smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "kerry_kompost" <kerry_kompost@yahoo.com> |
| Subject | Re: The Great Debate (No Answers Here) |
| Date | Wed, 16 May 2007 01:21:53 -0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (4.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Jaimie Vernon wrote:
> I never said it was disposable garbage. But high art it is not -- it's entertainment and
those who take it too seriously are missing the whole point. <
That's certainly an interesting take, but I assure you, music can be a whole hell of a lot
more than simple entertainment ala network television. "Gilmour Girls" has never made me
cry (in all fairness, I've never seen the show, but you get my drift) the way, say, Adam
Marsland's album "Ludlow 6:18" album has.
> Your example of Andy Partridge disproves your theory....(snip)...in the end he has
become derivative of himself...(snip)...through whatever metamorphosis that he's gone
through that makes him sound like The Nines imitating HIM.<
Um, have you heard Apple Venus Volume I? That was the second-to-last XTC album. If
that sounds like Nines, I'll eat my diminished scale! Of course, based on your listening
qualifiers (eg. if it doesn't click upon first listen, it's gone), you would've dismissed this
album because, while there are hooks, it's not about that, it's much more evolved, much
more mature, much more of a complete artistic statement rather than a musical rehash.
The first track -- the cyclical composition "River of Orchids" -- would be enough to drive
you screaming from the room, trust me!!!
> Or are you just too damn picky? The criteria by which you've chosen to approve of music
is soooo narrow it makes my cursory view of unfamiliar material after first listen ook like a
day bird watching. If you toss out every band that's derivative of something and instead
only approve of bands creating "high art" you are left with nothing.<
Of course I'm picky -- I'm a songwriter, too, so if someone foists a half-assed,
unimaginative song on me, I'm not gonna waste my time listening. A bad song is a bad
song no matter what the genre (or if I wrote it, I've got a million clunkers).
This is probably the first time I've actually vocalized this thought, but I have no problem
with songwriters showing their influences (to a point); what I have a problem with is the
sometimes stunning lack of imagination in so doing. I usually refer to that kind of stuff as
"insulting", because, to me, when I hear something like that, I consider it an insult to my
intellect. It's okay to use the Beatles as a springboard, but at least use your mind to
incorporate the influence in a way that might be considered remotely original. Is that too
much to ask? I mean, I try, diligently, hold myself to the same standard.
> Name one act making high art who doesn't have a nice little cache of money
> helping them through each creative dry spell between records.
I'm going to predictably say Mike Keneally, but then again, he doesn't seem to have
creative dry spells. The dude just keeps on writing, putting it out there, and moving on.
Luckily, there are still a lot of discriminating music lovers who have him on their radar, but
I'm pretty sure he makes more money from gigging and session work than from CD sales.
Regardless, his work ethic has inspired me many times.
Neal Morse (ex-Spock's Beard) makes it from album to album somehow, every year
releasing a prog epic, and he remains unsigned to a major label....ditto Dream Theater
(who may not be high art but they expand the boundaries of the pop/rock format like no
one's business).
>...all those garage bands with nowhere to play their tunes....
Yeah, everything's gone dead silent since MP3.com went commercial. Come on man, I get
99% of my new music via MySpace! Not to mention Garageband.com, Soundclick,
Limewire, ad nauseum. Having a platform to expose your own music is now in the hands
of the artist, for better or worse.
> lately I'm finding less tolerance for people whose opinions reflect a certain intolerance
to populism, consumerism or commercialism.<
Speaking solely for myself, almost all popular, commercial, consumer-directed music of
the last ten years has been a joke, an utter insult to the intellect of music lovers
everywhere. I'd love to be proven otherwise, but I'm confident that won't happen.
>And anyone who can strap on a guitar and play three chords for the first time will
invariably crank out "Louie Louie" <
Sure, but if they're still playing those same three chords a year later, I'd say Houston, we
have a problem.
> Guess people just aren't setting their standards high enough to create that "high art".
If, by "people", you mean major record labels, then I'd have to agree. Never make the
mistake of blaming the artists for the decline in quality, interesting, intelligent, witty
music; there's always an artist out there (like, say, Bumblefoot or Primus) who are creating
that very thing. It's the labels who have reduced popular music to a sparse 4/4 drum beat
with some dude screaming over it. If that is what passes for music, I'll, um, pass.
kErrY
www.myspace.com/kompost
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.