Champion Rabbit wrote:Is not 'rock' music in essence PROOF that sometimes a child's drawing is as impressive/expressive as a Picasso?

And if that is the case, is rationalisation or intellectualization of the these random elements useful?

You imply that rock music is somehow less developed, less sophisticated and less demanding than academic music like Part, Reich et al, and formal classical music. That it is more naiive and therefore childlike. In the tedious bar-band realm, maybe. At their zeniths, I think they are equal, and the industriousness of many rock musicians would shame the pampered, subsidized and patronized academic music clique.

Even the bar band discipline can hold its head up next to the ad-hoc classical quartet playing popular classics at a library opening or wedding reception. A bad bass player no more defines rock music than Wagner, an anti-semitic fop reeking of lavender, or your high school "orchestra" director defines classical music.

Cranius wrote:I would say it is all question of intent and good or bad faith.

I have been following this thread with interest and was surprised issues of intention and bad/good faith hadn’t been raised. I agree entirely Cranius.

There is a reason.

Intellectualizing is a form of presentation. There are others, and they are all explanations.

"Disease" is a great song. It is an increasing tension that is resolved at last.

"Downer" is a great song. It is three parts. The first two are variations on running. The third is a kind of breath. It gets faster, and then you have to stop.

"High, Low, and Inbetween" is a great song. I think it's a great song. I don't think I just like the melody a lot, or it make me feel a certain way. There is a certain change that makes me question the song. It's a half tone or something like that. It is a single move that changes the way it seems.

Here, it is always talking about music without hearing it.

Evaluation is inconsequential. Except when it's tied to education, or when you are wrong. Because you are wrong. Unless you agree with me.

I cannot get over this.

the only aesthetic universal is 'sense of taste'

sugar is sweet to 6 billion. everything else can and will be disagreed upon.

therefore, non-aesthetic factors in music are at least as important as the actual sound waves. if i learned that steve was a dograper, i'd find it hard to listen to big black, and that's as good a reason as "the guitar tone hurts my ears" or whatever.

sometimes it helps to not seek out information on a band whose music you love. that way your own thoughts, specifically the ones conjured by the music, can remain at a level of high importance. once you learn all the extraneous bullshit like the drummer was an alcoholic and the album was recorded for $400,000 the magic of your imagination starts to fade. there's nothing wrong with that. it just happens if you're human.

to summarize... i think the reason people like and dislike certain things is all to do with associations they have and make. you can't just appreciate a melody. you have to have the necessary background for the melody to trigger the right associated pleasure in your mind.

i don't like chinese opera. but some people really do.

steve wrote:To suggest that one cannot know when someone else is faking it is to deny the obvious. When I am lied to, I often spot it based on clues other than the words in the sentence. Duplicitous political language is evident to anyone who is not being willfully deceived. I play poker sometimes, and I am better at calling a bluff than I am at selling one -- there is some measure of this in every enterprise.

I cannot believe that art is the only realm of communication where such falsehoods cannot be evaluated. In fact, I think it is easier to spot sham music than a middle pocket pair, when both are played "correctly."

This reminds me of 'The Presidents Speech' in Oliver Sacks' book 'The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat':

What was going on? A roar of laughter from the aphasia ward, just as the President's speech was coming on, and they had all been so eager to hear the President speaking. ..

There he was, the old Charmer, the Actor, with his practised rhetoric, his histrionisms, his emotional appeal --and all the patients were convulsed with laughter. Well, not all: some looked bewildered, some looked outraged, one or two looked apprehensive, but most looked amused. The President was, as always, moving --but he was moving them, apparently, mainly to laughter. What could they be thinking? Were they failing to understand him? Or did they, perhaps, understand him all too well?

It was often said of these patients, who though intelligent had the severest receptive or global aphasia, rendering them incapable of understanding words as such, that they none the less understood most of what was said to them. Their friends, their relatives, the nurses who knew them well, could hardly believe, sometimes, that they were aphasic.

Apparently brain-damaged aphasics are very sensitized to lying and they could pick up from Reagan's tone and body language that was being deceitful. They found his shame-facedness hilarious. Sacks uses the word feeling-tone to describe this sensitivity.

i want to throw in, in advance, that i think there are some aesthetic universals with regard to sound. so i take that back a bit.

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

sorry.

steve wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:Is not 'rock' music in essence PROOF that sometimes a child's drawing is as impressive/expressive as a Picasso?

And if that is the case, is rationalisation or intellectualization of the these random elements useful?

You imply that rock music is somehow less developed, less sophisticated and less demanding than academic music like Part, Reich et al, and formal classical music. That it is more naiive and therefore childlike. In the tedious bar-band realm, maybe. At their zeniths, I think they are equal, and the industriousness of many rock musicians would shame the pampered, subsidized and patronized academic music clique.

Even the bar band discipline can hold its head up next to the ad-hoc classical quartet playing popular classics at a library opening or wedding reception. A bad bass player no more defines rock music than Wagner, an anti-semitic fop reeking of lavender, or your high school "orchestra" director defines classical music.

Rock music is less sophisticated, developed and demanding than both jazz and formal orchestral music; I would be fascinated to hear an argument that successfully countered that claim.

Rock music is a true folk medium, and (I would argue) that alone would indicate a simplicity, quite apart from the FACT that hundreds of AMAZING rock records have been recorded by bands who (both in terms of compostion and performance) were painting with crayons.

Wagner may have been an repulsive character, but his music is objectively FAR more demanding and ambitious than most of even the BEST rock bands. Not 'better'.

If we accept that nothing is of importance other than pure 'product' then there is no discussion since once could rightly state than a recording of random hisses, clicks, revving, shouting and puking etc is far more melodically and harmonically complex and challenging than a recording of the Kronos Quartet playing Reich, but that seems like an unusual (although honest) position to take.

So if we then accept that 'intention' is important (authenticity or whatever), and we also accept that a greater number of random factors influence 'rock' bands than more accomplished and educated musicians (given their lack of freedom of format, and the capping of musical freedom because of limited musical skill) then must we not accept also that analysis lacks validity?

A childs drawing can be as 'good' as a seasoned artist's drawing, but is the child's drawing (once we know that is what is it) suitable for analysis?

I repeat; I accept that a child's drawing might be as 'good' in terms of provoking reaction, or aesthetic qualities, I am NOT suggesting that when one discovers that it was painted by a child it becomes less valuable as a piece of art. Merely that it becomes less viable as an object of analysis.

Are we not then analyssing the child rather han the drawing?

Champion Rabbit wrote:Are we not then analyssing the child rather han the drawing?

Maybe, but only if intent is the only aspect being analyzed.

[quote="Champion RabbitRock music is less sophisticated, developed and demanding than both jazz and formal orchestral music; I would be fascinated to hear an argument that successfully countered that claim.

I disagree. To take a popular example, I would say that "Good Vibrations" packs as many ideas, textures and ambitions into a few minutes of music as any of the great jazz or orchestral compositions. Just because it is shorter and popular does not automatically imply simplicity, lack of ambition, or unintelligence.

Or, if you do not like the Beach Boys, listen to any track off "Loveless". Or "Sister". Name your favourite rock record here.

Rock music is a true folk medium, and (I would argue) that alone would indicate a simplicity, quite apart from the FACT that hundreds of AMAZING rock records have been recorded by bands who (both in terms of compostion and performance) were painting with crayons.

Here, I would say the earlier argument regarding intent is a decent riposte - it does not matter what tools are used if the artist is sure. All kinds of emotions and ideas go into the best rock, and this imbues complexity into the music, regardless of style.

It should not matter whether you know anything about the artist or not. If their intent is true, then it will leap out at you. I don't think I am being presumptuous by saying that this has happened to all of us whilst absent mindedly listening to the radio. Whether you like it or not is another matter.

Wagner may have been an repulsive character, but his music is objectively FAR more demanding and ambitious than most of even the BEST rock bands. Not 'better'.

He's pretty good in "The Blues Brothers". I feel that too much weight is being put on length and instrumental density in this argument.

I do not see any reason why rock music should not be analysed. Personal taste obviously intrudes, but we share enough common tendencies, experiences and interests to be able to have meaningful and stimulating discussion on the matter. This categorisation between sophisticated/simplistic is too rigid and - oops - simple.

sparky wrote:
I disagree. To take a popular example, I would say that "Good Vibrations" packs as many ideas, textures and ambitions into a few minutes of music as any of the great jazz or orchestral compositions. Just because it is shorter and popular does not automatically imply simplicity, lack of ambition, or unintelligence.

Or, if you do not like the Beach Boys, listen to any track off "Loveless". Or "Sister". Name your favourite rock record here.

I can't agree that your examples pack as many textures and ideas as great jazz or orchestral compositions.

Comparing a track from 'Loveless' to a piece from 'Love Supreme' or Shostakovich's 'Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk' in terms of ideas and textures is crazy-talk surely?

Here, I would say the earlier argument regarding intent is a decent riposte - it does not matter what tools are used if the artist is sure. All kinds of emotions and ideas go into the best rock, and this imbues complexity into the music, regardless of style.

It should not matter whether you know anything about the artist or not. If their intent is true, then it will leap out at you. I don't think I am being presumptuous by saying that this has happened to all of us whilst absent mindedly listening to the radio. Whether you like it or not is another matter.

But surely at some point one must consider how much of the 'product' is accidental, or forced rather than intended?

If not then how does the roar of a jet-engine differ from a sound-artist's work?

Is the jet engine an artist/musician?

If we say that ones potential as an artist is immaterial (it doesn't matter if you only know 2 chords or whatever) then is your dog's whining not also worthy of critical analysis?

I do not see any reason why rock music should not be analysed. Personal taste obviously intrudes, but we share enough common tendencies, experiences and interests to be able to have meaningful and stimulating discussion on the matter. This categorisation between sophisticated/simplistic is too rigid and - oops - simple.

But does analysis not require a vaguely cohesive set of rules? And as we have seen, we cannot apply a cohesive set of analytical rules to music since things like 'authenticity' and 'Ramonesness' and 'rocking one's face off' tend to throw the results out somewhat...