(no subject)
Dooooooooom.
I think my taste in music has come something of a full circle. I used to love classical music when I was a kid, I listened to nothing else. I still do love it, and I hold it in the highest regard, but I rarely listen to it - some Bach or Vivaldi every now and then is enough for me. Instead, I have progressed on to some very strange types; experimental avant-garde stuff, noise, doom, drone, etc. Of course there's always the reggae and the punk rock and the blues and the Tom Waits, but they're less prominent than usual.
But, for now, a hypothesis: that certain forms of music are not about listening to the riff, not about picking out the hook, and not about tuning in to something that allows you to hoist your own fantasies upon it. Certain forms of music are about the experience. One can not seriously consider an hour-long symphony to have the same mass appeal as, say, Madonna, or Kylie Minogue. Pop music is about nothing other than a motif, a few notes, which, when played, have an effect upon the listener. While a lot can be said for this kind of music (I'm not actually denigrating it at all - while most of you know that I detest most modern pop, I'm also including pretty much anything that comes under the broad umbrella of "rock" here, as well, although improv is obviously exempt), it is also distinct from other forms of music. I would say that most of the stuff I'm listening to now is, like some (not all, as it had its pop icons too) classical music, about the experience of a piece of music. You don't tune in to these types of music - you wouldn't, for instance, catch a couple of tracks from a Government Alpha concert while in the car and think "Hmm, that sounded alright, I liked the way that second one went". There's too much improvisation, too much experimentation: in short, it is too far removed from pop music to be a purely aesthetic expression.
That's another thing about this music: it must be taken holistically. One can not pick up the "melody" in Merzbow, one can not seperate the rhythm from the bass in Masonna. This music, unlike most other types (and in this regard I also include most classical) can not be broken up into parts, or elements. The best you can really do is talk about what equipment they use and the production values. It is music removed from traditional constraints. I guess you could call it more 'pure' than many other types, but I think that's going a step too far.
I think my taste in music has come something of a full circle. I used to love classical music when I was a kid, I listened to nothing else. I still do love it, and I hold it in the highest regard, but I rarely listen to it - some Bach or Vivaldi every now and then is enough for me. Instead, I have progressed on to some very strange types; experimental avant-garde stuff, noise, doom, drone, etc. Of course there's always the reggae and the punk rock and the blues and the Tom Waits, but they're less prominent than usual.
But, for now, a hypothesis: that certain forms of music are not about listening to the riff, not about picking out the hook, and not about tuning in to something that allows you to hoist your own fantasies upon it. Certain forms of music are about the experience. One can not seriously consider an hour-long symphony to have the same mass appeal as, say, Madonna, or Kylie Minogue. Pop music is about nothing other than a motif, a few notes, which, when played, have an effect upon the listener. While a lot can be said for this kind of music (I'm not actually denigrating it at all - while most of you know that I detest most modern pop, I'm also including pretty much anything that comes under the broad umbrella of "rock" here, as well, although improv is obviously exempt), it is also distinct from other forms of music. I would say that most of the stuff I'm listening to now is, like some (not all, as it had its pop icons too) classical music, about the experience of a piece of music. You don't tune in to these types of music - you wouldn't, for instance, catch a couple of tracks from a Government Alpha concert while in the car and think "Hmm, that sounded alright, I liked the way that second one went". There's too much improvisation, too much experimentation: in short, it is too far removed from pop music to be a purely aesthetic expression.
That's another thing about this music: it must be taken holistically. One can not pick up the "melody" in Merzbow, one can not seperate the rhythm from the bass in Masonna. This music, unlike most other types (and in this regard I also include most classical) can not be broken up into parts, or elements. The best you can really do is talk about what equipment they use and the production values. It is music removed from traditional constraints. I guess you could call it more 'pure' than many other types, but I think that's going a step too far.