jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim T. McCrae) (07/20/84)
These classical vs. modern-pop (for lack of a better descriptor) discussions are sort of like a paper cut on the palm of the hand to me. I know I'd feel better if I'd just leave it alone, but I won't. I'm one of those truly snobbish people who listens to anything and offers an opinion based on my immediate whims. Hey, it's music, not a decision in a felony case. If I like it I'll probably play it until I know it inside out; if I don't, I'll give it one or two more chances, then refrain from discussing it. (Fan-types can get nasty when cornered.) "So when's this slug brain gonna shuddup about how cool he is an' say sumthin?" you're probably thinking. Here's my two dollars worth: Music is usually "consumed" as an art form and as such obeys the same "laws" of art as painting, film, etc. Art is a conscious being's attempt to perceive the sensed world, encapsulate and highlight that perception, and bring it into view as an objective "thing", a filtered chunk of awareness that can be studied, meditated on, peed on, whatever is necessary to bring the original artist's perception out of the work and into the observer's realm of awareness. Now, what is to be gleaned from grokking a given piece of art depends on what the artist put into it and how inclined or capable the art lover is to perceiving what's in it. (Great grammar, mom.) Let's compare the Brandenburg Concerto s (JS Bach) with "Speaking in Tongues" (David Byrne/Talking Heads). First listen to the concertos definitely indicates that this composer knows his stuff, he's a professional. Close listening reveals a fascination with harmonic motion. You probably notice technique, but that's not really important because you know what good technique means in this context; if the pianist, say, has some truly flawed moments you think "not good, he blew it there", but you know what JSB had in mind. All in all, a pleasant experience with lots of interesting stuff to pick up in future listenings. What was Bach trying to make you feel? Here's where it gets tough. To me, he's said "the world is dense with texture and possibility; things are what they are now but for a moment then they move." That's to me, understand. Now, to David Byrne. First listening, it's somewhat monotonous, neuvo huevo disco stuff. But it's the Talking Heads so we'll try again. Close listening reveals layer upon layer of staccato rhythm structures with synthesizer, guitar, and bass all being used as percussion instruments. Large and small sound "shapes" move in and out of this rhythmic latticework. The lyrics suggest the singer has the faintest of holds on this reality while being overwhelmed by some private world. He sounds a little frantic but still under control. Guess what it says to me? The world is dense with texture and possibility; things are what they are now but for a moment, then they move. Yeh, and it really comes through this time. Technique? I assume they did what they set out to do. Maybe it was accidental, why do I care? I found what I was looking for, in spades. Next week we'll compare Albert Collins and Vladimer Horowitz. "Feelings without explanations/some things are hard to describe... And the sound inside your mind, playing all the time, playing with a heart of steel." -David Byrne Jim McCrae / ...!hplabs!sytek!jtm Sytek / Mountain View CA 94043