| Sputnikmusic
 

I struggled for awhile with the second part to this little discourse. The struggle was that, to be in full disclosure, I had no idea really where I was going with the argument. I simply knew that my first part was not enough and as a failsafe I put that “Part 1” at the end of the title. I had a rough idea at what I was trying to get at, but in terms of putting something together—well I was at a loss. So I’ve decided to structure this second part in a very Hegelian manner. Hegel’s method of discourse, for those of you who do not know it, is essentially to have a thesis, then an antithesis, and finally a synthesis. For, the first part of this blog post laid out my essential problem: where have all the big ideas gone? My suggestion, if it may not have been clear, was that the increasingly factional categorization—I believe nitpicking was the word I used—of genre labels by communities of music lovers such as ourselves here at Sputnik, is symptomatic of the endangerment of these big ideas. A ‘big idea’, as I see it, is an attempt to illustrate something specific in a way that transcends experience and connects to the mind of the audience. This is not to say platitudes or other generalizations, in fact that’s the opposite of what I mean. No, a big idea is one that makes you think beyond the way you normally do.

I believe it was Roland Barthes who argued that there are two types of texts: the text of pleasure and the text of bliss. The ‘big idea’ that I, perhaps elusively, am attempting to grasp, fits into the category of “text of bliss.” Essentially, the text of bliss is one that challenges one’s preconceived and constructed truths; it is a serious ethical examination. I suppose, then, that my thesis would be to the first extreme, and suggest that the only worthwhile music would fit into this category. Thus the only music that is valuable is that which challenges the accepted understanding of its contemporaries. Suddenly I would not need an iPod with much file space because I could very easily narrow down the music I listen to a select group: Shostakovich, Bartok, Debussy, Miles Davis, Dave Holland, and if I’m feeling generous, perhaps some Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Talking Heads, and Radiohead. Essentially there are always a few artists who transcend their contemporaries, and therefore they are the only ones who are worthy of any attention at all.

But I love pop music just as much as I love challenging music. And in fact, is there even any necessity for music to be challenging at all? Music, after all, is the lowest form of art (let me explain). This isn’t a criticism so much as a statement of fact if we are to take the old argument from Sir Philip Sidney and say that art gives pleasure and informs. Music is just noise, really, and has absolutely no ideological or educational function; for example, Lenin and Stalin’s idea of creating strong, nationalistic music is really a construction. Nothing about music has any real weight to it; lyrics are not music, they’re poetry. So if we simply construct meaning and give it to music, then why even bother having big ideas? Why not just stick to catchiness, a nice melody, or the original idea of folk music as being a communal experience. So in this sense, is club music our generation’s folk music? That’s sort of a scary thought, but then again folk music is meant to be populist.

Yet, I go on a bender of disposable indie pop, or dance music, and suddenly I have my palette cleansed and I put on Henryk Gorecki, or Battles (who are a nice combination of pop and avant-garde, which is very rare indeed). The synthesis, then, may seem like a cop-out: we need to mix our musical diet! Oh, how very egalitarian of you, Keelan, but pardon my French when I say NO SHIT. I agree, it’s an obvious sentiment, but it brings me to the final point that I think I’ve realized is my main gripe with our present circumstance. We seem absolutely fixated on ignoring the big ideas, and ruining the balance. If everything is disposable, then we’re allowing a degradation of an art form. Pop is fun, and that easy type of music can sometimes, just sometimes, be as cathartic as the challenging stuff; but we need to continue to push the music somewhere or else we’ll spiral down into an abyss of stagnation. The biggest excuse for the apparent lack of this push is that we’ve seen it all done before. But as I said before, originality is not necessarily sounds that we haven’t heard before, but rather it is the way those sounds convey an idea that marks something as original. So the suggestion that we’ve all “been there, done that” is utter nonsense. In fact, that’s the laziness I feel has led us to be so mired in trying to find new genre tags so as to create a sense of faux-originality.

There will always be room for fresh, big ideas—unless we actually are apart of the gyre; but I really, really doubt that. Sorry, Yeats.





thebhoy
04.02.11
Sorry, Yeats, this two part musing was basically to say that I think your idea was crazy and everyone agrees that the whole Maude Gonne thing was KINDA WEIRD.

Aids
04.02.11
this rules, well done Keelan

keep em coming

thebhoy
04.02.11
thanks Aids, wasn't sure if this one was as good as the first.

Aids
04.02.11
I almost 100% agree with this one. I think that there are different ways to approach and listen to music, and several of us here use different types. Right now I'm listening to an album while surfing the internet, but later tonight possibly, I might give it my full attention. I think that music, and most art actually, is what you make it. You, the individual.

But I do agree that certain music is a cut above, transcendent of genre. I don't necessarily agree that ELP fit that category (haha I loves me some ELP but they're no Godspeed, for example) but I like what you were getting at there.

I'm probably not making any sense at all. Basically, I agree with you, maybe not 100% about it being art in the lowest form. Either way, this style of writing fits you well; I loved both write ups.

SeaAnemone
04.02.11
never would have thought about art being "the lowest form," Keelan. I know that that's not your main point, but I suspect that that's what's gonna garner some criticism here.
not sure whether I agree or not... I've just never really thunk it that way before

as for the rest of the write-up... I mean the idea is certainly intriguing, I'll have to read it a few more times maybe before I get a better handle on it, but what I really enjoyed here, again, is your writing style. it's effective yet not overwhelming... nice and casual, but still specific, I love it : )

Maniac!
04.02.11
thebhoy makes the best sputnik blogs

wabbit
04.02.11
This is awesome man gj and what maniac said.

Willie's look the prettiest though

AggravatedYeti
04.02.11
[quote]Music, after all, is the lowest form of art [/quote]
highly debatable.

regardless this was fucking excellent Keelan. Gotta run but, ugh, lots to talk about.

AggravatedYeti
04.02.11
hmm guess you can't quote or edit on blog posts.

theacademy
04.02.11
i don't think there should be that much debate everybody is taking it out of context

he sets his parameters pretty clearly

AggravatedYeti
04.02.11
concluding the overall worth of any art form is in and of itself highly debatable.

thebhoy
04.02.11
Yeah, it wasn't meant to be a contentious point really. I was really putting it in the traditional view of art as educational and aesthetically pleasing, in that case Music is not educational, really. I don't necessarily agree with this view, but that's why it is apart of the antithesis; the thesis and antithesis are meant to be polar opposites, essentially.

theacademy
04.02.11
^although that convoluted an explanation is probably not gonna help, it's still a pretty sound explanation

theacademy
04.02.11
also, pretend i logged in as an alt:



Anybody who says that music is the lowest art form has clearly never listened to Colors by Between the Buried and Me.

adjeco
04.02.11
lol

AggravatedYeti
04.02.11
I was planning on making a much larger post where I admire your effort to create an interesting counter-point and take an otherwise mine-field of a thesis and turn it into a sound essay.
but I mean...I'll just do that now.
h5.

AggravatedYeti
04.02.11
also academy wins the thread.

FelixCulpa
04.02.11
Interesting blog posts, you made it entertaining to read even for someone who doesn't know who half the people mentioned in the text are or what they've done.
My only gripe is calling music noise as that would imply it being, to quote a dictionary "the auditory experience of sound that lacks musical quality; sound that is a disagreeable auditory experience" but then again that's just nitpicking and I don't feel as this is exactly what you meant with calling it "just noise". Music is still something that we don't understand, why don't even know how or why it's something we enjoy and even have "created". Music isn't even just vibrations of air, much rather a sensory stimulation produced by the brain. It's something more similar to light. Light is something we cant see directly, our eyes must be stimulated first, then this stimulation (which change in frequencies, much like music) creates an effect of light in the brain.
Sorry to babble about this but I find the more scientific aspect of music quite fascinating. Also loved the point of calling club music our generation folk music.


wabbit
04.02.11
"i don't think there should be that much debate everybody is taking it out of context

he sets his parameters pretty clearly" ??

"^although that convoluted an explanation is probably not gonna help, it's still a pretty sound explanation" ??

"also, pretend i logged in as an alt:



Anybody who says that music is the lowest art form has clearly never listened to Colors by Between the Buried and Me." ok good I was worried for a second.



FelixCulpa
04.02.11
Should be "we don't even.." not "why don't even"

thebhoy
04.02.11
Yes I ultimately agree with you Felix, and perhaps it would help if people have seen more Hegelian discourses before? Because the first part is where I praise "big ideas" in music to an extreme point, the second part is where I take it to the other extreme, saying basically music is useless (which I don't personally agree with), the final part is a compromise between the two.

FelixCulpa
04.02.11
Hehe, probably, since I just had to Google Hegelian ;) I look forward to your final post in this blog series.

ConsiderPhlebas
04.02.11
Great blog. Gotta split this post into two...

There are certainly issues with the idea that we've 'been there/done that' but I strongly disagree with your assertion that it's nonsense. The idea of originality being something that engages with what has come before, and doesn't waste time trying to come up with something that appears entirely 'new', is probably the best route we can take, and probably the one that would offer the most worthwhile results. I mean, fuck it, Shakespeare stole plots, characters, even actual passages from other people, but he took average works and made them into timeless works of genius. There’s no reason that people can’t do this with music, but there is a palpable feeling of saturation that music drags with it in this age. No matter what you do, what sounds you make, someone will be able to name ten bands/artists that have done almost exactly the same thing. Forging originality through intertextuality is possible, but when the previous body of work dominates the present, it becomes harder to achieve. That the internet has made all types of music immediately available to everyone means that the world is not only vastly more aware of what has come before, but also generally blasé when something big happens, because the past (along with all its failed big ideas) is constantly visible. Even if you came up with a big idea in music today, the chances are that the majority of your fans would slot you into their itunes library, buy your t-shirt and brag about the vinyl they just ordered.

ConsiderPhlebas
04.02.11
There is also a key difference between literature and music that almost guarantees the continuation of the fetish for strict genre categorization. Namely, the audience they reach. The fact is that the obsession with genre tags is not something that is spread evenly across race, gender and age. It is, on average, a symptom found within young males in Western cultures. The frantic adoration that boys and young men throw upon their favourite bands/artists elevates music to some mystical pedestal, and the fact that they see so many others doing the same only strengthens their resolve. When you romanticise something to the level that people do with music, it’s inevitable that they will sink into every level of it, even the trivial details, because it feeds back into the idea that the thing really is inherently special. Many bands and musicians openly oppose the genre tags they get stuck with, like all the electronica artists who ridicule the term ‘IDM’. Come up wit some abstract electronica masterpiece that challenges some people to think in a way they’ve never done before, and they’ll be outnumbered 1000-1 by people tweeting about their new favourite IDM group. But so what? Even if music could never contain another big idea, it can still provoke big ideas. The context you hear music in is every bit as important as the nature of the music itself. Even the most vapid pop song can take on great meaning in the right situation. The problem isn’t so much the loss of big ideas, but more the unwillingness to admit that music isn’t some sacred cow.

thebhoy
04.03.11
Great response Phleb, this is really all I want from these blogs-- a good discussion. A more definitively personal aside: I really think the intertextual idea of originality from Eliot is the best definition. I think my problem is that we tend to (almost certainly without knowing) follow the Harold Bloom idea that we can never eclipse the past. Basically I think that there is a lack of honesty about a lot of music today. I mean, Titus Andronicus are obviously influenced by Bruce Springsteen and various Hardcore acts, but they do it so honestly that I don't mind.

Also, good point about the genre-tag being a young western male audience phenomenon; but at the same time, really, I'm writing for this exact demographic haha

Irving
04.03.11
Dammit my brain just exploded - and Phlebas' response is partially to blame too. I'm not intellectual enough for this.

MO
04.03.11
Great blog man. Phleb's response definitely ties in with mine in part 1. This is awesome stuff, great read.

icaughtfire1992
04.03.11
umm you lost me lol

Idnuf
04.03.11
Not to mean any disrespect or anything, but I'm confused as to the ultimate point of these two posts. You said as much, but the conclusion you came to seems pretty obvious and I don't think warranted two lengthy blog posts leading up to it. That, however, is just the end, and the main body of the combined posts is regarding the loss of a big idea. I completely disagree here, there has been more and more sub-categorization, but artists mix these styles to an unprecedented amount. How many times do you listen to a record that can be satisfactorily described with only one tag? I think the growing amount of tags are just to discuss music more specifically and describe sound without actually hearing the music, I don't see it as a loss of creativity somehow.

thebhoy
04.03.11
on the contrary, you can fit pretty much most records into a few categories, we just nitpick over a few small details. Not to pick on metal, but people want to talk about how diversified it is and give it so many subgenres when really they're all just using Black Sabbath riffs (I'm embellishing, obviously). I think there is a loss of creativity in A LOT of music and the point of these two blog posts is to create discussion on this topic, not to draw conclusions. You disagreed and voiced your point, which is exactly what the point of these two blogposts were meant to arouse.

Idnuf
04.03.11
Ah, I had seen them more as a monologue than a discussion-starter. I'm compelled to agree with you in an instinctual kind of way, but people always lament modern art as being inferior to the old stalwarts. Obviously I'm not saying anything new, but time weeds out the bad music from years ago so it seems as though quality was concentrated in that time period (though I would say that the 60s represent one point in time where music was so important to the culture that there were more classics in that decade). Who knows which records we listen to now will be regarded as classics in the years to come? I've discussed this with my father, and he's told me that when Led Zeppelin came out him and everyone he knew saw them as just another hard rock band. I'm sure back then he thought that Blind Faith would have much more lasting influence than Led Zeppelin IV.

thebhoy
04.03.11
That's sort of the way I was going in the first part, I wanted make sure I didn't sound like I was saying all modern music is bad (90% of the music I listen to on a regular basis is post-2000), and I also agree that time weeds out the bad, but time also only really recognizes the ones who made a significant impact, and I ask myself of how many of these bands aren't totally vapid?

Idnuf
04.03.11
I think we agree more than I originally thought, I just retain a more optimistic attitude about this (though people always call me a pessimist and cynic). I've kind of decided that I'll enjoy what I'll enjoy and not worry so much about whether or not it breaks new ground. I want some music to do that so the music scene doesn't collapse in on itself, but everyone else can satisfy me with just entertaining music (and you said this exact thing in the post). I don't think it really CAN happen (complete stagnation), eventually someone will just accidentally create a new style. I think the most recent creation of a totally new sound was rap and that started in the 70s but really gained steam in the 80s. For this reason I think it shouldn't be too long before we're due for a new revolution. There's not much I can do about it either way, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Jash
04.03.11
another great read, 3 for 3 so far Keelan

thebhoy
04.03.11
yes I absolutely agree with you on that Idnuf

ConsiderPhlebas
04.03.11
Sputnik is definately the right forum for this subject. The attention that people here pay towards genre tags is crazy, and the vehemence they do it with is equally bizarre. The internet seems to amplifying what was a relatively minor issue into something deeply obsessive. When people tell me the metal bands I like are actually sludge bands I want to mash my face into the keyboard, because I feel like I'm talking to people on another planet. But I wonder if the people who fall into this trap - and I've done it in the past, to some degree - would ever have gone on to be the originators of big ideas. In times when ideas like this were more common, they were only produced, and generally only received, by a fraction of the human race. The various factions of modernism offered some amazing ideas, but even when the individual works achieved popularity, like Dali's paintings or The Wasteland, the ideas often didn't translate to the majority of the audience. This is why I think that the most populist styles of music offer an opportunity to get big ideas out into the world that more niche styles don't. Not just because more people listen, but because working with a palette that's familiar means that the listener will be more aware of any added twist to convention. Taking a comparison from film - I'd say that Aronofsky managed to communicate ideas regarding identity formation and sexual repression so effectively in Black Swan precisely because he used the horror format, with many of its traditional methods present. Same with Hitchcock and Psycho. A band like The Weakerthans don't do anything tremendous instrumentally, but they dish out ideas like candy - far more than avant garde bands could ever hope to achieve.

thebhoy
04.03.11
I wouldn't necessarily say the big ideas were actually all that obscure. You cite the Waste Land and Dali, but even then, some ideas were diluted into culture without really even knowing it. I wonder how many people say "Freudian slip" without the slightest idea of Freud's theories. Hell, Kind of Blue was incredibly radical in its approach, and yet it remains one of the highest selling albums of all time. I like your Hitchcock and Aronofsky points. I think I agree and I tried to illustrate that big ideas aren't necessarily avant-garde.

ConsiderPhlebas
04.03.11
Yeah I'm not sure where I was going with that, just rambling around the subject. You do make it clear you're not relegating the concept of big ideas to avant-garde stuff; I'm just strongly in favour of populist methods of exploring ideas in general. Will think about it all and bob back in again over the next few days. More blogs like this would be awesome btw.

Zettel
04.03.11
Hegel is a very bad influence, kids. These "Big Ideas" that transcend experience and connect with the mind are going to kill us one day. Personally, I hate the Ideas, so whenever I found one listening to my music, I use the tagging procedure to erase it. "Small Ideas" or "Fractured Ideas", now I can live with those, as long as they stay in the realm of experience. But that is just me.

Deviant.
04.03.11
Digging: Bhoy - Blogs

AggravatedYeti
04.03.11
oooo, nice Dev.

natey
04.03.11
"we need to continue to push the music somewhere or else we’ll spiral down into an abyss of stagnation. The biggest excuse for the apparent lack of this push is that we’ve seen it all done before. But as I said before, originality is not necessarily sounds that we haven’t heard before, but rather it is the way those sounds convey an idea that marks something as original. So the suggestion that we’ve all “been there, done that” is utter nonsense. In fact, that’s the laziness I feel has led us to be so mired in trying to find new genre tags so as to create a sense of faux-originality."

YeaH!

scissorlocked
04.03.11
grats for the second part of the discourse man, this is equally good and discussion-provoking
so long, Phleb's responses have caught my attention

The subject you're up to is huge and I agree with many points you've brought up. What I believe is that the idea of originality is a partly-flawed one, at least it has been misinterpreted by critics and artists alike. It's in fact a difficult concept that requires a wide spectrum of knowledge and awareness of past and present events, in order for something to be signified as innovative. This approach is maybe what has caused so much discussion, and comes from what I believe is another simplification of the dialectical structure which implies thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The Hegelian formula is better conceived in the concept of something " being and not-being at the same time" , in which refusal and affirmation are present without the chronological succession the aforementioned thesis-antithesis-synthesis model implies.
Thus, the Big Idea is nothing more than an unfolding hidden concept that waits to be revealed under certain circumstances. All this musical relativism can be understood under the prism of history in which music labels, great composers and grand maestro's work in order to unveil these specific notes that we'll later put in barriers.
So, in conclusion, what I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to find proper standards so as to categorize music though it's value. Subjective and objective criteria will always play part as well as aesthetic stances. Barthes division seems quite interesting to me.

robertsona
04.03.11
REST IN PEACE MICHAEL JACKSON

Defeater
04.03.11
I don't think anyone here is trying to create "a sense of faux-originality". See, I daydream a lot. Music is usually on when this happens. I'm not entirely happy with my life and this helps me escape. Different albums do it on different days. When you want a specific sound to act as a catalyst for this breakaway you need specific album characteristics. It's about what you need to set a mood. It has nothing to do with trying to be original or groundbreaking.

thebhoy
04.03.11
I would agree with you Defeater, if that was the case across the board. Genre labels are useful in discussing music, absolutely. The problem, however, is that I'm finding an increasing reliance on thinking someone is doing something really original because they mash up genres. I'm tending to find this increasing reliance is the central focus of too many discussions of music, though as Phleb pointed out, this is in a specific demographic.

Defeater
04.03.11
Your point: http://sputnikmusic.com/review/42763/Spectral-Lore-II/

Isn't this more of an attempt to reach out to a community? If you label something as innovative, you're bound to get more people to recognize you. That's why a lot of new users start off with a review such as that one. Whether we realize it or not we're constantly seeking someone's approval, based on what I've seen and experience on and off of this website.

klap
04.04.11
people who nitpick genres are the worst.

thebhoy
04.04.11
Dave wins the thread. Goodnight everybody!

Deviant.
04.04.11
I only listen to witch house, to avoid such problems

klap
04.04.11
every time deviant bitches about genre tags a little part of me withers and dies

Deviant.
04.04.11
"In fact, that’s the laziness I feel has led us to be so mired in trying to find new genre tags so as to create a sense of faux-originality."

You must be hating this blog then

SeaAnemone
04.04.11
so, you're saying I should be embarrassed regarding my habit of wanting to divide music up categorically (and as accurately as humanely possible) 99% of the time.

man, some of you genre-tag naysayers would have a heart attack glancing at my iTunes haha... the playlists, genre tags, song ratings, and general order of it is scary-- weird considering how incredibly disorganized I am, generally.

thebhoy
04.04.11
know, not so much if you do it, it's if you focus your entire discussion of music on it, which I'm finding people actually do.

thebhoy
04.04.11
*no, jesus my brain is a mess right now.

GulliKyro
04.04.11
Agree

NigelH
04.04.11
Interesting read. I thank you.

natey
04.04.11
This blog is about musicians and composers big ideas, not so much listeners and critics, right?

the only time genre labeling annoys me is when it's done by pure listeners and critics, and done with authority. genres simply aren't what art is about, good artists usually understand this.

in Steiners "Real Presences" he imagines a society where the only type of "criticism" is the production of more art in response. that's what I think is valuable. listeners and critics bickering is not important



thebhoy
04.04.11
essentially yes.

natey
04.04.11
Yeah, the annoying part is when they speak authoritatively and obnoxiously impose their ideas on artists. It annoys me because it seems ignorant, but it's useful in a marketing sense. When used in that way it usually isn't critical or smarmy, just helpful.

ConsiderPhlebas
04.04.11
I don't think genres are just marketing tools. Certain genres, like hardcore punk, for example, bring a loose spectrum of ethics along with the basic aesthetics of the music. And any artist or band that plays a distinct style of music - whether it's d'n'b, hip-hop, or classical - is engaging with the idea of genre directly. It's just that the listeners tend to forget that the genre is the canvas, not the painting.

Acanthus
04.04.11
An interesting read, I'm looking forward to where this could be headed.

ConsiderPhlebas
04.04.11
Cool, I see what you're saying now.

thebhoy
04.04.11
Oh, you like Flo Rida? You'll LOVE Kayo Dot.

thebhoy
04.04.11
omg, that's my new pick up line at the bar.

natey
04.05.11
i just tell the ladies I write reviews on Sputnikmujsic.com

liledman
04.05.11
"genres simply aren't what art is about, good artists usually understand this"

But genres are simply inherent to art in all of it's various forms anyway.

I disagree with the statement about genre nit-picking being a young-male-from-the-west problem, when the same raging arguments happen about 'modern classical' and it's credibility as either genre or broad descriptor between older critics and academics. The same arguments have always been around, and still go on with classical purists arguing over neoclassical vs neobaroque, and whether they are necessary, when different periods end/begin, hell they even place importance on which country or school they came from even if two artists were from the same period. I think it's really just a problem which comes with the territory; criticism and analysis encourages this kind of classification.

As for big ideas (might as well stick with classical here), a wise man once said "I claim the distinction of having written a truly new music which, based upon tradition as it is, is destined to become tradition." Arnold Schoenberg sure did have incredible influence, and had the largest idea of 20th century classical music, but is all music atonal? No.

In most musical circles, The Beatles, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, James Brown etc are held as the greatest musical figures of the last century, when really, they took a lot more from tradition and did nothing as drastically different as Schoenberg.

I guess what I am getting at, is that people can be too afraid of big ideas, especially in music, and like it all to be quite digestible at the same time. Kind of Blue was a somewhat revolutionary jazz album, but it is in no way hard to listen to. If anything, it's very easy to listen to.

It is merely a product of the commercialised times that we live in, that big ideas seem scarier and scarier to the general populous. There is now great ways in which small independent artists can reach a large audience, and allow niche markets to have strong followings, but while giving a broader range of music to the world, we dilute the possible effect a big idea can have.

I don't think it's too extreme to argue that we will never be affected as radically as we were throughout the 20th century.

liledman
04.05.11
oh and great write-ups, loved reading them.

natey
04.05.11
"In most musical circles, The Beatles, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, James Brown etc are held as the greatest musical figures of the last century, when really, they took a lot more from tradition and did nothing as drastically different as Schoenberg.

I guess what I am getting at, is that people can be too afraid of big ideas, especially in music, and like it all to be quite digestible at the same time. Kind of Blue was a somewhat revolutionary jazz album, but it is in no way hard to listen to. If anything, it's very easy to listen to. "

Big ideas can be digestible! They don't have to be "drastically different".

"Arnold Schoenberg sure did have incredible influence, and had the largest idea of 20th century classical music, but is all music atonal? No."

Before I learned who Schoeny was I experimented with atonality. Twelve-tone technique is not a better big idea than one of Miles Davis' trumpet solos. Schoen, Stockhausen (and others) did stuff that few people will ever want to hear. Big ideas aren't necessarily unpleasant to most people. I like what you're bringing up, but I think you're holding dissonant music on too high a pedestal.

natey
04.05.11
^Errr after saying "I experimented with atonality" I meant to include "and a lot of other people have too probably in centuries past and just put it in the trash"

ConsiderPhlebas
04.05.11
Academics arguing over details of their field of study seems like a long way from kids who can't agree on whether a band is death metal, deathcore, melodic death metal, metal or sludge metal. Classical music brings with it traditions and ideas stretching back centuries, and it's always been considered to be high art. The arguments surrounding it, even to do with the trivial stuff, have meat on their bones. People wanting to call their favourite band post-hardcore because it's cooler than pop-punk just isn't comparable, and the people doing this are boys in the West.

You need to be logged in to post a comment
Login | Register

FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2014 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy