gmf@uvacs.UUCP (04/08/84)
Isn't it true that the distinction for many is between good music
and bad, rather than classical and rock (or jazz, blues, soul,
country, etc.)? The fact is that a lot of "popular" music is
simplistic and repetitive to some people's ears, though apparently
not to many others, since it sells well. But there are many musically
satisfying rock and jazz pieces even for those who like their music
more complex and elaborated. Conversely, there is a lot of boring
"classical" music, though it is seldom heard at public concerts,
nor played very often by radio stations (except possibly during
programs run by musicologists -- I'm thinking of a certain local
station). Much country music is boring to my ear after the first
15 minutes or so, but I can see the appeal of the lyrics to those
who are imbedded in the culture they reflect. I might not get
bored so fast with blue grass or Scottish bagpipe music if I
understood their subtleties better.
Yours for tolerance,
Gordon Fisherpeters@cubsvax.UUCP (04/10/84)
Dear Yours for Tolerance (this is an open letter, so y'all too!),
I AGREE.
I feel that all music, perhaps all "art," or even science, has to
be viewed in its own context, to be appreciated. (I'm not arguing that
everyone has to appreciate everything.) How many people have you heard
say that "All xyz sounds alike"? I've heard it for xyz == classical music,
rock, bluegrass, jazz, Hawaiian music, Swiss yodelling... What's more,
ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THIS ARE RIGHT!!! If you pick
one of your less favorite forms of music from the above list, it probably
all *does* sound alike to you. But for the forms you like, what you *hear*
is not the "alikeness," but the differences, the subtleties which exist
*within the framework* that "all sounds alike" to the less appreciative.
{philabs,cmcl2!rocky2}!cubsvax!peters Peter S. Shenkin
Dept of Biol. Sci.; Columbia Univ.; New York, N. Y. 10027; 212-280-5517
"In accordance with the recent proclivity for clever mottos, this is mine."jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim T. McCrae) (04/10/84)
I believe there is another level of distinction beyond good and bad. Many music lovers are drawn to the works of artists who appear very human through their music, that is, the music itself has the feeling of human activity and fallibility to it. This is difficult to explain to those who have never experienced it; those who have probably already know what I'm talking about. Blues, jazz, and rock in their purest form (flame away) are less concerned with proficient execution than with communication of personal experience. A good blues guitarist knows when to make the notes sloppy or too rushed or slightly offkey or off tempo. Life's like that. Life's not like a synthesizer line for most of us, it's more like a searing dirty Freddie King riff. The job of the artist is to encapsulate and reflect our own experience in a way we haven't done ourselves. Any branch of music has examples of those who possess the above-defined right stuff, and those who don't. Stan Getz has it, David Sanborn doesn't. The Ramones have it, Black Flag doesn't. Charlie Parker had probably the quintessential case of it. In modern music there's a whole arena of music which strives to deny human emotion by relying on the infallibility of drum machines, synthesizers, and other electronic perfectors. At the other extreme is a movement which has taken human emotion to the breaking point, the hiers to the Sex Pistol's brief moment on the big screen. The individuals who work in their chosen of the two forms will still either show through as humans struggling to communicate or as impersonal loci of activity divorced from the fallibility of their trade.
gmf@uvacs.UUCP (04/12/84)
Statements to the effect that all music of such and such a genre
sounds alike remind me, sadly, of statements that all people of
such and such a race look alike, or behave alike in some way.
No doubt we are close here to a fundamental source of prejudice
of all kinds.
Yours for tolerance,
Gordon Fishergmf@uvacs.UUCP (04/13/84)
References: syteka.460 uvacs.1228 >> I believe there is another distinction beyond good and bad. >> Many music lovers are drawn to the works of artists who appear >> human through their music, that is, the music itself has the >> feelings of human activity and probability to it. A point well taken, generally speaking. I have experienced this over the years with various blues artists. And I remember someone saying that no one under 40 should play the slow movement of a Beethoven sonata in public (or words to that effect). (Classical music need not be played as if by a machine, any more than jazz, etc.) I have also experienced something like this during certain performances of certain classical music at certain times. Still, one can make a distinction between music and the performance of it. In the case of "pre-composed" music, the music may be performed so as to convey or exemplify human activity (including fallibility), or not. Hence the music is something separate. For improvising, or (in favorable cases) composing on the fly, the distinction is perhaps not so clear. Still, if X improvises and Y imitates Y, then Y may do so poorly or well. It doesn't seem to me that separating music from the performance of it, or the performers of it, need imply separation from human emotion, The human emotion is made when performer and music meet (to coin an adage). Gordon Fisher