malik@delphi.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (10/15/85)
Re; the cutting-edge <I think these are Doug Allen's comments; not positive> >Well, there are lots of people who I like too, who I don't necessarily >think are on the cutting edge. But I don't think you have to be flipped >out avante-guarde to be on the cutting edge. In fact, I feel a lot of >"avante-guarde" music isn't on the cutting edge, just because it falls >*so* neatly into the class "avant-guarde". Some people treat the word as meaning 'anything that's weird sounding'. Depending on your exposure to music, that could include just about anything - with the result that the word is just about worthless. Also, this concept of 'avant-garde' doesn't seem to give any consideration to history, which, after all, is exactly what the notion of a 'cutting edge' is concerned with. The curious thing about this 'catagory' (uh-oh, did Rich hear that?) is that if something sounds like something that *is* avant-garde, is doesn't belong in the catagory. You can't imitate 'newness'. If I invent a carbon-filament light-bulb, it ain't new. But, someone might say, it's exactly like Edison's and THAT was considered new. You have to consider history or the notion of newness gets silly. >People like Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush, I feel are definitely on the >cutting edge. (In fact, the most important cutting edge.) Ah, so there's more than one? If so, we're talking about apples and oranges. If you're talking about well-made, sophisticated, complex, popular music that is still accessible, then yes, they belong there. >They may not always fall neatly into the class "avante-guarde", but they >are definitely powerful innovators, and are cutting new paths in music >rather than just perfecting old ones. They may tend to use a lot of >knowledge that already exists about music, rather than just throwing >away the book, like a lot of avant-guarde musicians do, but that's >probably an even better approach. It means I can relate to it (because >how music is perceived is largely a cultural phenomenon), rather than >just saying, "Hmmmm, that's interesting". Distortion of what you >already know is much more powerful emotionally than things totally new. >Just ask any surrealist. You're walking a fine line here. You're almost saying 'they're new because they're not too new.' And, I guess (upon reflection) that I agree; *I* prefer music that is somehow related to what I already know and like. However, we may very much disagree as to what is 'accessible'. Could there be such as thing as 'mainstream avant-garde'? The most innovative of those things that most people accept? Is that what you're referring to? - Karl
gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (10/16/85)
Good old Karl Malik comes once again to the aid of the maligned avant garde: Doug seems to have performed a neat ahistorical shift wherein several of his favorite performers are on the cutting edge by virtue of mediating between what we'd historically call the avant-garde (we're talking both high culture and those parts outside of high culture that get co-opted by high culture) and what is "popular". Neat trick, but I don't think that you could call that the cutting edge without laying out all the extra baggage that such an argument packs: For starters, it's possible that the confusion of the idea of "cutting edge" (thank you MTV) with the historically grounded formal notion of an "avant-garde" is at the root of a lot of Karl's (and my) difficulty. Secondly, I'd say that it's pretty debateable that anyone who mediates between the avant-garde and the public like KB or PG counts as the edge. I'll try out of courtesy and the desire for self criticism to gracefully avoid the problems of the kind of elitism involved in knowing about someone who's popular and yet unpopular here, because there are very few of us who avoid it successfully (Conlon Nancarrow? Merzbow? Anthony Braxton?). That's a kind of power and secret knowledge all its own, isn't it. A currency we can scarecely avoid using, and one traded readily in the marketplace. The insatiable hunger of the Machinery of Music demands novelty to run. Maybe we should be talking about *that* Rather than debating the relative deification (reification, maybe...) of Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush (much as I respect them, I am a monotheist)). By Doug's definition, the cutting edge is sorta like the bridge between Asgard and the lower worlds, and KB the messenger who commutes between the two. Her work is extremely useful, as is Gabriel's...but I wouldn't call that cutting edge. Maybe a different way to look at it is to find someone who does a sort of work that is formally similar to what the "mediators" are doing and hunt up earlier and more flawed versions of the samea stuff that didn't make it. If this begins to sound a little like the arguments on historicism raging away in net.religion.christian, its because its the exact same kind of issues. Are we talking succeses or are we talking *winners?* >>People like Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush, I feel are definitely on the >>cutting edge. (In fact, the most important cutting edge.) > >Ah, so there's more than one? If so, we're talking about apples and >oranges. If you're talking about well-made, sophisticated, complex, >popular music that is still accessible, then yes, they belong there. Bravo. And let's add the little codicil about wondering why *they* are so successful about it where others fail. Doug would, I suspect, don his Romantic garb and argue "genius". How about you, Karl? >>They (innovators) may tend to use a lot of >>knowledge that already exists about music, rather than just throwing >>away the book, like a lot of avant-guarde musicians do, but that's >>probably an even better approach. It means I can relate to it (because >>how music is perceived is largely a cultural phenomenon), rather than >>just saying, "Hmmmm, that's interesting". Distortion of what you >>already know is much more powerful emotionally than things totally new. >>Just ask any surrealist. A couple of quarrels here. Your assumption that the avant-garde throws out the book is, I think, a little naive. Certainly they question the Orthodox notions of whatever discipline, but you've loaded your description of them somewhat by suggesting something other than the fact that the AG traditionally isolates the central (and occasionally hidden) notions of the mainstream and them tweaks that in such a way that the assumptions are made visible. What's at stake here is a question of emphasis rather than rules. One could argue further that in the present era the book is never "Thrown out" at all because the AG now operates with the self-consciousness that in some way they *are* Orthodox. I am not sure that a Surrealist would readily accept your notion of distortion. Given the S. interest in the way that the unconscious world pokes into the "real" conscious world, they might easily argue that what you'd call a distortion is the true shape of the sign in the real world rather than the "illusion" of the predictable construct. This view does little to defend PG or KB, though. -- _____________________________________________________________________ die lange nachte ist viel zu heiB/ich traume nur noch in rot/die welt da-drausen is swartz-weiss/nur eine farbe tod/oh biko................ Gregory Taylor/ (wherever)!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor /Madison, Wisconsin
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (10/17/85)
> From: Gregory Taylor/ (wherever)!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor /Madison, Wisconsin > Secondly, I'd say that it's pretty debateable that anyone who mediates > between the avant-garde and the public like KB or PG counts as the > edge.... > By Doug's definition, the cutting edge is sorta like the bridge > between Asgard and the lower worlds, and KB the messenger who commutes > between the two. Her work is extremely useful, as is Gabriel's...but I > wouldn't call that cutting edge. You seem to be implying that the "avant-garde" discover all the interesting things and that Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush sit around waiting for these things to be revealed to them so that they can then go and put them into pop music. I don't think it's like that at all. I think they both do a lot of work at discovering interesting things on their own (as well as scouting out other's discoveries) and then put it into music that one might want to listen to repeatedly. They might not be like some of the "avant-garde" who seem to like to develop grandiose theories and then make music designed to show off their new theories. And a lot of the "avant-garde" that isn't like that *sounds* like that. Instead, KB and PG are very experimental, and just try lots and lots of different things (the vast majority of which disappear forever on the cutting room floor) listening for interesting things. But the point of the music isn't to *show off* the interesting things, but to make interesting music. The results of the "avant-garde" may be more interesting academically in some sense, for the purpose of studying theories on music, but may perhaps fail as successful art, in that it may have been forgotten in the theorizing that successful art should be emotionally resonant. (Is this going to start a debate on what art is?) The music of Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel nevers fails to be that since that is their primary goal. In any case, the result is that I find the music of Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, Joan Le Barbarbara, John Cage, and the Residents (are they "avant-garde" or really commedians?) all quite interesting, but I'd much rather listen to Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel repeatedly than either Joan LeBarbara, John Cage, or The Residents. >>> [Me:] People like Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush, I feel are definitely >>> on the cutting edge. (In fact, the most important cutting edge.) >> [Karl Malik:] Ah, so there's more than one? If different people are going off in different directions, it sure seems to me that there is more than one cutting edge. >> If so, we're talking about apples and oranges. If you're talking >> about well-made, sophisticated, complex, popular music that is still >> accessible, then yes, they belong there. If Kate Bush is always so accessible, how come when I play "The Dreaming", most people make funny faces and leave the room just as quickly as if I'd put on Massacre? > I am not sure that a Surrealist would readily accept your notion of > distortion. Given the S. interest in the way that the unconscious > world pokes into the "real" conscious world, they might easily argue > that what you'd call a distortion is the true shape of the sign in the > real world rather than the "illusion" of the predictable construct. > This view does little to defend PG or KB, though. Maybe PG or KB would say the same thing about their music? The music of both PG and KB seems very surealistic to me -- especially KB. PGIII and "The Dreaming" have always seemed to me to be kind of the auditory analog of a Dali painting. There's this guy named Fred Vermorel who wrote what I'm told is a very respected biography of the Sex Pistols. He also wrote a couple of very questionable biographies on Kate Bush. In one of these, he maintains that "pop" is the only form of art that really counts today. Now, I certainly can't agree with that, but I do think that "avant-garde pop" (or whatever you want to call what KB and PG do when they are in their less commercial modes) is the most important area of art today, and that Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel are on that cutting edge. "More fun that having your eye slit with a razor blade!" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. So what is Laurie Anderson?
gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (10/18/85)
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >You seem to be implying that the "avant-garde" discover all the >interesting things and that Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush sit around >waiting for these things to be revealed to them so that they can then go >and put them into pop music. I don't think it's like that at all. I >think they both do a lot of work at discovering interesting things on >their own (as well as scouting out other's discoveries) and then put it >into music that one might want to listen to repeatedly. What I'm calling into question is your use of the term "avant-garde". I mean in no way to imply that Pete and Kate sit about playing the cultural imperialist (although that *is* a potentially defensible point of view). Probably the best example of a permutator I can think of might well be Brian Eno, as I might be able to make a point without pulling your Bush lever using his work as well as anyone. (Besides that I may well be a more rabid Eno admirer than you are, so there's a self critical aspect to my pushing this....) In the context of his back- ground, there's little in Eno's early work that was not in some way derivative: He owes the notion of systems in music to his teachers Schmit, Bryars, and the writings of Stafford Beer. He's upfront about that as well. He ripped off Terry Riley's two-deck tape loop system, captain Beefheart's lyrical techniques, and so forth. But he did good work, right? I don't think you can really mount a good case for any more than the fact that Eno took his sources and mediated them into the marketplace (how long that took is an interesting point for discussion, but it did eventually happen). The "cutting edge" stuff still goes to all those awful "avant-garde" types, though. If that doesn't satifsy you, then you could speculate on what Eno's strictly "formal" contributions might be (performer as engineer? virtual acoustical space as a given? linear event organization in the "On Land" period stuff as structure? On second thought, perhaps his major contribution to work as a performer and producer might be his stubborn objection to the "Romantic" notion of "inspiration" and "genius") >They might not be like some of the "avant-garde" who seem to like to >develop grandiose theories and then make music designed to show off >their new theories. And a lot of the "avant-garde" that isn't like that >*sounds* like that. Whoops, sounds like the blinders are on there. You're making some pretty heavy generalizations about a lot lof idiosyncratic behaviours that might not amuse you at all if I'd lumped Our Kate in with those other bimbos who make popular records and said something similar. Let's try it this way: I'm not at all certain *what* the relationship between theorizing and production seems to be for the "avant-garde": I could get a Ph.D. and lots of undergraduate girlfriends for writing that up and getting instant tenure. Further, you've in effect decided that you can make some concrete determinations about that shadowy relationship simply by "listening" (it *sounds* like that). That might be done in only a *very* general way (we all do it to some extent), but you've in effect mimicked your pals who run screaming from the room when Kate shifts into falsetto at every hill. You've stopped early. >Instead, KB and PG are very experimental, and just >try lots and lots of different things (the vast majority of which >disappear forever on the cutting room floor) listening for interesting >things. But the point of the music isn't to *show off* the interesting >things, but to make interesting music. Ah, more baggage. The avant-garde is only concerned with a kind of self-referential ego-tripping. I will be the first to loudly proclaim that the avant-garde is badly in need of a little editing. Particularly PostModernists. But there is the notion firmly fixed in the marketplace that "failed tries" or "alternate takes" or whatever you wish to call them are in effect the same thing, with the except that people will pay money for another remix. I bet you even though of running out and buying the execrable "Against All Odds" soundtrack just because PG has "walk through the fire" on it, right? I'd maintain that what appears to you to be overly "experimental" quality of the AG is different from the remix only in degree and market value rather than kind. In both cases there's this interesting little substrata of the specialized market (Bushmen ----or is that !Kate) (Morton Feldman) (whatever) that will take interest in the "Experimental" stuff, and use it for its social and semiotic ends. Adulation, Fandom, and the cult of the "Unknown Artist" are a kind of social currency with rates of exchange set by the holders. Money is power, as they say.... >The results of the "avant-garde" >may be more interesting academically in some sense, for the purpose of >studying theories on music, but may perhaps fail as successful art, in >that it may have been forgotten in the theorizing that successful art >should be emotionally resonant. (Is this going to start a debate on >what art is?) The music of Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel nevers fails to >be that since that is their primary goal. There's that old "academic" villain again, tying the heroine "emotionally resonant" to the tracks. Just for fun, here's a little *NON-SERIOUS* jibe at Kate in my best NME Marxspeak (tough stuff for a good Anglican boy like myself, but hey.......). I'll run as roughshod over my judgements as I can and try to do it with a similar sort of over-general izing. FIgure out why you don't like it, and you'll have a good idea as to why I'm uncomfortable with your redifinition and subsequent dismissal of the AG: Kb is the absolutely most perfect product to sell to closet "art-rock" rejects from the late seventies, who may fear that the emotional immediacy of punk and hardcore and its communal and visceral nature have excluded them from the exercise of any of the "social tools" that they use to attain social respect and status. Even the stupid, popular or good looking could, after all, like X. Not only that...their relative isolation from a real public (touring. It's even better if there's an emotional or physical weakness tied to the lack of touring. Y'know, the Proustian recluse refining their genius in isolation................................) and their chosen isolation from political reality of class struggle mimics the desire of her malcontented fans to be "special" and isolated from the real world, immersed in the "emotional resonances" of her art. Yowzah. What claptrap! But I hope I've sufficiently overexaggerated. >In any case, the result is that I find the music of Peter Gabriel, Kate >Bush, Joan Le Barbarbara, John Cage, and the Residents (are they >"avant-garde" or really commedians?) all quite interesting, but I'd much >rather listen to Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel repeatedly than either Joan >LeBarbara, John Cage, or The Residents. > The sound of the nail struck solidly on the head. Long as you maintain that that choice is one of idiosyncratic taste (which X many other people share with you), I've got no problems. I also think you needn't try to co-opt the AG to back up your idiosyncratic tastes...your own jusgement is reason enough for me. >There's this guy named Fred Vermorel who wrote what I'm told is a very >respected biography of the Sex Pistols. He also wrote a couple of very >questionable biographies on Kate Bush. In one of these, he maintains >that "pop" is the only form of art that really counts today. Now, I >certainly can't agree with that, but I do think that "avant-garde pop" >(or whatever you want to call what KB and PG do when they are in their >less commercial modes) is the most important area of art today, and that >Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel are on that cutting edge. Fred Vermorel ain't alone, and that's not even his Idea. Any good Post-Structuralist critic would tell you the same thing. By the way, the only real difference I can see in the SP and KB biogs might involve the subject being studied rather than the "facts". Vermorel is in both cases insterested in the way that both persons/aggregates became "stars", and have manipulated their public personas/had them manipulated. But the Post_structuralist view says that "pop" is the only art form of the day because "art" is a function of the number of people you can reach. They've effectively decided that the real "avant-garde" are the ones who successfully manipulate access and image as a part of their art in the arena of information/public taste. By that view, Madonna herself is right out there on the cutting edge, and Kate's right behind her. I don't think you'd really care much for the whole unpacked version of that view. I don't care much for Vermorel either. >P.S. What is Laurie Anderson? Laurie Anderson is the Kate Bush of the Performance Art World. -- _____________________________________________________________________ die lange nachte ist viel zu heiB/ich traume nur noch in rot/die welt da-drausen is swartz-weiss/nur eine farbe tod/oh biko................ Gregory Taylor/ (wherever)!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor /Madison, Wisconsin
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (10/20/85)
> Doug Alan: > ..... I do think that "avant-garde pop" > [....] is the most important area of art today... Why do you think that? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Sa ou pa konnin toujou pi fo pase' ou "