Re: beauty, meaning, and other things out of fashion...

[wagreiner@ucdavis.edu ()]

In article <9402191323.AA07401@kilimanjaro.opt-sci.Arizona.EDU> arg@kilimanjaro.opt-sci.Arizona.EDU (Alex Gibbs) writes:
>wagreiner@ucdavis.edu writes:
>
>->>>album that has had the largest negative impact in popular music
>->>>history: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.  After all, that was
>->>>the album which, it seems to me started the trend towards
>->>>substituting tape effects and cutting and pasting for the ability to
>->>>perform musically.
>
>Are you suggesting that music shouldn't use new instruments and
>technology (which essentially creates new instruments and ways to make
>music)?  I'd loathe seeing musicians stuck with the same old tools to
>create music.  The magic is to be talented at using both the old and
>the new, and even making the new.  (ex The Dreaming)

No, I don't mean that new instruments and technologys should not be used.
But there are examples of new instruments that were used to good effect
and for good reason, and some examples of the oppisite.  Good example:
the invention of the electric guitar used in it's early years so that
blues musicians could be heard over the racket in a bar.  Turned out
to work well and lead to many musical inovations.  Bad example:
Switched on Bach, and drum machines.  Yuck.  'Nuff said.


>
>->>>I mean without Sgt. Peppers would we have had to
>->>>deal with the likes of Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Genesis, and all that
>->>>art rock stuff?
>
>Art rock is bad?  Which part is bad, art or rock?  Are they only bad
>together?  Oh the creativity of it all!  Someone save us!

>Just like all those horrible classical "concept" operas.  Yes, some
>(my guess is a lot) of them were bad too, but some were great, just as
>with concept albums.  I think an ideal masterpiece is great as an
>entirety and as it's miriad of components.  Its even greater when the
>top level is the whole album, and not just the great songs it contains.
>Yes, some fail but the successes are magnificent.

I have no problem with "art" or "rock".  My problem is with "art-rock."
The difficulty I have with them is that they seem to take "art" music
and "traditional folk" (in which I include rock, blues, jazz, etc.)
music, remove the appealing parts of both and combine what's left.

Great compositional music (a Mozart Opera, or whatever other great
composer triggers your fancy) is made by great composers who know a
heck of a lot more about music theory and compositional technique than
Roger Waters (for one example).  Compared to great operas even the very
best of the art rockers are simple and boring in terms of composition.
I mean could anyone seriously compare the musical complexity of "The
Marriage of Figaro" to that of "The Dark Side of the Moon" or
"Close to the Edge" or "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" or "Tarkus?"
Of course not.  Even the bands wouldn't claim anything like that.

On the other hand great "rock" or blues or <choose your favorite form
of traditional popular music here> relies on performance improvisation
and interplay between improvising performers.  Take that away from
the popular music form and you end up with Paula Abdul.  :-)  And that
is precisely what most art-rockers do remove from the form.

So take away the complexity of the compositions of "art" music, take
away the emotional and musical spontaneity of popular music, and 
combine them and you get the simple and emotionally flat form we call
"art rock."  That is what is unappealing about it to me.

I think Kate, as a composer, is as good as any of the other art rock
folk (maybe a bit better in some cases) but what she does add is that
she makes some attempt to retain spontaneity in the performance and
emotional commitment.  It is what, to me, sets Kate apart from the others.

>
>->Sgt. Peppers also accelerated the trend of making 
>->records in which the performers don't play at the same time (the gross
>->practice of laying down a billion tracks to make one recording) which
>->has led (IMHO) to a pop music world in which performers don't know how to
>->improvise and react to one another's playing which led to a shift from 
>->the skill of performing music to that of "composing" an album, a trend that
>->I just don't care for.  (Of course that doesn't mean it's bad, just means
>->I don't like it.)
>
>Which was more important, classical composers composing symphonies or
>"performing" them?  How could they perform them alone anyway?  This
>isn't new.  Look at all the parts/tracks they put down, even if they
>were on paper and not tape.
>
>Performing has to be secondary to composing, unless you're
>talking about totally improvised performances, otherwise what would
>be played?  Someone has to compose the music.

Performance and composition are symbiotic.  They need one another.  IN
their lifetimes Bach, Handel, and Beethoven were all well known for their
ability to improvise during performances.  So were many of the great
opera singers of those times.  The reason the compositions they made are
so much more important now is just that there was no way to record 
performances, so they are lost to time, whereas the compositions could
be written down and preserved.  Much of non-western "art" music is based
more in performance than composition.  Take East Indian Carnatic music
for instance.  The quality of a performance is based largely on the 
performers ability to improvise on the kriti, or whatever other type of
Carnatic piece is being performed.  Drummers playing with a Carnatic
singer must anticipate what the soloist will do and exercise thier own
inventiveness on the melodic material.  Professional reputations are on
the line according to whether or not they improvise inventively.
Perfoming, except perhaps in some of the last few centuries western
classical music, is not "secondary" to composing.  Even there it is 
questionable.  With the advent of recording, performers are becoming 
more and more important with time.  Of course Jazz is another complex
musical form based largely on improvisation.  But we could spend years
discuing situations where improvisation is important...

The original point I was making was that I think that the advent of using
multiple tracks and "splicing together" different performances was leading
to a situation in which the art of performing is being lost in popular
music to the point that many artist have to resort to "lip-syncing"
(spelling??) because they simply can't perform.

If I have any major complaints about Kate it is her concert philosophy.
She seems to feel that costume changes and "special effects" are 
important in a concert and so her one tour ended up being more of a
visual "show" than a compelling musical exhibition.  Most of the songs
(at least on the Hammersmith video, the only Kate concert I have "seen")
sounded pretty much like they did on the record.  That, I think, is kind
of dull.  I wish she would have concentrated more on the music and made
each night of the tour a unique and exciting *musical* event.  But that's
just me.  Judging from the reciepts and reviews I've seen of Madonna's 
concert people seems to enjoy this kind of stuff...

Wade