26
by geiginni_Archive
I'm considered by many to be a music snob. I don't argue with that assesment, or those who may express it, since the criteria I apply to music when listening is not that which other listeners may be sensing or evaluating.
I insist that the music I generally listen to be interesting, original (being the historical architype or developmental paradigm for a given style or 'genre'), and has some complexity and depth in either structure or texture.
In defining what music 'is', I generally think of music as a succession of organized sounds or tones that occupy space over time. There are sounds, of varying pitch and/or timbre, that occupy spaces in time and are separated by periods of silence or decay and are usually deliberate on the part of the composer or performer.
That leads to my first 'annoyance' about most 'popular' styles of music. Most people cannot or do not care to listen to music that does not contain singing with lyrics or words. To my way of thinking, music is an expression of intangible emotional, spiritual, or otherwise abstract 'impulses' that transcends what can be expressed through concrete, fixed cognition created by language. When someone adds words to music, the music is no longer an expression of the otherwise inexpressible, but merely an accompiament to someones linguistic statement - at it's most abstract; poetry with backup sounds. The focus becomes the ideas that are expressed in words with the music is merely atmosphere to try and give those words added expression (the sky in an 18th century landscape painting). This approach generally strikes me as anti-musical.
This is one of the reasons that over time I have grown to find rock music (and the various subgenres it encompasses) extremely boring. Not only do the words detract from the transcendence or oblivion sought by music, but the forms that music takes are now dictated by the structures imposed by the very non-abstract meanings of spoken language. Some other things that I find aggravating about rock and 'popular' styles in general:
-Fixed duple beats - usually around 120 bpm
-ABABA, or similar 'song' type structures
-Major/minor modluations and 3,4, & 5 chord progressions in fixed even measure structures that repeat or occurr in predictable patterns
-The idea that by changing an instrument's timbre slightly through some electronic modification, that you are creating something innovative and different; boring musical form/structure/rhythm is the same old shit no matter how many boxes you feed the guitar into - which leads to:
-The predominance of the guitar; an instrument that, when at it's best, has no effects changing its sound and is played by someone with a fair amount of discipline and skill. It is otherwise played by everyone, with true skill and innovation by very few, and can be pulled off with little dedication or discipline (a boon to its universal popularity)
The most ludicrous aspect to 'rock' styles is that the very thing that once made rock exciting - its recklessness and thwarting of convention - have all disappeard. Rock is now the most conventional (and popular) thing out there. Our parents and grandparents listen to it. Its been the predominant popular music style for almost 50 years. It's used to sell laundry detergent, salad dressing, and postage stamps. It must stand, then, on its own musical merit; which in my opinion it has little of. It can only be a matter of time until the banality of two guitars, three chords, and some whiney fuckface in 'cool' cloths and hair becomes obvious to anyone who can read this.
Even through its inception rock was not some cutting edge musical vangaurd, as much as it was a way for creepy or effemme guys in their 20's to get 14-16 year old girls to want to fuck them. Look at most of the early rock pioneers and this theory generally holds true.
That isn't to say that I hate rock music entirely, but that 99.9% of what's been done has already been done - over and over, or wasn't interesting to begin with. It's usually at its best when fun and self-parodying.
I find it amazing that so many self-proclaimed 'music lovers' would write off classical music becuase they find the idea of written structure or pedigree off-putting. Why is there such a consensus that musical ignorance or lack of mastery somehow conveys integrity or honesty? Most composers live or lived in obscurity, fought vigilantly for acceptance without compromise, worked solely for the love of what they did or do, and expect very little recognition or reward. On the other hand most rock musicians' impetus to play are the dreams of recognition, the attention of an audience, getting laid, and the money "when we get big", or "get our break".
Some of the best music, in my opinion, was written for orchestras and ensembles from the latter part of the 19th century through the better part of the 20th. These composers were innovative, uncompromising, and destroyed the 'rules' of form and harmony that had been established and rigidly enforced for the previous 250 years. Some of the most exciting rewarding listening are works by Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, Satie, Schoenberg, Ligeti, and Penderecki - in addition to many dozens of others. A background in understanding music theory and composition is not so much important as is developing an ability to listen closely and let go of the preconceptions and expectations one generally has regarding form and structure.
Jazz is another wonderful style that has many of the same qualities as classical, but with a less formal, organized approach. It is uniquely American and its development and variations far more interesting and complex than rock and 'pop' styles. These are musicians who, much like their contemporary classical company, are disciplined and skilled musicians with a keen understanding of theory and composition. The demands placed upon its best practicianers are no less than those placed on its classical counterparts - yet there is not the prejudice against it that so many hold to classical.
There are so many sources of musical inspiration in the world. So many ethnic and traditional, classical (not just European, think Japanese, Javanese, Indian), and modern (Jazz, musique concrete, etc). It would be exciting to see aspiring music lovers and performers draw inspiration from deeper sources than the Beatles, Ramones, or Nirvana. I might just start buying new music more. That would certainly curtail my snobbish record collecting and historian's interest in the musical past.