book that has brought new fans to bands that they may never have otherwise heard. I found it a pleasure to read, and I refuse to accept that the analysis and criticism therein is pointless.

Good written analysis of rock is rare. False accepted canons and lazy causal chains (Band X + Band Y = Band Z, mais oui) abound. But good critics have enhanced my personal appreciation of music and have brought to my attention new delights that I may have overlooked, even when I have disagreed with most of their views. Sometimes especially when I have disagreed with their views. Lester Bangs and Simon Reynolds fit this category for me. (David Thomson is a perfect example of this for cinema, by the way - check out his "New Biographical Dictionary of Film".)

Champion Rabbit, coincidently I was listening to "A Love Supreme" a few days ago. I stand by my comments regarding the sophistication of great rock records being equivalent to that exhibited in the jazz/orchestral canon. Going back to the MBV argument, all kinds of textures, riffs and tones are present in any given "Loveless" song. Point to Coltrane for greater formal composition intricacy. Point to Kevin Shields for transcending formal composition and altering the sonic components to fit his vision. I do not believe there is a greater element of chance at play: Shields was obsessively deliberate. Your jet engine analogy does not work for me. Great bands know exactly what they're doing, I believe.

I've been travelling for a while now and a constant companion has been Mission of Burma's "Vs". I've listened to it about once a week on average, say 25 times over five months. Why have I listened to it so much? Because, except for when I've been in a semi-comatose state, every time has brought new insights. Be it "where did that weird feedback come from?", or "never noticed that cute little bass play there", or "why is he playing his drums like that?" Surely this density of material refutes any accusation of simplicity or lack of sophistication? And I'd wager good money that 95% of these facets were deliberately engineered: wicked records are not flukes.

I'll leave it there before I dig myself deeper into the mud. Thanks for the discussion - it has alleviated some dull, exhausted and ill days waiting for buses and planes to take me home.

Merry Christmas

Mark

Guess maybe there's no point responding to this if you are signing-off, but I shall regardless!!

stating that rock is somehow beneath analysis devalues it as a form and is insulting to the artists who work therein.

Ok then.

Can we fairly judge all rock by the same criteria?

If not then of what value is the analysis?

Or is 'rock' even a genre?

Take Steve Vai (please!) and The Stooges.

Vai is an awesome technician is he not? His music is arguably more 'sophisticated' is it not? He has 'ticks' and is INSTANTLY recognisable. On paper Vai should be a shining example for those who are arguing against my point.

If somebody had brought Vai up and claimed that he was an example of rock being 'sophisticated', 'developed' and 'demanding' then I would have to agree.

Yet I would say that whilst I love the The Stooges, I would rather eat my own cock than attend a Vai concert.

Why?

Because the stooges are simply FUCKING GREAT!

And Vai is simply FUCKING HORRIBLE!

Ha!

Analyse THAT!

And that is the basic point I am trying to make; far from insulting rock music by refusing to subject it to analysis, we are rather EMBRACING it's pure 'otherness'.

Plenty of people here have talked about the 'freedom' of the rock format; the beauty of it's refusal to adhere to rigid patternss (questionable though this claim might be) and surely if we accept this then attempting to force the 'product' back into a cage for analytical purposes is totally counter-productive?


I reckon.

Happy Decemberween!

Adam