Philistine

[billkilpatrick]

in relation to some of the youtube mandolin videos mentioned in this section and at the risk of being tagged as a philistine, i'd like to ask why it is that certain composers of MAD music (Melodiphobic, Atonal, Discordant) choose the mandolin? i'd also like to ask what it is that's required - other than two ears and something in between - to appreciate this music?

a little wary but paying attention - bill

[Eugene]

in relation to some of the youtube mandolin videos mentioned in this section and at the risk of being tagged as a philistine, i'd like to ask why it is that certain composers of MAD music (Melodiphobic, Atonal, Discordant) choose the mandolin?
Why not? #That's comparable to asking why some chefs prefer to work with fish and others with mushrooms. #You might like what either one cooks, but you might not. #There's not necessarily anything wrong with the taste of anybody involved, whatever it is.


i'd also like to ask what it is that's required - other than two ears and something in between - to appreciate this music?
I suppose no more than wanting to. #I also suppose there's no reason to appreciate it if you don't want to. #I will offer that knowing how and/or why such things are constructed certainly can enhance appreciation. #For example, I didn't care much for Bozzio's multi-movement solos for drum kit until I saw him explain their structure at a clinic. #After, I came to think of them as rather profound.

[billkilpatrick]

willingness to listen is essential when confronted with this stuff, i agree. i was wondering if a degree in music might be as well - or maths, or physics ... seems an initiation process of some sort is essential.

i think it's ironic - glib and heavy handed - to choose a sweet sounding, lyrical instrument like the mandolin to make noise - sounds of the earth may be like music but that doesn't make them so.

a bit like the "big lie" theory of propaganda by joseph goebbels - little lies get detected but a big one rolls on forever, gaining acceptance.

[Bob A]

Sort of like the "Novel of Ideas"; interesting, perhaps, but seldom revisited for pleasure after the mandatory read. Castor oil for the ears? "Listen to this, it's good for you".

Still, there remains Eugene's uncovering hidden depths. Or Twain's discovery that Wagner's music is better than it sounds. Or Stavinsky's Firebird, for yet another vector: there may well be something in it, but it may take time and effort to appreciate. Meanwhile lay in a stock of outdated vegetables, and head for the concert hall.

[allenhopkins]

I vaguely remember this story from one of Bennett Cerf's books -- may well be apocryphal:

A contemporary composer wrote a a concerto for 24 pianos and two airplane engines, which was performed (for the first and only time) in New York. A monstrous din emanated from the stage, and a man in the audience turned to his companion and said,
"This is terrible!"

At which, a mink-coated dowager in the row ahead turned around with a loud "Sshh!"

-- No mandolin content...

[Jim Garber]

Meanwhile lay in a stock of outdated vegetables, and head for the concert hall.
Another use for those vegetables...

vegetable orchestra video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpfYt7vRHuY)

Vegetable Orchestra site (http://www.gemueseorchester.org/)

[JeffD]

MAD music is better than it sounds. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[billkilpatrick]

MAD music is better than it sounds. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

... as koan's go, it's perfect.

[John Hill]

I'm with Bill here.

My $.02 is that works like 'Yob Cultcha' & MAD music (best description I've heard yet) in general is that composers are playing with theory or doing math with the structure of music. It's as if it is structured sound by theoreticians for theoreticians. At least that's what it sounds like. It sure ain't pretty or moving...just makes me wince.

All of that genre of atonal, dissonant, modern...call it what you will...it all sounds like someone dropped a large tray of silverware on a concrete floor: harsh and unpleasant.

I wouldn't disparage anyone who wanted to listen to it or play it. But I won't hide the fact that I can't imagine why they would want to subject themselves to it either.

Eugene,

When did you see Bozzio's clinic? Was it recently with his new, super-monster drum set? As a former drummer I have to say that what Terry does is simply mind boggling. All that coordinated sound from 4 limbs is astounding.

[mandobuzz]

I am one who actually enjoys listening, playing, and composing music which can be melodiphobic, atonal, discordant, etc.. so I guess I am qualified to put forth my opinion on this topic. I first should should say that topics like these tend to become polarized very quickly, stirring up passions. Whatever I may say in defense of my tastes is not intended to to aggravate others (although it may unintentionally do so).

Dissonance in music is relative. What was once considered dissonant is now considered consonant. Late Beethoven was "unlistenable" Wagner was "noise" Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot at it's premiere, etc.. (For a large collection of initial bad critical reviews of music read "A Lexicon of Musical Invective" by Nicholas Slominsky.) For that matter, Charlie Parker and many other jazz artists can be added to that list.

An essay titled #"The Aesthetics of the Strange" by friend and collegue Peter Yates speaks more eloquently than I can about this topic so I will quote from it. Warning: provocative ideas. You may disagree.


"...Poetry differs from prose, being more obscure

...Inaccessibility is a necessary condition of profound experience. A downhill skier pays for a lift ticket, is hauled to a hilltop, skis down, and buys a powder suit. The bicyclist struggles to the top of a hill and glides down, exhilarated.

...Music’s greatest liability is its pretty sounds. They allow the listener to be content with only that.

...Art and entertainment are independent variables. Each may be present alone, or both may be present, together in varying proportions. They are different in character and purpose. Distinquishing between them is easier than distinguishing between good and bad. An entertainment may accomplish its goals, in which case it is good, and so may a work of art.
# #An entertainment carries its listeners from temporal point A [to] point B with no obligation other than to deposit them safely at the conclusion, keeping them intact, as they were at the beginning. It is a kind of life support system, or a mechanism for suspended animation - keeping the perceiver alive but in a neutral state. Like small-talk it is not reprehensible, but neither has it anything to do with growth, change, or development. A juggling act can be exciting, amazing, or diverting. Most musical performances stop at this, without offering any inkling of music’s greater power to engage the intellect, the emotion, and the spirit. When on the contrary even a slight effort to do so is made, it is easily detected. The only surprise is that such efforts are so rarely made. The prowess and excitement of an entertainment become a trap of beguiling performers and listeners into false satisfaction, much as a plateful of mashed potatoes can pass, in the stomach, for a complete meal.

In order for their armor plates to be pried apart, observers must at some point be made uncomfortable, put off balance, exposed to the unexpected. In order for them to be pleased at a deeper level, their superficial expectations must be first frustrated. Unless the performer is willing, by so doing, to risk a listener’s rancor, he will get nowhere with him..."
____

This is not a defense of any piece of music previously discussed. Bad music can be found everywhere, regardless of musical style or melodic content (and just because something is dissonant does not make it good either). Rather, it's just an explanation of an aesthetic that embraces "difficult" music, and is directed towards Bill's confusion about what is attractive about music of a certain musical aesthetic which he finds unenjoyable.

In the end, I guess, it comes down to what one wants out of their musical experiences. One can talk about aesthetics until the cows come home, but if there is no spark of interest when listening to something unusual it means nothing.

[billkilpatrick]

as a preamble i'd like to say it was never my intention to monitor/censor/edit/discourage/etc. anyone's contribution to the forum - video or commentary. in preparing my little "drop the times" video (made in reaction to "yob cultcha'") i learned something about musical noise - not a lot! - just a little ... and realize there's nothing haphazard about the process.

confrontation in art has been done to death. goading, enraging, shocking, horrifying, etc., etc. has been repeated, amplified (i say ... AMPLIFIED!) and enlarged to the point of cliche - or worse ... to the point where bad is good and ugly is beautiful.

this stuff is ugly.

it would be fun to coordinate with other mandolinists - to go "pleep" and have another go "twang" and another go "plink." we could perform "paddy cakes" with our instruments ... play "pleep-pleep-twang-twang-plink-plink" in faster and faster turns, until we all fall down in fits of giggles. it would be fun for us to do and fun, perhaps, for a paid audience to see.

on another night, we could repeat the process: don expressions of concern - no giggling this time - and call it "yob cultcha'."

as a composer or a musician - as an artist with a vocation - which would you rather do: grate your audience with noise for 45 minutes and send them home - cast them out! chastised and quaking - emitting sounds of consternation and gnashing of teeth! ... or have them enraptured by your melody; tapping their toes and glad they came ... whistling your tune on the way home?

it's a choice.

fraternally - bill

[Neil Gladd]

Buzz, many thanks for your post. I used to make the distinction between "good" music and "nice" music.

Mozart is both good music and nice music.

Bartok is good music, but it's not always nice.

Muzak is nice music, but it's not good.

As a composer, my goal has never been to shock anyone, but just to express myself. My earliest pieces were all pretty light, as I used humor to make them interesting until my composing skills improved. When I became tired of writing "cute" pieces, I wrote my first 12-tone piece, just to break out of a rut and start thinking differently about composing. My 2 Sonatas for solo mandolin freely mix tonal and more dissonant writing. (Ugo Orlandi observed that I have a preference for major 7ths.) The primary goal of these pieces was to write serious, substantial, modern concert works that employed the idiomation mandolin techniques of past centuries, but another conscious goal was to destroy any stereotypes about the mandolin being merely a quaint little instrument for the performance of polite music. It can also be a powerful instrument, and play exciting, intense music.

Yob Cultcha was not to my personal tastes, but a lot of contemporary music is, and in my personal opinion, some of the best stuff in the mandolin repertoire has been written since 1980. There are more than enough gems from previous centuries to comprise a worthwhile repertoire, but you have to sort through an AWFUL lot of fluff to find it. (I did, and it was worth the effort.) SOMEDAY, I'll finally get back to my project that addresses this subject...

[JeffD]

Watch me tag myself as Philistine - I have heard "Battle of Evermore" about 50 times in my life, many times before I knew what a mandolin was or who J.R.R.R.R.R.R.Tolkien was, and many many times since - and I have yet to "get it" as music. The vocals don't do anything for me and the music does even less. And it sure doesn't make much interesting use of the mandolin. Were I to hear it in performance it would take incredible patience and deliberate open-mindedness for me to sit through the whole thing.

I am not here to dis the tune, or defend other music - just to show the incredible range of tastes on this forum. For every type of music in which a mandolin shows up you will find some of us who are passionate about it, and some who don't understand why anyone would call it music.

[brunello97]

Not to hijack Bill's thoughtful thread, but I have to admit I never 'got' LZ either in my youth or adulthood. Nonetheless, the Robert Plant-Alison Kraus combo has me amazed. Their live versions of old Zeppelin tunes are transcendent.

Is it them or has my ear changed? Probably some of both. Melonious Quartet's take on Satie probably would have weirded me out at 17. Now I dig. I'm counting on catching up on some things and leaving others behind. Maybe someday I will get 'Rawhide.'

Mick

[Doug Hoople]

It would be really nice to have alerts put on music in advance, things that would let us know whether what was coming up was going to be worth the effort to absorb it.

I mean, something like the following:

"You'll hate this now, and so will everyone, but eventually everyone will love this (including you), and it will become a classic."

or

"You and everyone will hate this now, and you will come to love and be moved by it, but nearly everyone else will still dislike it."

or

"You and everyone are completely baffled by this, but it will all be clear in 5 or 10 years, and you will come to be moved by it, even if you don't love it."

or

"You and everyone are baffled by this, but eventually nearly everyone will be moved by, love and enjoy it. Except for you."

or

"You and everyone are baffled by this, and you should be, because it is actually rubbish, and your instincts are dead on."

If we had some idea in advance of how bafflingly unfamiliar pieces would eventually wear on us, we might not feel as hostile or adversarial toward them.

And boy, imagine our relief to be able to say with confidence, "That was utter rubbish," secure in the knowledge that it actually was, without fearing exposure as a philistine, and knowing that we weren't going to have to eat crow in the face of a modern-day "Rite of Spring."

In the end, we all, including the most highly educated among us, know what we like. None of us can help that. What's intriguing is that we don't necessarily know what we will like eventually.

That's what makes sitting through the hard and baffling stuff worth the risk!

[Eugene]

i think it's ironic - glib and heavy handed - to choose a sweet sounding, lyrical instrument like the mandolin to make noise - sounds of the earth may be like music but that doesn't make them so.
I think pretty much anything capable of generating sound, especially if capable of definite pitch, could be perceived as "sweet-sounding" and "lyrical." #The same things are also often capable of staccato, scratchy noise and atonality. #I don't take any issue with exploiting it all even if I don't choose to listen to all. #The notion that a mandolin can be "lyrical" and thus always should be strikes me as wholly subjective and a little too prescriptive for my own tastes.


confrontation in art has been done to death. #goading, enraging, shocking, horrifying, etc., etc. has been repeated, amplified (i say ... AMPLIFIED!) and enlarged to the point of cliche - or worse ... to the point where bad is good and ugly is beautiful.

this stuff is ugly.
You have to recognize that "this stuff is ugly" isn't necessarily an opinion shared by all. #Microtonality and the frequent occurrence of the augmented 4th "blue note"/tritone (the scarily dissonant "devil's interval" of the medieval and renaissance eras) in blues and jazz--not to mention in almost every breed of popular music since--could be perceived as ugly by many, but most have been exposed to it so thoroughly that it seems wholly tame.

I don't think atonal music or dissonance necessarily has any more to do with "confrontation" than a modern kid picking up a guitar and playing through the blues scale for the first time. #I have never perceived it as confrontational, even in the frequent occasions that I don't like it.


as a composer or a musician - as an artist with a vocation - which would you rather do: #grate your audience with noise for 45 minutes and send them home - cast them out! chastised and quaking - #emitting sounds of consternation and gnashing of teeth! ... or have them enraptured by your melody; tapping their toes and glad they came ... whistling your tune on the way home?

it's a choice.
That's a really fine line. #Music/Art crafted solely to appeal to an audience without any daring on the part of the artist is often rightly considered to lack integrity or to be of "sell-out" caliber.

[Eugene]

All of that genre of atonal, dissonant, modern...call it what you will...it all sounds like someone dropped a large tray of silverware on a concrete floor: harsh and unpleasant.

I wouldn't disparage anyone who wanted to listen to it or play it. But I won't hide the fact that I can't imagine why they would want to subject themselves to it either.
Atonality and dissonance isn't necessarily anything new. We simply grow more accustomed to it as we continue to hear it in a particular context and tend to perceive it less for what it really is. Consider this admonition: "...let him not think, finding in this work many harsh sounds or dissonances, that they are printing errors, for they must be left as they are." That's from the preface to Michelagnolo Galilei's (1575-1631) first lute book (1620: quoted from the liner notes of Paul Beier's recording). Many listeners today would be hard pressed to actually identify the dissonances buried in the counterpoint, but they evidently were considered pretty harsh when new. Mudarra gave a similar warning with his fantasy after Ludovico in 1546!

Sometimes dissonances or atonal passages can be tremendous fun and used to great effect in largely consonant music. Coonsider Rebel's (1666-1747) Les Elemens; the first movement, "Le Cahos", opens with one of the nastiest tone clusters I can call to mind in the whole of composed music.

Then consider the music of Alan Hovhaness (1911-2000). Very modern, but always very smooth and easily digestible, rarely dissonant, and never atonal.

No mandolin, but I might recommend Arvo Part's cello concerto as a good intro to "MAD"-music appreciation. It is largely a serialist work in its construction, but punctuated with fluffy, rococo-style cadences. There is a great humor to the whole, especially the last movement.

...Or, to involve some mandolin, watch this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RokcZ33VblI


Eugene,

When did you see Bozzio's clinic? Was it recently with his new, super-monster drum set? As a former drummer I have to say that what Terry does is simply mind boggling. All that coordinated sound from 4 limbs is astounding.
Not remotely new or recent! (...although the kit still struck me as "super-monster" in scope.) It must have been somewhere in the span of 1987-1990 or so. It was part of an annual percussion festival that used to be sponsored by the now-defunct Coyle Music. But be careful! That stuff is so atonal, it doesn't even have definite pitch!

[Woody Turner]

Up to the year 1200 in Europe, thirds and sixths were considered dissonant and were employed judiciously. They achieved legitimacy only in the high Middle Ages and Renaissance.
(See: people.vanderbilt.edu/~cynthia.cyrus/ORB/orbgloss.htm, under the headings of consonance and dissonance.)

[Eugene]

As a composer, my goal has never been to shock anyone, but just to express myself... My 2 Sonatas for solo mandolin freely mix tonal and more dissonant writing... The primary goal of these pieces was to write serious, substantial, modern concert works that employed the idiomation mandolin techniques of past centuries, but another conscious goal was to destroy any stereotypes about the mandolin being merely a quaint little instrument for the performance of polite music. It can also be a powerful instrument, and play exciting, intense music.
I'd like to add praise for your Sonata II, Neil. #I love the cohesion provided by the recurring motif amongst movements, the toccata is exciting (I believe I've mentioned that I think of it as somewhat Brouwer-like), the fugue intense, etc. #It's just groovy.

...And thanks for some very nice thoughts on the matter, Buzz and Doug.

[Eugene]

Watch me tag myself as Philistine - I have heard "Battle of Evermore" about 50 times in my life, many times before I knew what a mandolin was or who J.R.R.R.R.R.R.Tolkien was, and many many times since - and I have yet to "get it" as music. The vocals don't do anything for me and the music does even less. And it sure doesn't make much interesting use of the mandolin. Were I to hear it in performance it would take incredible patience and deliberate open-mindedness for me to sit through the whole thing.
I like it, but really, the best thing I can say for the song is in regard to Sandy Denny's backing vocal.

[Alex Fields]

I would like to say, firmly but with as much politeness as I can muster, that if you know very little about and don't understand a type of music you should refrain from making insulting generalizations about it. #Composers do NOT write dissonant music as some sort of mathematical or theoretical exercise--or at least very few do. #And those of us who love dissonant music don't appreciate it for those reasons either. #The composers think it sounds good. #The listeners think it sounds good. #Almost everyone who is involved in any way with the music is involved because they like it and enjoy listening to it.

Twentieth century classical music is my favorite period in classical music. #The super dissonant avant garde jazz of the 1960s (say the last few years of Coltrane or Pharoah Sanders or Albert Ayler) is my favorite period in jazz. #The most dissonant groups to come out of modern folk music (say the Punch Brothers and the Sparrow Quartet) are generally my favorites. #I genuinely love this music. #In general I find Baroque and Romantic period music to be rather boring, and the same goes for big band or bepop jazz and for more traditional, tonal bluegrass. #I enjoy these types of music but only as something pleasant to listen to. #Almost all of the music that is extremely moving to me is also extremely dissonant. #I know other people who feel the same way and we are not making it up to seem hip to the contemporary scene or something.

I would venture to guess most of you are the exact opposite. #That is totally fine. #I am not "right" to be elated almost to tears by a wild atonal sax solo or Norgard symphony, and you are not "right" to feel the same way about a really sweet and tasteful bluegrass mandolin solo. #You might find my music incomprehensible and I might find yours predictable and boring. #So what? #We all have different tastes. #I respect other tastes and find it sad that is uncommon for a similar to respect to be shown for the music I prefer.

I don't even ask that everyone take the time to try to understand the music, only that you acknowledge that just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's trash or only written to be confrontational or only a math exercise, etc etc.

P. S. #I know that none of the negative comments about dissonant music are intended as personal attacks on people who like the music and I don't take any of them that way. #Similarly I hope nobody takes any of my comments that way. #I have no hard feelings toward anyone, I just thought it was worth defending something I care deeply about.

P. P. S. #For what it's worth, I'm a composition major focusing on 20th century music. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[billkilpatrick]

as an experiment ...

imagine a doppler effect as the camera pans over a group of musicians playing "yob cultcha'" under the tree:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RwiFqjyBJ2o

[Alex Fields]

By the way I just listened to Yob Cultcha for the first time and I like it. To my ear though the violinist (and maybe the other two) in the youtube video is having some trouble with the rhythm.

[man dough nollij]

...Or, to involve some mandolin, watch this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RokcZ33VblI
I'm very impressed by this. It is a major paradigm shift, really. I try to play a whole new tune without any sour notes. This kid can very skillfully play 328 sour notes a minute! Not my thing, but some very impressive good playing of bad music! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[brendon b]

Composers do NOT write dissonant music as some sort of mathematical or theoretical exercise--or at least very few do. #And those of us who love dissonant music don't appreciate it for those reasons either. #The composers think it sounds good. #The listeners think it sounds good. #Almost everyone who is involved in any way with the music is involved because they like it and enjoy listening to it.

Let me propose another reason for making dissonant or otherwise experimental music i.e. that of the musical R&D department.
Research and development is necessary in any field and music is no different. And for this reason music gets made which some may not even call music. The creator might not even call it that. A 'what if' impulse sometimes suggests a new approach and numbers can be very useful for this. e.g. what if I take the letters of a name (something mozart did), or the population of your home town, or the varying temperature of your fish tank...and make a piece. Who knows there might be a break through there. Sometimes these experiments get discarded, sometimes they get heard before an audience. But it has to be the right audience, an audience who know why they're there.
In fact I might not include dissonant music in this category - the roots of this genre have been relatively well researched and there is something of an established range of approaches. There is an established audience for this kind of music.
But what kind of audience for the R&D stuff? Difficult, and I've had to deal with this dilemma as an experimental composer/performer.
The thing which really puzzles me is why this is not as much a problem in other fields i.e. the supposed inaccessibility of experimental approaches. This is always done in science - scientists knowingly and commonly present research which appears arcane to the general public.

Thoughts from a lover of bluegrass and dissonant music...

[Neil Gladd]

I'd like to add praise for your Sonata II, Neil. I love the cohesion provided by the recurring motif amongst movements, the toccata is exciting (I believe I've mentioned that I think of it as somewhat Brouwer-like), the fugue intense, etc. It's just groovy.
Thanks, as always, Eugene. After a long break (too long), I am finally back to working on my music, and am determined to publish the Sonata this year!

[Neil Gladd]

...Or, to involve some mandolin, watch this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RokcZ33VblI
I'm very impressed by this. It is a major paradigm shift, really. I try to play a whole new tune without any sour notes. This kid can very skillfully play 328 sour notes a minute!
Thanks for reminding me of this video, I haven't watched it for a long time! They sound like all the right notes to me. I have sent this link to composer friends to show them someone else that could play their mandolin music.

[Neil Gladd]

The super dissonant avant garde jazz of the 1960s (say the last few years of Coltrane or Pharoah Sanders or Albert Ayler) is my favorite period in jazz. <snip>
I am not "right" to be elated almost to tears by a wild atonal sax solo
I had a former job down in the record stacks in the Library of Congress, and we were allowed to play records on the overhead speakers while we worked. Our supervisor was generally pretty tolerant of our tastes, but even though he liked "squawky" sax, he didn't approve of "squeaky" sax, and had a "No Eric Dolphy" rule. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[John Hill]

Interesting discussion, glad to see it hasn't broken down into polemics as some topics can.



Sometimes dissonances or atonal passages can be tremendous fun and used to great effect in largely consonant music.
Passages of atonality or "sometimes" dissonant is one thing but a whole piece of that and it seems cacophonous.


...Or, to involve some mandolin, watch this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RokcZ33VblI
I'm a huge fan of Avital and I've seen this piece before but I can't make it through all of that despite it being an impressive technical exercise.


It must have been somewhere in the span of 1987-1990 or so. But be careful! #That stuff is so atonal, it doesn't even have definite pitch!
You should see him now...that kit you saw was minuscule compared to the behemoth he currently uses, whole rows of chromatically tuned toms & cymbals. His playing is truly original and dumbfounding to watch. But I can see how that may seem inconsistent, that I can be a fan of something so truly cacophonous as solo drums but abhor atonal compositions for pitched instruments. Perhaps, being a former drummer, my admiration of the technical ability overrides my actual appreciation of the "music" made by Bozzio's drumming. But then again drummers aren't very smart: how can you tell when the stage is level? Drool is coming out of both sides of the drummers mouth...

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif

I will add that the back & forth in this thread reinforces, in my mind at least, that MAD music is largely by theoreticians for theoreticians; that I suspect having a formal music education is almost required to truly appreciate the form.

[GVD]

and at the risk of being tagged as a philistine...

Well if you are a philistine and you just happen to come to Winfield I suggest you don't come by our camp. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

GVD

[GVD]

Not that anything bad would happen to you!!! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

GVD

[brunello97]

Maybe these folks have gotten a bad rap over the years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

Mick

[JeffD]

I would like to say, firmly but with as much politeness as I can muster, that if you know very little about and don't understand a type of music you should refrain from making insulting generalizations about it.
I think we shoud refrain from making insulting generalizations period.

But that is a behavior issue. I think we have a right, and perhaps a duty, to make aesthetic judgements - certainly to modify them when there is new information, or as experience impacts taste. I disagree with the implication that "I don't understand" a piece of music, every time I don't like it. That denies the possibility of bad music, and sets up too many "Emperor's new clothes" situations, where we all groove on the sound of someone crushing a trumpet in a garage door, afraid to be tagged as ignorant.

Good music or bad music, - if you have to explain it to me before I can enjoy it - don't be surprized when I don't.

[billkilpatrick]

Maybe these folks have gotten a bad rap over the years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

Mick
oh i don't know ... what with their iron smithing skills, i expect they were capable of creating a terrible din - composing one ... even.

[Doug Hoople]

But what kind of audience for the R&D stuff? Difficult, and I've had to deal with this dilemma as an experimental composer/performer.
The thing which really puzzles me is why this is not as much a problem in other fields i.e. the supposed inaccessibility of experimental approaches. This is always done in science - scientists knowingly and commonly present research which appears arcane to the general public.
Wow, the threads that could be spun off talking about this, the balance between simple and complex, accessible and arcane!

But as to the assertion that science does not suffer in the same way as music, that scientists can freely present arcane research... well, I'd say that's not really the case. In fact, I'd say it's not dissimilar at all to the music scene.

When scientists are presenting arcane material, it's usually to other scientists. When presenting arcane to the general public, it's expected that the material will go over their heads.

It's also true that some arcane science can be more for the benefit of the presenter than for the audience, and that some scientists' material is so incomprehensible that very few people can tell it's full of cr@p. Not to say that all science is, but there are some charlatans who are posing as "incomprehensibly ahead of the curve." I used to work at the NY Telephone arm of Bell Labs after the splitup, and knew a few of these folks personally, so I know for a fact that they exist.

And as for the popular response to science, it quite often takes a popularizer to make science accessible (Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Ira Flatow), and the general public can often be relied upon to misunderstand the stuff quite thoroughly. Not to stir too big a pot with this observation, but one need only read the recent debates on evolution to see how silly things can get.

The proposition that science is immune to the kinds of misunderstandings that plague music probably doesn't stand up to close observation.

[JeffD]

I love it. In addition to R&B music, we have R&D music!!

[JimD]

My $.02 is that works like 'Yob Cultcha' & MAD music (best description I've heard yet) in general is that composers are playing with theory or doing math with the structure of music. It's as if it is structured sound by theoreticians for theoreticians.
This oversimplification is the kind of statement that reinforces that attitude (already prevalent here, at the Cafe) that anyone who understands more than a little theory is an elitist who has contempt for audiences.

This is why some of us don't feel welcome to post anymore.

[Doug Hoople]

My $.02 is that works like 'Yob Cultcha' & MAD music (best description I've heard yet) in general is that composers are playing with theory or doing math with the structure of music. It's as if it is structured sound by theoreticians for theoreticians.
This oversimplification is the kind of statement that reinforces that attitude (already prevalent here, at the Cafe) that anyone who understands more than a little theory is an elitist who has contempt for audiences.

This is why some of us don't feel welcome to post anymore.
As a trained "elitist" who lives among civilians, I regularly find myself coming to grips with the gripes and the predilections of both camps.

In defense of the "elitists" (hereinafter referred to as avant-gardists, for lack of a better term), they are pursuing what they love at the level that they understand it. Very few of them are trying to perpetrate "Emperor's Clothes" hoaxes. They are playing music that speaks to them.

In defense of the traditionalists or the civilians, they are pursuing what they love at the level that they understand it. #Hmmmm... I discern a common thread emerging.

What bugs an avant-gardist is when the music they love is ignored or derided. Actually, that may not bug them so much. But when, added to being ignored, they get slapped around because they're bored to tears by the "Hallelujah Chorus," or the "Pachelbel Canon," or "Fishers Hornpipe," or "Tears from Heaven," then the sense that they are being unfairly treated starts to form.

An enthusiastic traditionalist or civilian will blurt out to an avant-gardist, "Don't you just LOVE LOVE LOVE the 'Hallelujah Chorus'!!!!" The avant-gardist wants to scream, "NO! I want to impose a worldwide moratorium the whole of 'Messiah' for at least 10 years." To say such a thing out loud would make him a spoilsport of the first magnitude, wipe out the enthusiast's enthusiasm, and make everybody feel badly all around.

But can an avant-gardist put the shoe on the other foot? Never!

Taking myself as an example. I have always been deeply moved by Stravinsky's 'Mass.' Granted, it's not that avant-garde, but it will have to do, not to mention that I have my own catalog of pedestrian predilections and so am not a proper true avant-gardist. But I digress. If I try to play a recording of this work to just about anybody I know, the request comes shortly thereafter to play some GOOD music!

So why should civilians be able to insist that we share their adoration for works that bore avant-gardists, but turn a deaf ear to the works that avant-gardists feel equally strongly about? #

It's this kind of unfair burden that makes an avant-gardist so grumpy. #

But should civilians be obliged to say nice things about music that doesn't move them? It's also unfair. If a type of music doesn't move them, then they shouldn't have to say that it does, should they? And they shouldn't have to feel inadequate or uneducated to do that, should they?

So much pressure to love so much music that we're not moved by! No wonder both sides are grumpy all the time!!!

On both sides of the equation, the friction seems to be magnified by our mutual and mutually unrequited desire to share the beauty of something we love!

<span style='font-family:10'>Edit note: Better terms for the two opposing groups would probably be "specialist" and "non-specialist," but I think we all get the picture, no?</span>

[JimD]

Missed my point entirely.

Oh well...

[John Hill]

My $.02 is that works like 'Yob Cultcha' & MAD music (best description I've heard yet) in general is that composers are playing with theory or doing math with the structure of music. It's as if it is structured sound by theoreticians for theoreticians.
This oversimplification is the kind of statement that reinforces that attitude (already prevalent here, at the Cafe) that anyone who understands more than a little theory is an elitist who has contempt for audiences.

This is why some of us don't feel welcome to post anymore.
I would argue that a discussion like this would encourage varying viewpoints (let's hear it for alliteration...) rather than intimidate or make you feel unwelcome. Indeed, those of us who have a lack of regard for atonal or dissonant composition would appear to be the minority, in this forum at least.

I understand more than a little theory and hardly consider those that truly have a grasp of it elitist. Rather I admire their dedication to and knowledge of the language of music. I strive to keep learning more about it.

I was referring specifically to atonal composition that seems or sounds like academic exercises and is not at all enjoyable, either intellectually or emotionally (well, unless irritation counts for emotion). That in now way should be misconstrued as some sort of slander on those who understand theory.

[Doug Hoople]

Missed my point entirely.

Oh well...
What? To say that misunderstandings abound on both sides? And that those misunderstandings are probably completely understandable?

I'm not sure how that missed the point.

BTW, Jim, I'm glad to see you back.

[Bob A]

Avant-garde, traditional, troglodytic, atonal, boring, non-linear, noisy, noisome.

The essential characteristic of a music is not, repeat not, to be found in the intellect. The ability to evoke emotional response seems to me to be of the essence.

I believe that someting atonal can do this, though it seldom does. This may be because it hasn't been around long enough, or because once it has demonstrated this ability it becomes subsumed into friendlier categories.

Familiar old chesnuts can still evoke the intended emotional response in some; in others, perhaps overexposed to the theoretical rather that the more gut-level, (or primitive, if you will), this stuff has lost its power to influence. Sad, perhaps.

The use of music in religious ritual (and Stravinsky was certainly not unaware of this usage) is an example of what I'm trying to get across. A similar phenomenon can be found in large arenas, filled with sympathetic fans and Marshall stacks cranking out three-chord rock at 125 dB. Or in more intimate settings, say an olive grove with a set of panpipes. Or even in the van of a Highland regiment, with the pipes skirling and the natives blanching beneath their tans as the thin red line of 'eroes advances. Anyone who didn't find their hairs standing on end when the helicopter-borne Ride of the Valkyries cranked up in Apocalypse Now will fail to grasp my point entirely. Doesn't matter if you liked it or hated it; that isn't the point at all.

When R&D music can produce this sort of effect, it'll get my vote. If it can't heighten the emotional content of a situation, it's just masturbation. So to speak.

[Doug Hoople]

When R&D music can produce this sort of effect, it'll get my vote. If it can't heighten the emotional content of a situation, it's just masturbation. So to speak.
IYHO, you mean, don't you?

[brendon b]

The proposition that science is immune to the kinds of misunderstandings that plague music probably doesn't stand up to close observation.
Agreed. Except in music the listening public does not accept the necessity of having an 'experimental/R&D' department. Whereas the equivalent in other non - entertainment fields is, for the majority, acceptable.

Sure the public isn't entirely sold on science, hence the growth of alternative medicine etc, but when last did we hear a non scientist complain that Stephen Hawkings should lay off the quantum physics and focus on something useful like designing a better Play Station. Non scientists are willing to accept that he does what he does, no matter how arcane.

As a musician/composer I'm tired of being pegged purely as an entertainer. I don't mind entertaining, but don't feel that all I do should have to be entertaining in order to be valid.

[John Hill]

When R&D music can produce this sort of effect, it'll get my vote. If it can't heighten the emotional content of a situation, it's just masturbation. So to speak.
IYHO, you mean, don't you?
I'm not sure that qualification is needed. Excepting the occasional fact that get's posited, it's all opinion and really just a lot of dog-chasing-tail in the end.

IMO...

[Doug Hoople]

The proposition that science is immune to the kinds of misunderstandings that plague music probably doesn't stand up to close observation.
Agreed. Except in music the listening public does not accept the necessity of having an 'experimental/R&D' department. Whereas the equivalent in other non - entertainment fields is, for the majority, acceptable.

Sure the public isn't entirely sold on science, hence the growth of alternative medicine etc, but when last did we hear a non scientist complain that Stephen Hawkings should lay off the quantum physics and focus on something useful like designing a better Play Station. Non scientists are willing to accept that he does what he does, no matter how arcane.

As a musician/composer I'm tired of being pegged purely as an entertainer. I don't mind entertaining, but don't feel that all I do should have to be entertaining in order to be valid.
Brendon,

I think we're largely in agreement here, but I will split a hair or two here, if you don't mind.

Music colleges DO have 'experimental/R&D' departments, usually called the 'New Music Department.' A lot of cultural organizations sustain an 'experimental/R&D' thread in their efforts.

And the non-scientist corporate executive at Sony may not really care what Stephen Hawking finds intriguing, but you can be sure that he DOES care what the scientists in his own R&D department find intriguing.

Musicians are not obliged to create entertainment. But the bulk of them who want to make a living at it are. A small group of 'basic science' musicians manage to escape that trap, but most find themselves working in 'applied science' (for obvious reasons). One way to escape the trap for sure is to get a day job, no? Grrr. There's got to be a better way!

[Bob A]

Well, certainly IMHO. I can only espouse my own opinions. Still, I think my point has validity, even if it is a bit narrowly focused. And it seems to have been overlooked in the discussion.

And what other viewpoint could unite the Rolling Stones, Stravinsky and the rites of Pan with Wagner and the Scottish pipers? I suppose Aleister Crowley ought to have been included as well. Certainly his use of music fits right in.

[Doug Hoople]

Well, certainly IMHO. I can only espouse my own opinions. Still, I think my point has validity, even if it is a bit narrowly focused. And it seems to have been overlooked in the discussion.

And what other viewpoint could unite the Rolling Stones, Stravinsky and the rites of Pan with Wagner and the Scottish pipers? I suppose Aleister Crowley ought to have been included as well. Certainly his use of music fits right in.
I think your point has tremendous validity. Emotional response is one of the big pieces to what music is about. In fact, there are neuroscientists who argue that it's THE driving force that governs music and our response.

The counterargument, of course, and an admittedly specialist one, is that emotional response can be cheap and easy, and that music can still be good and even great without resorting to pulling cheap emotional strings.

That counterargument, taken to extremes, leads down a pretty narrow path, but it does address one potential objection that some very emotionally compelling music is technically arid and, in the end, uninteresting, especially to a specialist.

But yes! Emotional response is one of the really big puzzle pieces here.

[Alex Fields]

They sound like all the right notes to me.

I agree...it doesn't sound sour or even particularly dissonant compared to a lot of what is out there.


even though he liked "squawky" sax, he didn't approve of "squeaky" sax, and had a "No Eric Dolphy" rule.

Hah...what about "honky" sax? #I think that is my favorite kind.


I will add that the back & forth in this thread reinforces, in my mind at least, that MAD music is largely by theoreticians for theoreticians; that I suspect having a formal music education is almost required to truly appreciate the form.

And I will repeat that it is in your mind only. #Most of the people I know who like this music, myself included, don't even know the theory of what is going on in a lot of the pieces, we just enjoy them because they sound good to us. #And most of the composers write them because they sound good to them, using theory only as a means and not an end. #It can be interesting to know the theory behind a piece, especially if you're a composer yourself and looking for new ideas, but really it is about the way the piece sounds, not the theory behind it. #Insisting that it's only theoretical, even if that's "just in your mind" just proves what I said before about making insulting generalizations when you don't understand the music. #You don't have to like it, you don't have to understand it or even want to, and that's all fine, but please stop saying negative things like this about something you don't understand. #It is fine if it seems a certain way to you but it isn't actually that way.


I disagree with the implication that "I don't understand" a piece of music, every time I don't like it.

I didn't intend to make such an implication. #I think I understand bluegrass music--after all I grew up around it, have listened to it for a long time, have played it, have studied it school, am constantly around people who are diehard fans, etc. #But I don't like it, or at least not much of it. # I don't think it is bad music and I respect people who like it, it just isn't for me. #What I was referring to before were the comments about dissonant music being only about the theory, or just written to be confrontational or outspoken or something. #Those things aren't true of the great majority of this music and they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the music.


if you have to explain it to me before I can enjoy it - don't be surprized when I don't.

I suppose there is music out there that is enjoyable mostly or only with a knowledge of the point of the piece. #But those are rarely the pieces I enjoy. #I think this idea of having to know about a modernist piece to enjoy it is totally misguided. #I nearly always know after the first couple of times I hear a piece whether I like it, and at that stage I am usually totally ignorant of the theory behind the piece. #I don't think it is a matter of knowing anything about the piece, I think it is just a matter of whether or not you have a taste for certain kinds of music. #Such a taste can be developed for sure, but it is developed by active listening and not by reading books or articles on theory or something.


The ability to evoke emotional response seems to me to be of the essence.

I am not sure that I agree with this, but I definitely agree that it shouldn't be about purely intellectual response. #It should be about enjoying the music. #That said, I have emotional responses almost only to dissonant music or to traditional folk music like norwegian fiddling or old time fiddling (NOT bluegrass and not celtic either). #So to talk about the atonal music as not eliciting emotional response is really just a description of your reaction to it. #I react very differently. #And I bet that most of the music that elicits an emotional response from you gets very little from me. #People talk about being deeply moved by Bill Monroe for example...I get zero emotional response listening to him. #On the other hand Shostakovich at his very ugliest and harshest blows me away emotionally.

I don't assume that my reactions to a given piece amount to a factual statement about what the piece is capable of doing for people and I kindly ask that nobody else make that mistake either.


When R&D music can produce this sort of effect, it'll get my vote.

It can and does. #Just not to you.

By the way I don't like the implication that dissonant/atonal/avant-garde/whatever music usually or even often is just an experiment or some kind of "R&D." #Yes, composers will experiment and so some pieces qualify in this category...but most are meant as serious, finished products and not as experiments to pave the way for something else.

[billkilpatrick]

my take on this - having learned something in the process - is as follows:

some time ago i became involved with the tibetans - learning a vocabulary and a way of thinking very different from what i'd known before. subsequently, in conversations with friends and family - the "what you been up to?" variety - i soon found that these words and concepts were totally alien to my parents and only vaguely understood by the kids i grew up with. i also realized that by continuing with the use of these words and concepts, regardless of whether they were understood or not, i ran the risk of turning a friendly conversation into a diatribe - a rant - and being alienated by them in return. those people going through the same process of discovery as i knew exactly what i was talking about. those outside "the most perfect community" had more down to earth points of reference.

what to do? ... press on and abandon friends and family in the pursuit of this weird stuff or ease-up a bit and make it real to those who knew me when?

in the instance of the "yob cultcha'" video performance ... three guys, sitting in front of music stands (did michael finnissy actually write this stuff down!?!) holding recognizable instruments ... this constitutes a prelude to a musical performance - a soirée - something familiar ... similar to the start of a friendly "hi'ya, how ya doing?" conversation.

what follows - to those who have never heard anything of the sort - is complete jibberish.

the more one hears this sort of stuff, the more one become inured to it - to the point where it doesn't "shock" anymore ... and surely, this is the point of it.

what have we gained in the process? what have we learned? how has music benefited? has "yob" culture been vanquished? - has the notion of "bad is good" or "ugly is beauty" ... or whatever it is we see as "yob" culture ... lost ground to something higher? has a monotony of discordant "twangs" been elevated to something other than what it is?

shock is the prerogative of every 1st year art student - having done just that, i know. it is hoped that with time, maturity and a broader understanding of those around you - call it a social contract - there will come an equal measure of artistic responsibility. nothing victorian or soviet in its severity - just the possibility of leading by example instead of ridicule or with the musical equivalent of a cattle-prod.

one thing not discussed in regards to this piece is class snobbery in the u.k.. traditionally, "tabloids" are working-class newspapers. traditionally, violins, accordions and mandolins are "folk" music instruments, played in pubs and by immigrant buskers in the street (read "italian" ... read "gypsy" ... read "irish.") is culture better served by those who read and spell "boy" properly and don't drop their "r's?" should "booshe-wah" kids from south london, choosing music as a vocation, be elevated to such a height that they can "tut-tut" without being called back down to earth?

[Tom Smart]

So art that creates an intellectual response is somehow inferior to art that creates an emotional response? Why?

A good exercise of the intellect is one of life's most pleasurable and rewarding activities in my opinion.

Given all the discussion it has provoked here, I'd say "Yob Cultcha" is a successful piece of music in that regard, whether or not you "like it" or think it's "good."

I have no idea whether "Yob Cultcha" is "good" or not. I don't even know what standard I would apply to make that evaluation. But I did find it quite amusing, and that's good enough for me.

[billkilpatrick]

Given all the discussion it has provoked here, I'd say "Yob Cultcha" is a successful piece of music in that regard, whether or not you "like it" or think it's "good."
i must concede that is true ...

[John Hill]

Yes, Yob Cultcha has had far more attention than it deserves.

As for atonality in general, this article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_lanigan/blog/2008/01/26/after_atonality_what_next) on the 100th anniversary of the genre's genesis sums up my thoughts pretty well. Here is a quote (regarding Arnold Schoenberg) for those who don't wish to read it:

Hadn't he written music simply by subtracting the bits that make music interesting and valuable? It transpires that human beings need repetition to make sense of things: it's what turns noise into music.

It is difficult to derive satisfaction from music without pattern, without a sense of initiation, dispute and cadence.

But before along, the only people who cared about these questions were in the academy, because modern art music had lost the attention of the general audience.

The Schoenberg Center has a webradio/jukebox. After listening to several of his works this afternoon (just for penance after offending Alex's sensibilities #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) and listening now (...er, uh...suffering rather), as I type, to his Phantasy for Violin with Piano Accompaniment op. 47...I have to say that my opinion of the style is not improved. Interminable pish-posh to use a technical term.

[Doug Hoople]

So art that creates an intellectual response is somehow inferior to art that creates an emotional response? Why?

A good exercise of the intellect is one of life's most pleasurable and rewarding activities in my opinion.
It's a bit of a red herring to use the term "inferior" here, isn't it?

Will emotional responses be wider, more general and more primal? Invariably. So an emotional response is much more likely to stir something in a wider audience than an intellectual response, almost by definition, isn't it?

A piece of music that stirs both could arguably be called "more complete," and I'd wager that there are many who'd make that assertion.

An emotionally-satisfying, intellectually-empty piece of music can (and often does) become a global hit.

An intellectually-satisfying, emotionally-empty piece of music will reach a very small audience.

Is there anything in this second category that has entered our collective conciousness at the same level as countless pieces in the first? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Not a judgment of superiority or inferiority, by any means, BTW.

[Doug Hoople]

The Schoenberg Center has a webradio/jukebox. After listening to several of his works this afternoon and listening now (...er, uh...suffering rather), as I type, to his Phantasy for Violin with Piano Accompaniment op. 47...I have to say that my opinion of the style is not improved. Interminable pish-posh to use a technical term.
So, now, which dog is chasing whose tail?

[John Hill]

The Schoenberg Center has a webradio/jukebox. After listening to several of his works this afternoon and listening now (...er, uh...suffering rather), as I type, to his Phantasy for Violin with Piano Accompaniment op. 47...I have to say that my opinion of the style is not improved. Interminable pish-posh to use a technical term.
So, now, which dog is chasing who's tail?
Oh I'm chasing my own tail. I mean, if I'm going to be a bitter, theoretician-hating-hate-monger-anti-elitist-hater I might as well try to seem open-minded about it by giving the stuff a chance?

Right?

As usual on this forum, anything not dead serious falls flat. The "music" was pish-posh but it was an amusing romp through Schoenberg's material.

[Bob A]

Inferior/superior is not a dichotomy I'd care to apply in this case. Pleasureable, enjoyable, interesting are more to the point (IMO, ahem). For intellectual stimulation and pleasure, an elegant mathematical proof is far superior to a piece of music; it escapes the terrible linearity and is not tied to a restrictive time arrow that a musical performance must exist within. Apprehension of the intellectual content comes with study, usually (for me) out of the dark side of the brain, in a flash of sorts.

I vaguely recall a vibrophone solo by Gary Burton from the 60s, that he described as having no melody and no structure, a risky improvisation. But it had lyricism and intellectual content, and was accessible on first hearing. I wish I could find the liner notes. I think "Dreams" was the title. While not emotionally moving, it beat hell out of the yobs. Figuratively, of course.

[JeffD]

ere is a quote (regarding Arnold Schoenberg) for those who don't wish to read it:

Hadn't he written music simply by subtracting the bits that make music interesting and valuable? It transpires that human beings need repetition to make sense of things: it's what turns noise into music.

It is difficult to derive satisfaction from music without pattern, without a sense of initiation, dispute and cadence.

But before along, the only people who cared about these questions were in the academy, because modern art music had lost the attention of the general audience.
Very interesting. I had not read that before.

It is not much of an extrapolation from that to the arguement that there exists (or could exist) a more objective criteria for judging music. Its not entirely subjective. Perhaps its NOT just an open anything goes if you don't like it you haven't given it a chance musical universe. There could actually be types of music that are more popular because they are more enjoyable - objectively - they have the type of content (things like those mentioned in the quote) that (more) human minds find (more) enjoyable.

That would mean also that those who really get into these kinds of music - that objectively measureably do not contain these "enjoyable" elements, - that there is something different going on there. Sort of like folks (and I have met some) who like really clashing color combinations for wall paint, or who like really strange food combinations - you can't argue their preference for it, but you CAN say that it ain't gonna catch on any time soon.

[JeffD]

Here is a test.

Two musicians. They make two distinct kinds of music. Neither type of music is popular with the general public, or very popular amongst non professional music consumers. Both musicians claim some popularity amongst experts. Both musicians claim that you have to develop a taste for their music - and that it takes time and exposure and an open mind - but that it can be done.

But... one of the musicians is a complete charlatan. Has the words down, but is making nothing but goofy sounds with hardly any forethought, backfilling with jargon as needed. The other musician's music is the result of scrupulous and highly skilled deliberation.

Now here is the question. How do you tell which is which?

And some might argue that IF the two cannot be distinguished - THEN there is no difference. The "real" musician is fooling himself and us, the charlatan is only fooling us.

[mandobuzz]

Classical music (or art music, or concert music…call it what you will) of the last hundred years or so (since the breakdown of tonality as a unifying structural element) is of the same tradition as classical music of previous centuries. Palistrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Stravinsky, Carter et. al. They are all part of the same tradition. What is considered consonant and dissonant has changed. But all great composers are able to manipulate sounds to create an emotional response in a listener. Melody is only one of the composer’s tools. There are many others at a composer’s disposal, and beauty can be found within all of them.

As mentioned before, many great classical composers could write “pretty” music. Mozart is a prime example. Someone who has had very little exposure to classical music can listen to Mozart and enjoy his melodies. However, the transcendent power of Mozart’s art lies deeper. To unlock it one needs understand form, structure, balance, proportion, and how he artfully manipulates them to great effect. Otherwise it is like listening to a foreign language that you don’t understand. You will enjoy the melodious sounds, but nothing more.

One cannot get into another person’s head. The best I can do is tell you what I find moving in classical music—whether it be tonal, modal, atonal, polytonal, microtonal, or serialist music.

A beautiful melody is a beautiful melody. They move me as much as anyone else. But I find beauty in many other places:

There is beauty in the balance and structure of a Bach fugue.

There is beauty when Mozart suddenly departs from the prescribed formula of Sonata form, for example, to explore a beautiful musical idea.

There is beauty in Beethoven’s thematic inventiveness. How what was accompaniment is transformed to become a primary idea, and vice versa. A simple trill can turn into an important thematic idea. It is beautiful to witness a composer fully in command of his craft.

In regards to 20th/21st century classical music:

…There is beauty in irony—Stravinsky’s Tango, Waltz and Ragtime from The Soldier’s Tale. There is beauty in brevity—Anton Webern. There is beauty in unresolved tension—Gyorgy Ligeti’s Atmospheres. There is beauty in stasis—Arvo Part. There is beauty in music’s kinetic energy, whether regular—Philip Glass or the other minimalists, or irregular—Stravinsky, Bartok. There is beauty in levity—Charles Ives’ The Circus Band. There can be beauty in seriousness—Krystof Penderecki’s Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima. There is beauty in unusual instrumental combinations—George Crumb’s Ancient Voices of Children. There is beauty in unusual juxtapositions-- Luciano Berio’s Sinfonia...

If someone is just listening to the melody they may be missing out on a lot.

[barbaram]

OH DEAR.

All I did was place a link to a piece called Yob Cultcha (or 'Keep taking the Tabloids') written for mandolin virtuoso Michael Hooper by extremely highly regarded composer Michael Finnissy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi8v5pV_cXA&feature=relateda

I thought it such a beautiful piece that I wanted to share it with others interested in Mandolin music.

Both the composer and the mandolinist, have spent many years studing Music (they both have a Ph d) probably in an effort to discover the wonder of whichever sound-world they enter.

Why do some attack them? If it has no meaning for you, you are not compelled to listen.

[brendon b]

"I think we're largely in agreement here, but I will split a hair or two here, if you don't mind."

Go ahead:)

"Music colleges DO have 'experimental/R&D' departments, usually called the 'New Music Department.' A lot of cultural organizations sustain an 'experimental/R&D' thread in their efforts."

In some parts of the world, yes. But in many, a definate no. Here in South Africa, we have a few New Media departments, but apart from two universities with small electronic music departments, we have no New Music departments. It's mostly left up to independent entrepreneurs (keeping with the R&D analogy) like myself to do our thing. On the other hand, I don't think that keeping development at college level is an entirely healthy state of affairs.

"And the non-scientist corporate executive at Sony may not really care what Stephen Hawking finds intriguing, but you can be sure that he DOES care what the scientists in his own R&D department find intriguing."

Agreed, but my concern is with the opinion of the general public.

"Musicians are not obliged to create entertainment. But the bulk of them who want to make a living at it are. A small group of 'basic science' musicians manage to escape that trap, but most find themselves working in 'applied science' (for obvious reasons). One way to escape the trap for sure is to get a day job, no? Grrr. There's got to be a better way!"

No musicians aren't obliged to entertain, but as you say, most end up there (and yes I've done the lot. The dire: weddings, funerals, pubs, promotions; and the enjoyable: rock and jazz gigs). However I struggle to equate the scientist working in applied science and the fiddle player playing valentine's day hits in a shopping mall.

[brendon b]

Aside to readers and the moderator:
Sorry about the quote mess - quote function and edit function are not working on my side. Anyone else struggling?

[billkilpatrick]

I thought it such a beautiful piece
... define beauty.

might be timely to post this:

http://www.michaelfinnissy.info/

i have nothing against the man - meeting him would be a tremendous pleasure ... it's obvious he knows something i don't.

please keep posting classical mandolin videos - what i or anyone else feels about them is irrelevant to how interesting they are.

thank you barbara.

[Doug Hoople]

Here is a test.

Two musicians. They make two distinct kinds of music. Neither type of music is popular with the general public, or very popular amongst non professional music consumers. Both musicians claim some popularity amongst experts. Both musicians claim that you have to develop a taste for their music - and that it takes time and exposure and an open mind - but that it can be done.

But... one of the musicians is a complete charlatan. Has the words down, but is making nothing but goofy sounds with hardly any forethought, backfilling with jargon as needed. The other musician's music is the result of scrupulous and highly skilled deliberation.

Now here is the question. How do you tell which is which?

And some might argue that IF the two cannot be distinguished - THEN there is no difference. The "real" musician is fooling himself and us, the charlatan is only fooling us.
That's a lose-lose proposition, isn't it?

By this formulation, Bach, Beethoven and Stravinsky (to name just a few) were all no better than a charlatan at some point in their careers.

How come this test was missing a none-of-the-above option?

[Alex Fields]

You know Bill, for a while when I was reading your last post on page two I thought I was finally reading something I could respect even if I disagreed, but then at the end you went right back to the assertion that it's all about shock value and snobbery.

I feel very much like I'm shouting in the dark. #Even if anyone is hearing what I say they aren't understanding the point. #I think I'm going to stop posting in this thread...happy listening to everyone.


You will enjoy the melodious sounds, but nothing more.

I generally feel like that is what most people, musicians included, get out of any music they listen to. I really hope that just means I'm too cynical and not that people don't actually appreciate art but I'm not sure.

[Doug Hoople]

No musicians aren't obliged to entertain, but as you say, most end up there (and yes I've done the lot. The dire: weddings, funerals, pubs, promotions; and the enjoyable: rock and jazz gigs). However I struggle to equate the scientist working in applied science and the fiddle player playing valentine's day hits in a shopping mall.
PlayStations and Post-It notes (output of the applied sciences) can be found for sale in the shopping mall, so I'm not certain that it's that big a stretch.

Granted, neither the fiddle player nor the consumer products represent the apex of their respective domains, but there's ready money in the shopping mall for both that's not available (directly) to either a basic scientist or an experimental musician.

[brendon b]

No musicians aren't obliged to entertain, but as you say, most end up there (and yes I've done the lot. The dire: weddings, funerals, pubs, promotions; and the enjoyable: rock and jazz gigs). However I struggle to equate the scientist working in applied science and the fiddle player playing valentine's day hits in a shopping mall.
PlayStations and Post-It notes (output of the applied sciences) can be found for sale in the shopping mall, so I'm not certain that it's that big a stretch.
With all respect, and I'd hate to start an (off topic) bunfight about wages of sin i.e. how much us composers/musos actually earn, but i think the bottom line re value of compromise is:

playstation engineer's salary ≠ poor sod mandolin player in pink lycra valentines day getup's salary

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[MikeEdgerton]

If someone is just listening to the melody they may be missing out on a lot

Then again they might be enjoying the music for the right reason, it's pleasing to them. One doesn't have to be able to fly the airplane to ride in it. Some people are happy not knowing what goes into what they are hearing. They simply enjoy it because they like the way it sounds. That doesn't make their enjoyment any less valid.

[Eugene]

Jheesh. It all comes down to like a thing or don't and there's nothing wrong with your taste one way or t'other. I'm certain that there are some musics that do not appeal to those who are posting here in defense of atonal music. It's interesting to me that in this conversation, they have put so little effort into publicly dismissing or denigrating their own dislikes. Frankly, those who would dismiss the academic as snobbery and elitism can be some of the most myopic elitists around. Again, this perception of an anti-elitist elitism has nothing to do with liking atonal music or not, but with a willingness to simply dismiss it and its value to anyone else. There is nothing wrong with liking a thing or not for any reason; there is something wrong with expecting anybody else to cater to your taste and dismissing the value of what they do if they do not so cater.

I admit, I only took one music course in college: as a non-major, music appreciation 141. I think the most valuable thing I took from that class was an approach to, of all things, non-appreciation. We were told we could like any music we wanted, but to dislike a thing presented in that course we would have to knowingly justify why we disliked it. "Ugly" wouldn't cut it without some effort at specific qualifiers/quantifiers. I like that approach outside of the classroom as well. Having to put enough effort to know something about or critically analyze your own feeling of a thing before its dismissal, and you find yourself more likely to at least appreciate it and possibly not dismiss it at all.

[Eugene]

what follows - to those who have never heard anything of the sort - is complete jibberish.

the more one hears this sort of stuff, the more one become inured to it - to the point where it doesn't "shock" anymore ... and surely, this is the point of it.

what have we gained in the process? #what have we learned? #how has music benefited? #has "yob" culture been vanquished? - has the notion of "bad is good" or "ugly is beauty" ... or whatever it is we see as "yob" culture ... lost ground to something higher? #has a monotony of discordant "twangs" been elevated to something other than what it is?
Totally unmodified, you could have made the same elegant rant against Mudarra's music in the 1500s, Galilei's in the 1600s, Beethoven's in the 1800s, blues and all subsequent popular forms from the 1900s on, etc. #You could also apply "what follows - to those who have never heard anything of the sort - is complete jibberish" to absolutely any unfamiliar music depending upon your own past exposure.

These things are not an affront to beauty because not only is beauty a relatively abstract and totally subjective concept, but music beyond an organized imitation of natural sounds is totally abstract. #The only reason you recognize any organized sound as musical is because of your past exposure to it. Music is abstract and strictly anthropogenic.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with you not liking any of these things. #If you don't like them, the correct response is to simply walk away, disinterested, where you encounter them and consume something you do happen to like. #I see something wrong and potentially dangerous with reading a vast conspiracy culture of deliberate elitist shockery into any music based upon your own tastes. #Where does that line fall? #Vote with your own musical consumption and take no offense with how others cast their votes.

[JeffD]

That's a lose-lose proposition, isn't it?

By this formulation, Bach, Beethoven and Stravinsky (to name just a few) were all no better than a charlatan at some point in their careers.

How come this test was missing a none-of-the-above option?
Well I was just teaching the Touring Test to some of my students, so formulating problems this way was on my mind.

But it does point out what many feel when confronted with some of this music on the fringe. On the one hand you feel the urge to give it a chance, that your just not getting it, but there has to be something there because others seem to be getting it. You hear from folks like Alex, who is reasonably intelligent and knows whereof he speaks, and you try again, but for what ever reason remain unmoved. You feel like an idiot for not getting it.

And then you feel like a fool for trying so hard, that the joke is on you, there is nothing there and you are being put on. Or else everyone is being put on, that everyone is operating under this fear of looking stupid and pretending to appreciate the subtle nuances of the bowling ball as it rolls down the stairs.

Its tough, because with any given piece of new music, there may be validity in all these responses.

[JeffD]

Jheesh. #It all comes down to like a thing or don't and there's nothing wrong with your taste one way or t'other.
Eugene, I usually find myself in agreement with you, or at least strong sympathy. In this case I think there is a bit of a phase angle between us.

If only your statement were only true.

But its not, because we have all experienced, right here on this forum, criticism that was beyond "your taste differs from mine".

There is such a thing as good tremolo. A good chop. Clean playing. Good tone. Heck we twist our fingers into knots trying to achieve a certain sound, we are, none of us, satisfied to say, "well thats how I like it. Your tastes in tremolo or chop or fast playing are equally valid, just different from mine."

With two words I could bring down the wrath of half the cafe telling me I am doing it wrong, (not telling me "I don't care for your style, its not to my taste, but its equally valid".) Those two words: pinky planting.

If it is all a matter of taste, what are we working so hard for?

I'll just purchase my $2500 mandolin shaped bongos and tell everyone they have "different tastes". http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Eugene]

But it does point out what many feel when confronted with some of this music on the fringe. On the one hand you feel the urge to give it a chance, that your just not getting it, but there has to be something there because others seem to be getting it. You hear from folks like Alex, who is reasonably intelligent and knows whereof he speaks, and you try again, but for what ever reason remain unmoved. You feel like an idiot for not getting it.

And then you feel like a fool for trying so hard, that the joke is on you, there is nothing there and you are being put on. Or else everyone is being put on, that everyone is operating under this fear of looking stupid and pretending to appreciate the subtle nuances of the bowling ball as it rolls down the stairs.

Its tough, because with any given piece of new music, there may be validity in all these responses.
I think it should be as easy as like it or not, have the personal confidence to like it or not, feel no shame for it, and feel no need to prescribe your tastes for others.

[billkilpatrick]

after all this, in response to the question of "what is required to appreciate this sort of music" i'd have to say a technical understanding of music is essential - there's not much that's pleasurable about it in the visceral sense.

as for "why would a composer choose the mandolin to play it," i'd have to say it's probably for motives other than tonality or anything else the mandolin does well. in terms of expanding the mandolin's horizon or increasing it's popularity - as a gift to mandolin music - twangs, plings, pings are a trojan horse.

[Eugene]

If it is all a matter of taste, what are we working so hard for?
To express your own tastes and ideals. I have physical, technical limitations to expressing my own; I don't always (or even often) sound exactly as I'd personally like to. The music in my head does not have a direct resistance-free conduit to aural reality. Those with similar taste and greater facility might help me get closer to pure expression, but it's still a matter of sounding like I myself would like to sound.

[Eugene]

after all this, in response to the question of "what is required to appreciate this sort of music" i'd have to say a technical understanding of music is essential - there's not much that's pleasurable about it in the visceral sense.

as for "why would a composer choose the mandolin to play it," i'd have to say it's probably for motives other than tonality or anything else the mandolin does well. #in terms of expanding the mandolin's horizon or increasing it's popularity - as a gift to mandolin music - twangs, plings, pings are a trojan horse.
In spite of your prescription for what a mandolin should do, I believe the mandolin is chosen in this context for what it does do well, because it also plinks, plunks, and squonks very well. #I still contend that what is required to appreciate atonal music is a desire to appreciate it, and there's nothing wrong with not wanting to. #In summary, no, you are not a Philistine, but just as importantly, neither are they.

[JeffD]

but it's still a matter of sounding like I myself would like to sound.
I know what you mean - but I think most of us have decided we would like to sound, for want of a better word, "good". And for most of us the model for "good" is out there, outside of us - more objective. If we took all the mandolin videos on youtube and all independantly categorized them as good, or not good playing - I don't think there would be much disagreement.

We would never let a beginner off the hook who told us he had achieved "his sound" in the first week of strumming practice.

Its a hard one I admit.

I just get very frustrated when I try everything I know, from picks to set up, to intonation, to slow painful repetitive practice - all to achieve a certain sound - and someone scrapes the strings below the bridge with a quarter and gets praise and adoration. Was I just foolish to pick a "sound" that was harder to achieve?


By the way, thank you all for letting me express my frustrations here in a reasonably civil and intellectually safe forum.

[Eugene]

I know what you mean - but I think most of us have decided we would like to sound, for want of a better word, "good". And for most of us the model for "good" is out there, outside of us - more objective. If we took all the mandolin videos on youtube and all independantly categorized them as good, or not good playing - I don't think there would be much disagreement.
Certainly no disagreement from me.

[JimD]

#I'm certain that there are some musics that do not appeal to those who are posting here in defense of atonal music. #It's interesting to me that in this conversation, they have put so little effort into publicly dismissing or denigrating their own dislikes. #
Thanks Eugene.

I am getting SO sick and tired of the charges of elitism.

From those charges you would think we were saying "I don't know how anyone could listen to xxxx -- it's such dull, mind-numbing, simplistic drivel."

and though there are things that I feel that way about, I would never insult someone's taste by saying that. If only the reverse were true...

[Doug Hoople]

#I'm certain that there are some musics that do not appeal to those who are posting here in defense of atonal music. #It's interesting to me that in this conversation, they have put so little effort into publicly dismissing or denigrating their own dislikes. #
Thanks Eugene.

I am getting SO sick and tired of the charges of elitism.

From those charges you would think we were saying "I don't know how anyone could listen to xxxx -- it's such dull, mind-numbing, simplistic drivel."

and though there are things that I feel that way about, I would never insult someone's taste by saying that. If only the reverse were true...
Yes, Jim, that's exactly right. And, if you go back to my earlier post, you'll see that this is precisely the complaint that I was addressing, too.

The elitist must be eternally and very polite about the 'drivel,' and must routinely withstand slings and arrows about the 'good stuff,' those slings and arrows being delivered by the very people toward whom he's been so polite.

This is very unfair, and quite typical.

As I said earlier, it's no wonder that elitists are so grumpy. Some of that grumpiness is absolutely, totally justified.

[Acquavella]

Wow....and to think all of this started because of "Yob Cultcha" on Youtube. Whether someone likes the piece or not has now become irrelevant. The composer has succeeded in getting people to talk about his music.

[Doug Hoople]

There is such a thing as good tremolo. A good chop. Clean playing. Good tone. Heck we twist our fingers into knots trying to achieve a certain sound, we are, none of us, satisfied to say, "well thats how I like it. Your tastes in tremolo or chop or fast playing are equally valid, just different from mine."
Jeff,

Yes! This is EXACTLY what causes problems when listening to an unknown piece of music that is exploring relatively uncharted territory.

When we listen to something we know, we have infinite shadings of gradations to apply to all sorts of things, technical merit, artistic expression, emotional expression.

Observations like "I love that tune, but I hate the way he did it." Or "I hate that tune, but I actually like it when HE plays it." Or "He fudged the tremolo in the middle passage there, didn't he?"

But when facing new music (defined here as new to the listener), we are forced to turn off all those years of experience and suspend all judgment. In the end, we don't know whether it was well-played, we don't know whether the music was well-constructed, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know.

It's clear that, as listeners, we WANT to know, and we EXPECT to know, and, when confronted with a situation wherein we DON'T know, it makes us crazy (or it makes many of us crazy).

It's precisely that inability to evaluate a listening experience against that vast and subtle spectrum of discernment that we've worked so many years to acquire that drives many of us to high levels of insult and invective.

You're exactly right in the test you posited... when I, as a listener, can't tell whether what I'm hearing is good music or a hoax, it's very hard to resist the temptation to lump it in the category of hoax.

Even when it will eventually turn into the 'Rite of Spring' or 'The Art of the Fugue.'

Worse still, it could be a perfectly ordinary, unremarkable, pedestrian piece of music, and we're asking ourselves to decide whether it's a hoax or a great piece of music, an obviously false choice.

Which is precisely your point, I think. In the categories we know, we can tell a hoax from a masterpiece, a bad piece of music from a good piece of music, a bad day for the performer from their best day. We can tell mediocrity and dismiss it without guilt.

When faced with the unfamiliar, all those touchstones desert us. No wonder we get grumpy and insulting!

[Doug Hoople]

Wow....and to think all of this started because of "Yob Cultcha" on Youtube. Whether someone likes the piece or not has now become irrelevant. The composer has succeeded in getting people to talk about his music.
How significant, really, is the arsonist that started a million-acre wildfire with a single match? The million acres had to be ready to burn in the first place. The arsonist becomes significant after the fact, but a backfiring car could have come along minutes later and accomplished the same thing.

This is the millionth iteration of the eternal good-music/bad-music dialogue, isn't it? The Cafe was obviously ready to engage, and just about any controversial piece could have started it. 'Yob Cultcha' just happened to appear on the radar at that moment.

[Tom Smart]

So art that creates an intellectual response is somehow inferior to art that creates an emotional response? Why?

A good exercise of the intellect is one of life's most pleasurable and rewarding activities in my opinion.
It's a bit of a red herring to use the term "inferior" here, isn't it?

Will emotional responses be wider, more general and more primal? Invariably. So an emotional response is much more likely to stir something in a wider audience than an intellectual response, almost by definition, isn't it?

A piece of music that stirs both could arguably be called "more complete," and I'd wager that there are many who'd make that assertion.
I've been away from the computer for a few days, but...yes, of course, emotional versus intellectual response is a false dichotomy and ANY artwork that we respond to at all will have some balance of both. In posing the question, I was responding to this statement from Bob A:

"The essential characteristic of a music is not, repeat not, to be found in the intellect. The ability to evoke emotional response seems to me to be of the essence."

I think Aristotle got it right when he said the purpose of art is to delight (engage the emotions) AND instruct (engage the intellect).

To say that an intellectual response is not an "essential characteristic" is to dismiss most of the canon of great art, literature and music. Try to imagine Da Vinci or Picasso without an intellectual component. How about
Shakespeare or Joyce? How about Bach or Schoenberg? If you could remove the intellectual tradition these giants stand upon and extend, there would be almost nothing left to get emotional about.

I listened again to Steve Reich's "Music for 18 Musicians" the other day. It's about as close to a purely intellectual exercise as any other piece of music I could name (right up there with Bach's "Art of the Fugue"). Somehow, it still manages to hit me right in the gut every time.

[dj coffey]

I like thinking about why music emerged in humans in the first place, and how it's been used over the years for various purposes.

It so happens that playing combinations of sounds in various combinations of frequency, amplitude and timing trigger a response in our brain chemistry. #Over the years, we use this discovery to various ends - to bring people together in worship, for courtship, for building group affinities and feelings of pride towards our clan, tribe or nation, to spur that tribe into battle, to mourn our losses. #Our younger generations discover music as a means to establish their existence separate from their elders. #Types of music or particular musical instruments become a means of exerting class distinctions (the lute was once considered aristocratic, and the guitar declasse).

It all can become an interesting intellectual exercise. #What is it about music (within a certain cultural context) that causes such effects? #What musical patterns result in the same effect across different cultures? #Why is it that tunes in minor keys express sadness? #What combinations of notes and rhythms draw forth other emotions? #Is it the vertical (harmonic), horizontal (melodic) relationship between notes that cause the effect, or is it both? What happens as you get off the beaten path? #How far off the path before you lose those who haven't been a part of your reasoning or discovery process?

I think we all do better by recognizing that music is a journey. Like travel, we each have our own appetite for the familiar and the yet to be discovered.

[Bob A]

My cousin had a pack of sled dogs. It remains one of my favorite memories, standing outside on a winter's night listening to them howling at the moon.

With all due apologies, I enjoyed it far more than Yob Cultcha. And while it might not have been engendered with intellecual content, I believe I provided my own.

That seems to confuse my thinking on this discussion considerably. And yes, I mean these comments to be taken seriously.

[Tom Smart]

Bob, I've had similar experiences listening to coyotes howling, elk trumpeting, frogs croaking, birds singing.... But it would never occur to me to ponder whether I enjoyed those experiences more or less than Yob Cultcha (or Beethoven's 6th, or any other musical composition). I prefer having experiences over ranking them.

If I had to choose, I'd take listening to the frogs at my favorite campsite (having walked 40 miles to get there) over free tickets to any concert in any hall by any performer. But that says more about me than it does anything to address the question of how we evaluate art. The howling of dogs isn't (in itself) music because it doesn't have the intention of being musical. Any intellectual or emotional stimulation it provides is something you bring to it (as you noted), rather than the dog deliberately engaging you in an artist/patron relationship.

You don't need to apologize for enjoying the dogs more than Yob Cultcha, or even for not enjoing Yob Cultcha at all. De gustibus non disputandum est--there's no point in arguing over taste--is a fundamental principle of aesthetic criticism.

[Woody Turner]

Perhaps this thread has become something of a koan on 'philistine' and yob.

From the BBC:

"yob culture n, derogatory, intentional oxymoron (cf Definitely Maybe). Everyone knows what yobs are (as with its extension, yobbo). But a precise definition of yob might be harder to come by - in its earliest days it simply meant "boy", an apparent example of back-to-front slang (cf bonk).
USAGE: Yob culture is to be a major target of UK Government policy, ('We need to tighten the law significantly in respect of what I call the yob culture', Tony Blair, November 2000). Incl. measures against drinking in public such as fixed penalties, and most notably a widely leaked proposal to allow local authorities to set up curfews for those under 16, partic. on streets of troubled areas or estates, meaning they should not be out on the streets between 9pm and 6am."

[mandopops]

I haven't checked the message board lately. This topic sure has raised some dust.
As for me, the other night went out to hear Lou Donaldson(80 year old Be-Bop alto player,as close as you'll get to hearing Bird).Couple months back heard Yo-Yo Ma live ,do 3 Bach Cello Suites. In 2 weeks plan on hearing Sonny Rollins & Ornette again, live in Chicago. Recently on my "I-Pod-walks"-very early Beatles doing mainly cover tunes:Stravinski 4 Studies for Orch.;Johnny Young Blues Mandolin;Atlantic Records R&B;Leroy Carr;Doyle Lawson Instrumental CD;Johnny Dodds;Son House;Eric Satie etc...
Before I leave the impression I'm Mr. Electic I don't listen to Hip-Hop;Heavy Metal;,Jonas Bros.;or Flatt & Scruggs.
It depends on my mood.Sometimes I'm an elitist, John Coltrane-everything else is inferior!But,I still love Johnny Rivers "Secret Agent Man".Crank it up!

[Brandon Flynn]

We were told we could like any music we wanted, but to dislike a thing presented in that course we would have to knowingly justify why we disliked it. #"Ugly" wouldn't cut it without some effort at specific qualifiers/quantifiers.
I feel the same way about all entertainment. I make my younger sister justify why she does and doesn't like things, and it annoys her at times but ultimately has allowed her to enjoy things she wouldn't have considered before. I also try to get my peers to tell me why something is cool or not cool, and they generally don't know why.

[dj coffey]

I ran across this and found it interesting in the light of my earlier comments.

http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000870.html

FWIW

[billkilpatrick]

in this context i defined "ugly" as being melodiphobic, atonal and discordant - MAD. considering it as anything other than that is to say "bad is good ... ugly is beautiful" - a convoluted aesthetic, i feel.

[Bob A]

My point with the dog concert has nothing to do with ranking, really. It was the realisation that in listening to something like that (or listening to anything, really) one brings a set of perceptions and background experiences to bear, and the intellectual content is spontaneously generated within the listener.

In that light, any music, or for that matter any set of sounds, while perhaps devoid of intellectual content in itself, is capable of generating such content in the listener; the nature of the content is dictated by the makeup of the listener: his experiences, culture, expectations and so forth. Even the multi-mile hike to the pond may change the value of the experience for the listener. In that sense, I suppose, rank probably exists, whether we choose to focus on it or not.

I dunno. Maybe it's time to ask how many folks enjoyed Yob Cultcha? Or how many appreciated what they did, without actually enjoying it? Or how many would choose to listen to them again?

Probably not. After all is said, this thread is not about them, but what they might represent. And whenever I find myself in this type of discussion, it all ends up in "de gustibus". For my part, I found them of some small interest, but I don't plan to go back. Your mileage will differ.

[Doug Hoople]

in this context i defined "ugly" as being melodiphobic, atonal and discordant - MAD. #considering it as anything other than that is to say "bad is good ... ugly is beautiful" - a convoluted aesthetic, i feel.
And Rip Van Winkle wakes up at the end of a thread he created and in which he participated!

[Doug Hoople]

in this context i defined "ugly" as being melodiphobic, atonal and discordant - MAD. #considering it as anything other than that is to say "bad is good ... ugly is beautiful" - a convoluted aesthetic, i feel.
Actually, taking this observation seriously, I think that it's not really even rational that "ugly" is to be excluded from the aesthetic experience. It can be, and often is, an integral part.

The whole metaphor of "Beauty and the Beast" would have no meaning without the component of "the Beast." Where would the 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' be without the hunchback. Do you think Esmeralda's story would have any power to compel our fascination without Quasimodo?

Is it possible that Messiaen's 'Quartet for the End of Time' would be half as compelling if it hadn't sprung from a well of exceeding ugliness?

Shards of the World Trade Center standing up, askew in the mist and the morning sun, are exceedingly beautiful in their ugliness, and thought-provoking as well, a more interesting commentary on the state of the contemporary world than when they stood beautiful and complete.

Ugly is beautiful. And compelling. And thought-provoking. And sometimes highly aesthetic.

[billkilpatrick]

wouldn't do to hog the board, ol' boy.

it's difficult to imagine an artist of any kind - amateur or otherwise - deliberately setting out to make something ugly. it happens, of course but what ever it is usually gets thrown out.

in terms of sound, ugliness is always with us and apparently - for reasons having more to do with reaction, i would imagine, than aesthetics - some may even want to affiliate themselves with it ... temporarily, one hopes. but the good news is - beauty survives.

be that as it may - ugly or beautiful - what's needed to appreciate it ("yob cultcha'" and MAD music in general) is an uncommon understanding of its theory and structure. i'm sure that becoming more knowledgeable about music and the mandolin will not change my appreciation for deliberate, irritating noise.

[brunello97]

Another feeble attempt at stoking the coals of an interesting discussion......

Arthur Danto's 'Transfiguration of the Commonplace' is one of the best reads I've made on the nature of beauty, art, intention, form and apprehension. #As adaptable for music, I suppose, as to the visual arts. #Thankfully, still in print:

http://www.amazon.com/Transfi....&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Transfiguration-Commonplace-Philosophy-Art/dp/0674903463/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218579477&sr=1-1)

A few years back I went to a symposium on "Beauty" where he spoke, amidst the expected aesthetic rabble rousers of our contemporary culture. #Very interesting and lucid guy.

One man's fish is another's poisson....

Mick

[Tom Smart]

in terms of sound, ugliness is always with us and apparently - for reasons having more to do with reaction, i would imagine, than aesthetics - some may even want to affiliate themselves with it ... temporarily, one hopes.
Bill,

If you don't wish to engage in the discussion of aesthetics, that's fine. But there's no need to insult those who do.

Your only point seems to be "I hate ugly music." Frankly, that's not a very interesting thesis, but I and others have used it as a springboard for discussing topics with (hopefully) a bit more meat. If you would prefer a response to your specific thesis, here's mine:

So what?

EDIT: Mick, that looks like a very interesting book. I'll have to give it a look. Thanks for the reference.

[billkilpatrick]

no offense intended and - i hope - none received. in terms of the cultural dumbing down under discussion here, "so what?" is a perfect example.

for the sake of form, however - and in keeping with the good intentions of our host - it might be polite to mention "mandolin" every now and then. any thoughts on whether it's a suitable instrument for cacophony or not would be icing on the cake.

[Alex Fields]

be that as it may - ugly or beautiful - what's needed to appreciate it ("yob cultcha'" and MAD music in general) is an uncommon understanding of its theory and structure.

I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread again but I feel it's appropriate to repeat myself here: I know nothing about the theory or structure of this piece. I still like it. I like it because and only because it sounds good to me and not because of any thoughts I have about the theory or structure which, again, I know nothing about.


in terms of the cultural dumbing down under discussion here

How exactly does an increase in complexity which fewer people (and presumably those few are some of the most educated and/or intelligent) are capable of understanding constitute a dumbing down? Isn't that the exact opposite of dumbing down?

[Tom Smart]

in terms of the cultural dumbing down under discussion here, "so what?" is a perfect example.
There you go again with the insults. You called the wrong person dumb, pal.

If you want a smarter sounding version of "so what," I already gave it earlier in the thread: De gustibus non diputandum est.

Nobody cares what particular piece of music you like or dislike. I happened to find it amusing. So what? Neither your disgust nor my amusement sheds any light on questions of aesthetics, which you apparently have no interest in whatsoever.

I'll at least be civil enough not to call you dumb for that.

As for mandolin content, yes I thought the mandolin was a fabulous addition to the ugly noise you find so disgusting.

[MikeEdgerton]

Let's call a time out guys. Might be a good idea to let this one go.

[Ted Eschliman]

Let's call a time out guys. Might be a good idea to let this one go.
Concur. Time out...