|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 3, 2014 8:23:55 GMT -5
I have a wonderful thing to tell you. I have absolutely no belief in the authentic artistic voice. I don't believe there are people out there making music that is rooted in true artistic expression. Except covers on Youtube. Really, I believe this. Les Mouches was a calculated effort to try and Do Something, as was Final Fantasy, as was Owen Pallett. Everything else aside, I can't tell you how good it is to read these words. I have been trying to explain this, my view, to friends, band members, co-song-writers, anyone who will listen, for so long. People see the above sentiment as a Bad Thing. You've expressed so succinctly why it isn't. WORD. Ben, I add to your list snobby and ultimately unfaithful (SO MANY POEMS) ex-boyfriends who shared headphones on buses to Brockley and RIDICULED both me and Katy Perry when she came on shuffle. Don't come for me. (Owen, for posterity, worth adding that the time I bumped into and accosted you in the V&A (still weird) I texted this son bitch to fanboy unashamédly, and even after all of my previous fanboying over the preceding months the reply was still 'Owen Who?' - Wasn't meant to be, clearly)I digress. There are days when I wonder how many times over the course of my short life I will have to have this argument. Edit: I didn't even see Katy Perry in OPPost III before writing my self-indulgent, unhelpful contribution. Further Edit: Or that there was an actual Slate piece about her. Another Edit: Isn't it a shame that I actually stopped myself writing anything else, because, as someone who has a (comparatively) low amount of knowledge when it comes to music(al? SEE?!) theory and the classical music canon, I fear ridicule from others? Tell my ghostwriter to call the autobiography: Life in the age of anxiety and the YouTube comment. |
|
Alyssa!
Go Away
I'm out on the street with an open case and a mandolin and with every coin I am born again
Posts: 437
|
Post by Alyssa! on Apr 3, 2014 16:14:29 GMT -5
The articles were a relief to me. You had deep awareness of your materials and methodologies, you didn't negate the mess of semiotic associations that pop is involved in, you kept your own affective response and the popular reaction to the pieces in view, you managed to alienate the idea that modern-pedagogical Western music theory can 'explain' anything. Great fun, a lot more fun than the Crawford Seeger capstone I'm working on. I'll admit, though, I got the irony immediately because I'm a music theory student at a conservatory who's met you and who's about to yell at her composition professor about Marx over craft beer. I worry about anybody who comes away from the articles thinking that music theory has a point and this is it. If the irony (would you go as far as to say parody? feels that way to me) doesn't read to folks...why, they might just think that things mean things.
anyway "I don't believe in authentic artistic voice" oh <3333333
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicole No. 5 on Apr 6, 2014 22:10:22 GMT -5
I'm also majoring in compostion... found the Slate articles highly amusing. it's so fun to look at pop music with your technical goggles on
|
|
|
|
Post by Alpentine on Apr 12, 2014 11:00:22 GMT -5
In last week's issue of NOW, the review of the new Picastro album says people expect to hear pop because Owen used to play in Picastro, and gives an example from NME which doesn't actually support that claim. This kind of writing is worse than lifestyle reporting. I believe that Owen Pallett is a pioneer of a truly unique and valuable genre of music, and these pop analyses are disturbing me intensely. It sounds like you have set very limiting criteria for what makes good pop music, and Owen's music falls within those criteria, so you've put him on a pedastal. I'm not saying that is a bad or good thing, but what's tricky is making inferences about his intention and separating his music from his view of music. We can talk about how Owen's view of music influences his music output, but the way we form beliefs about that is backwards: We start by listening to the music and then come up with what his view is. I think it shouldn't be surprising when his view turns out to be different. I have identified in myself two methods of music-appreciation. The first is sort of "homophilic" where I enjoy listening to music because I identify myself within it. Music that I work towards. Great music! This is a short list: Tori Amos, Lisa Germano, OMD, Bartok and a handful of others. The second is "heterophilic" where I enjoy listening to music because it reminds me nothing of myself, and forms a sort of "other". This list is endless, but includes pop stuff like Gaga and Katy Perry, as well as US Maple, Pere Ubu, Stars Of The Lid, Stockhausen, it includes Joni Mitchell and Taylor Swift. Do you think you would appreciate music with that distinction even if you weren't a musician? I ask because I don't have that perspective and it's alien to me. I can't imagine appreciating music because it reminds me nothing of myself—emphasis on "because" because even if I like music which reminds me nothing of myself, that wouldn't be the reason for me liking it. (I have a simple notion of appreciating music based on how it sounds to me and how it makes me feel.) What about music that isn't totally "homophilic" or "heterophilic"? Would there be a spectrum in between? |
|
|
|
Post by haydendavenport on Apr 12, 2014 15:45:51 GMT -5
It sounds like you have set very limiting criteria for what makes good pop music, and Owen's music falls within those criteria, so you've put him on a pedastal. I'm not saying that is a bad or good thing, but what's tricky is making inferences about his intention and separating his music from his view of music. We can talk about how Owen's view of music influences his music output, but the way we form beliefs about that is backwards: We start by listening to the music and then come up with what his view is. I think it shouldn't be surprising when his view turns out to be different.
This actually isn't too far from the truth, but I would like to expand on this to clarify.
I would simply say that I have a developed opinion (and therefore a limiting criteria in regard to the value) of art.
I believe that all art is made of signs (an object, quality, event, gesture, or action used to convey information or instructions). The purpose of these signs are to signify meaning. By this, I mean that I expect art to have significance.
I should also specifically state that I am interested only in aesthetic art, or art concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty. And I believe that art concerned with aesthetics must necessarily be coherent (logical, consistent, and unified).
I seek art that effectively conveys meaning and information. I expect the meaning to be logical, and clearly expressed. I don't have separate criteria for music and film, nor do I have separate criteria for pop music and other music. However, I do recognize that different art forms have different signs, and I also recognize that I might not recognize meaningful signs at first. To me, the journey of art appreciation is coming to recognize these signs and determining how meaningful they are.
To this degree, I would go so far as to say that my criteria is malleable. I always keep an open mind when listening to music. Obviously, Les Mouches does not appeal to the average person. The general perception I have seen from closed-minded/uninformed listeners is that Les Mouches is too dissonant, bombastic, and pretentious.
But it isn't. High amounts of dissonance and chaos can absolutely provide emotional meaning in an otherwise tonal/functional context. And that meaning is highly interesting to me.
But it did take me time to sort out those sounds, and to determine whether or not they have meaning. Les Mouches is a rewarding challenge, because the decisions Owen Pallett made were 'calculated' as he put it. They are surprising, yet logical, and very meaningful.
I have come to understand that, for the average listener, music provides an escape from reality or functions only to serve other means such as dance, film, parties, et cetera.
That is why I spoke so much about accessibility earlier. The more accessible a work of art is, the less challenging it has to be. And I believe that the goal of the most broadly accessible music is to find the least amount of challenge that a piece of music can have before it becomes too dull for even the masses to digest.
We start by listening to the music and then come up with what this view is.
I would like to comment on this as well because I agree with it, but I think that is only half of the story. We listen to music, come up with that view, and then create music based on what has influenced us (even if the goal is to directly contradict what has influenced us). Therefore if, while listening to music over the course of time, our tastes change, I expect our output to change as well. I want to believe that it would always be for the better of expressing the criteria I stated earlier, but with almost any band/artist who starts off with even slightly respectable musical qualities, as their output increases (and popularity), the over all quality of their work tends to lessen, and their music becomes more generic (but also more lucrative). There are exceptions to this, but in my experience this has been a massively pervasive trend. Evidence of this is even seen in genres. Notice how remarkably similar Country music has gotten to pop music in the past 10 years. Modern genre distinctions have more to do with prevalent instruments than anything else, and I find that to be unsatisfactory, but that is a discussion I don't have the time to get into currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alpentine on Apr 15, 2014 0:32:33 GMT -5
Your opinion of art is developed and mine isn't, so I'm not qualified to comment on it, and will ask some questions. The rules for writing compelling [aesthetic] music that you mentioned before, I take it those contribute to aesthetics in some essential way... by ensuring meaningfulness or coherence (since these are qualities you require for aesthetics)? But you said those rules can be broken for aesthetic reasons. When rules are broken, is some meaningfulness/coherence lost then? If yes, then the level of meaningfulness/coherence required for aesthetics is lowered despite their importance. If no, how not? You say dissonance and chaos can be meaningful, so dissonance and chaos are not incompatible with aesthetics, and they aren't rule breaking. Dissonance and chaos appear to be optional things that may or may not provide meaning, while being relatively inaccessible. Is this right? Obviously, Les Mouches does not appeal to the average person. The general perception I have seen from closed-minded/uninformed listeners is that Les Mouches is too dissonant, bombastic, and pretentious. But it isn't. High amounts of dissonance and chaos can absolutely provide emotional meaning in an otherwise tonal/functional context. And that meaning is highly interesting to me. But it did take me time to sort out those sounds, and to determine whether or not they have meaning. If someone else with a very similar developed opinion of art as you listens to Les Mouches for the same amount of time and sees no meaning or significantly less meaning in the songs, does that mean one of you is mistaken? If they give it more time, should they eventually grasp the meaning you do? Given both of you are open-minded and both of your opinions are malleable, are your opinions supposed to converge, or can there be unresolvable differences? The more accessible a work of art is, the less challenging it has to be. There can be multiple levels of accessibility. For example, children's movies/shows are accessible to children, yet they often include jokes accessible only to adults. Music that is accessible to a wide audience can be challenging in ways not detected or understood by them. with almost any band/artist who starts off with even slightly respectable musical qualities, as their output increases (and popularity), the over all quality of their work tends to lessen, and their music becomes more generic (but also more lucrative). There are exceptions to this, but in my experience this has been a massively pervasive trend. I am skeptical of this, but it's not worth listing all the bands we know to analyze it unless there's an existing study that somehow measures the trend. |
|
|
|
Post by haydendavenport on Apr 15, 2014 22:04:13 GMT -5
The rules for writing compelling [aesthetic] music that you mentioned before, I take it those contribute to aesthetics in some essential way... by ensuring meaningfulness or coherence (since these are qualities you require for aesthetics)? But you said those rules can be broken for aesthetic reasons. When rules are broken, is some meaningfulness/coherence lost then? If yes, then the level of meaningfulness/coherence required for aesthetics is lowered despite their importance. If no, how not? I can see why this would be confusing. The short answer is no. The things I mentioned previously are various "rules" of music. Rules (should) exist for a reason. Owen actually brought one of these rules up in his Gaga article. In music, there is the leading tone, which is a note that has a special property; that is, it gravitates very strongly toward tonic (Whichever note the key is in. So in C Minor, the Leading Tone gravitates to C). Because of this gravity, the rule is to never "frustrate" the leading tone, because it sounds dissonant and "dissatisfying". However, if the artistic intent is to intentionally dissatisfy the listener to bring a greater sense of resolution later on, it is perfectly acceptable, and the melody can be better for it... So long as the melody is still otherwise well-crafted. Another example would be proper voice leading. Voice leading has all of the notes in a chord move to the nearest chord tones. For example, a C chord (C-E-G) moving to an F chord (F-A-C) would work this way: C would stay on C to avoid movement, E would move to F (because E is closer to F than A), and G would move to A (because G is closer to A than C). Proper voice leading provides smooth movement for a harmonic background. The accompaniment provides a foundation for a melody to exist over. Generally, the melody(s) is/are the main focus of the music. Avoiding proper voice leading makes the movement between chords stick out. But this may be exactly what the composer wants--to call specific attention to the accompaniment, or perhaps an exceptionally pleasing sound requires the breaking of the rule in a special case (maybe moving E to A would provide a better counter melody). Avoiding parallel fifths and octaves is also a rule in proper voice leading. (A rule that is largely ignored these days). While do make the accompaniment stick out more, progressions based mostly around parallel fifths and octaves are free from this rule because all of the chords stick out equally (unlike if you suddenly break this rule when you have been using proper voice leading for the entire song/piece up until that point). It is also worth noting that the accompaniments in popular music are, in general, treated differently than in earlier music. Also, parallel octaves were totally okay even back then to emphasize certain lines/melodies. This rule setting up your harmonic language at the beginning of the piece, and staying consistent with it. (However, that doesn't mean setting up a really boring harmonic progression at the beginning of a piece is okay as long as you stay consistent with it.) You say dissonance and chaos can be meaningful, so dissonance and chaos are not incompatible with aesthetics, and they aren't rule breaking. Dissonance and chaos appear to be optional things that may or may not provide meaning, while being relatively inaccessible. Is this right? In regards to dissonance, quite the contrary. Dissonance provides a massive (and I would argue, necessary) layer of interest. Look at any good melody, and I assure you that you will find dissonant notes (usually on the offbeats). They (generally) resolve quickly though, and create a sense of "push and pull" that provides interest and drama. Create dissonance and resolve it (preferably in a logical but unpredictable way). Try making up a melody that only uses notes based around its chordal accompaniment (no non-chord tones). It is boring! Excessive dissonance is a different story. In this case, I would say that excessive dissonance is, in general, to be avoided. But what if your artistic intent is to blatantly contradict a tonality that you have set up? What if you are attempting to portray a primitive emotion, or anger? What if making a melody dissonant provides an interesting sound over an otherwise completely harmonic background? (See the end of Lewis Takes Action) Then it might be okay to be excessively dissonant. Keep in mind that in these cases, excessive dissonance still has context and meaning. And I would argue that there are worthy and unworthy reasons for being excessively dissonant... Being dissonant for the sake of being dissonant isn't a good reason. Being dissonant to match the frustration in a verse of the lyrics is a good reason... But still, being crafty about it is important. Even if the intent is good, the design/execution can be poor. I think I have already mentioned this, Atonal music, which is also excessively dissonant, is in stark contrast to everything I have been talking about. It sought to completely remove meaning and context. If every note has equal weight, then no note is any more important than any other note. So no note has any significance over any other note. It removes the value of harmony/melody, for what I perceive to be no purpose that is significant or valuable for any sort of musical/emotional content. Its purpose was to advance music as a science and push boundaries... To move music where it had never been. And it is useful in that sense, but not as something to enjoy. Beyond this I might need to mention that I think that atonality/dissonance/chaos CAN stand on its own. It is a texture, it can have rhythmic interest, it can create very specific moods... It's a fantastic tool for the artist's toolkit!! But it is not a harmonic language to base an 8 minute piece around. If someone else with a very similar developed opinion of art as you listens to Les Mouches for the same amount of time and sees no meaning or significantly less meaning in the songs, does that mean one of you is mistaken? If they give it more time, should they eventually grasp the meaning you do? Given both of you are open-minded and both of your opinions are malleable, are your opinions supposed to converge, or can there be unresolvable differences? These are the perennial questions of taste and subjectivity. Does something objectively exist in masterful works of art that puts them above most other works? What proof do we have? I can list rules all day, but someone, somewhere is going to disagree with all of them. Perhaps someone with a very developed opinion of art. But at the end of that day, all I can say is that I perceive these rules as good for two reasons: they exist in music that affects me independently, and they exist in music that affects people inter-dependently. In other words, these things I have mentioned exist in music that has lasted for centuries because they affect others as well. That's pretty much all I can say on behalf of this, unfortunately. It's like asking if everyone could somehow reach a conclusion on what is right or wrong. Even if there was a definite answer, I don't believe everyone would agree. Greater minds than mine have attempted to answer these same issues, and none have reached a unanimously satisfying conclusion. Sure, I would like to believe that there is one true 'Opinion', even if humans aren't capable of understanding it. If we are of intelligent design, perhaps there is. But I wouldn't be surprise if humanity is never able to resolve the issue. There can be multiple levels of accessibility. For example, children's movies/shows are accessible to children, yet they often include jokes accessible only to adults. Music that is accessible to a wide audience can be challenging in ways not detected or understood by them. I agree with this, and cite Heartland as an excellent example. But I also must recognize that those parts in the children's movies that aren't for me... Basically they exist as space where something better (in my opinion) could have been. But this is a weird concept. I believe that taste must develop over time, and bad works of art are stepping stones. If you throw Beethoven at someone, they probably aren't going to like it. Why? Because most of it is over their head. Throw an english speaker in Germany, and see if they find conversation with a non-english speaker compelling for very long.. They probably won't. But as in all things, we learn with baby steps. We can take really poorly made pop music and take things from it.. We come to recognize the features we like, and seek more music offering those features. And from there, we find more things we like, and seek those as well. Etc. Plus, we can think of things we would have rather heard instead of something that happened in the music. (ex. I like this chorus, but I really wish something additional had been added the second time around to provide an extra layer of interest!) Developing taste in this way can only happen with truly listening to and paying attention to music. I am skeptical of this, but it's not worth listing all the bands we know to analyze it unless there's an existing study that somehow measures the trend. I have no way of verifying this, as it is based on my outlook on art. It's also less pervasive in indie music, though I can cite many examples of bands that are following this trend. Keep in mind that the phrase "selling out" exists for a reason. Lost in the Trees - compare their first two albums to their much more commercial sounding latest album Sigur Ros - compare to Ágætis Byrjun to their latest album St. Vincent - compare Marry Me to her eponymous album Arcade Fire - compare Funeral to every other album Red Hot Chili Peppers - Compare Stadium Arcadium to I'm With You. This one is a weird example because it happened so late. Grizzly Bear - compare Yellow House to their latest album Owen Pallett - see my previous list In all of these cases, the former works are less accessible, and likewise, more appealing to me. And bigger picture, look at how every semi-popular genre of music is gravitating more and more to "pop music". I cited country music as a huge example of this earlier. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having said all of this, it's possible that I have given the wrong impression of how I look at art. I don't look for rules to follow and apply them, or listen to music from a purely analytical standpoint. I take the rules for rules because the results and reasonings for their existence makes sense to me based on the evidences I have found in music. I don't listen to a piece of music, then determine how much I enjoyed it after the fact. I take it in as it comes, and afterwards I seek to identify why I did or did not find it so compelling so that I can better understand music, talk about music, and compose music. And I honestly feel like I have a long way to go in all three of these areas. Especially composition. Anyways, feel free to ask anything else! I quite enjoy talking about the subject! And don't hesitate to share your own opinions. I may have thought about this a lot, but I will openly admit to the possibility (and likelihood) that I am wrong or misguided in some way(s). Perhaps even all ways. Like I said before, Owen mentioned a way of listening to music that is entirely divorced from my experience. Maybe there is truth to what he said. I have no idea. But I would love to know more about it so that I can determine whether or not I am missing something, because I must admit that having little to no music that truly compels me can be highly frustrating at times... But when I do enjoy music... I REALLY REALLY enjoy music (I did decide to make it for a living, after all). Thanks for the stimulating questions! P.S. Thank you very much for creating (and maintaining) Alpentine.com. It is one of my most visited sites, and has been a great gift to the hardcore Owen Pallett fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Alpentine on Apr 26, 2014 14:41:08 GMT -5
Thanks for your explanations, I appreciate it. So there seems to be a lot of points where disagreement about music quality is possible: - Disagreement about the rules, and the relative importance of specific rules.
- Disagreement about whether a given piece of music breaks the rules, and whether it adheres to or breaks the rules in an aesthetic way.
- Disagreement about how much dissonance is boring, and how much dissonance is excessive.
- Disagreement about whether a given piece of music has too much or too little dissonance, and whether the dissonance is aesthetic.
- Disagreement about concepts like meaningfulness and coherence, what they mean and how they relate to other similar concepts, whether they are necessary for aesthetics. For example, check out this review of Owen's violin concerto that criticizes it for being aimless, not coherent. The reviewer is more knowledgeable than the audience he's comparing himself against (which included me). It's apparent that his preference is for melody and non-repetitiveness, so someone else with the same level of knowledge without that preference can have a different take on the concerto.
- Disagreement about how much the music you listen to affects the music you make yourself. I don't have the perspective of a musician, but my opinion is it doesn't matter if the musicians I like listen to music I consider vapid.
- Disagreement about the extent of influences in general. For example, Owen said He Poos Clouds was influenced by Your Blues by Destroyer (among others). I can see how that makes sense, though I don't understand it. It'd be reasonable to anticipate a certain type of sound or change in quality if you found out this fact before listening to He Poos Clouds (depending on what you think about Your Blues), but I think more often than not, when you listen to it there will turn out to be less than what you anticipated.
- Disagreement about the intention and motivation behind a given piece of music. There's a difference between "this album tries to sound this way" and "it sounds like this album is trying to sound this way." It can be important to not state it as fact unless it's known. Maybe I'll find examples in In Conflict reviews and post them here.
- Disagreement about the relevance of production quality and accessibility in general.
So as you have said, while people can and do agree on many aspects, there can always be differences in their opinions of what makes good music. Sigur Ros - compare to Ágætis Byrjun to their latest album My opinion: Takk… (4th album) is the most accessible and Valtari (6th album) is the least accessible. Með… (5th album) sounds the most generic. Kveikur (7th album) is more accessible than Ágætis Byrjun (2nd album), but I feel Kveikur isn't sacrificing quality or becoming generic—it's a surprisingly huge shift after Valtari, and I've never heard this sound before, not even from Sigur Rós. "Starálfur" is more accessible than every track on Kveikur, and the last two tracks on Kveikur are less accessible than every track on Ágætis Byrjun (splitting hairs here). St. Vincent - compare Marry Me to her eponymous album I agree. Arcade Fire - compare Funeral to every other album I'm finding it hard to compare their albums in terms of how accessible/generic they sound. My feeling is Funeral slightly edges out the others in being more accessible with its anthems. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Compare Stadium Arcadium to I'm With You. This one is a weird example because it happened so late. I haven't listened to those albums, but the singles from Stadium Arcadium really irritate me, and they are like the most accessible songs conceivable. I thought they already became more accessible in the 90s. Obviously Owen has been garnering a lot of attention lately. He's getting more and more popular. And he's aware of that (obviously). He has mentioned before that his earlier music wasn't written for such a large audience, and that he has changed his approach since he gained popularity. If that includes Has a Good Home, it was written to be accessible to the Vinyl Cafe crowd ("selling out"), so all the approaches after it is also more "genuine". I think Has a Good Home has the most accessible songs and is more accessible than He Poos Clouds. 1. Les Mouches -- utterly inaccessible and some of the most beautiful music I have ever heard 2. Young Canadian Mothers -- inaccessible due to the fact that it was an EP, poor recording quality, etc. 3. Has A Good Home -- somewhat inaccessible due to the instrumentation (mostly violin) and less than stellar mixing 4. He Poos Clouds -- dat title, and parts that challenge the listener (this is my favorite OP album), but a more widely appealing instrumentation, and better recording quality (not great though), arguably less accessible than Has a Good Home. 5. Spectrum, 14th Century -- Better recording quality 6. Heartland -- More broadly appealing instrumentation and structures. More synthy stuff. No more screaming (which genuinely upsets me). Great recording quality. 7. A Swedish Love Story -- Very synth based, more straight forward structures, short track lengths (Definitely my least favorite Owen Pallett album/EP) I think recording quality is an insignificant factor past a certain point as something that people don't really notice or care about, and everything after Les Mouches is past that point. It's unclear to me whether the orchestral instrumentation of Heartland is more broadly appealing than the violin of Has a Good Home. I imagine lots of people find either more appealing, and I don't know that Heartland wins out by a big margin. What is your take on the synths in " Song for Five and Six"? The repeating/overlapping layers in the climax sound really good to me, though I have no technical understanding of it. I'm curious what you think about things like: - the quick bursts of percussion in the left channel - the low rumbling sound in the right channel (0:26, 0:46, etc) - the wind whooshing sound in the right channel (1:50, 3:00, etc) - the rising vacuuming sound (2:30, 4:28, etc) Do these affect the accessibility of the song? Do they add to the song meaningfully? My opinion is some of them sound good and fit well, and some of them sound out of place. I think Julia Holter's albums are a good example of higher quality with higher accessibility, and MGMT's albums are a good example of high accessibility/popularity intentionally followed by less accessibility. Let's consider Kishi Bashi's newest single (without making any comparisons to Owen, to avoid drama). I listened to it for the first time today, and it struck me as having immediately accessible elements from the way it sounds. Then I find out it started out as a commercial, so that makes sense. I think this fact doesn't change the quality of the song; the song stands by its own merits. It sounds accessible, and it happens to turn out it was written to be accessible for a different purpose. And bigger picture, look at how every semi-popular genre of music is gravitating more and more to "pop music". I cited country music as a huge example of this earlier. I don't know anything about country. Is that country pop then? Are there comparatively less people writing non-pop country, are they just less popular, or are the other country genres sounding more like pop? I don't listen to a piece of music, then determine how much I enjoyed it after the fact. I take it in as it comes, and afterwards I seek to identify why I did or did not find it so compelling so that I can better understand music, talk about music, and compose music. Often on the first few listens, it's hard for me to tell whether or how much I'm enjoying a piece of music. I listen a few more times and then maybe have to think about whether/how much I enjoy it because it's not obvious, which is counterintuitive. Then my mind can change again later on. |
|
|
|
Post by haydendavenport on Apr 27, 2014 22:46:40 GMT -5
Good to hear from you again! So there seems to be a lot of points where disagreement about music quality is possible: [...] So as you have said, while people can and do agree on many aspects, there can always be differences in their opinions of what makes good music. Pretty much everything you said is spot on. It's all a matter of opinion, and I have found no argument that says otherwise. But my larger point is the lack of awareness of the rules in question. It's important to note that while disagreement might occur, a lot of the rules I have mentioned are prevalent in most musical masterpieces that have stood the test of time. And if they aren't there, there is almost always a clear and commonly understood (by theorists) reason why. New artistic movements occur from questioning stylistic decisions of past works, and attempting to go beyond those stylistic traits. A huge problem with popular music is that it ignores the works of the masters, and is therefore attempting to start at a much lower level.. Being influenced only by itself. Mozart had Bach to look at. Beethoven had Mozart and Bach to look at. Liszt had Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach to look at. Debussy had Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach to look at. Ives had Debussy, Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach to look at. Etc. But today, most musicians look at the pop artists and pop rockers of today/yesterday. Many of which are already losing relevance, and I firmly believe will not stand the test of time, except for historical (rather than artistic) purposes. And even still, it will be few that actually stand that test. When music is being influenced mainly by amateurs, great ideas don't come along that often. A composer can't take much from the creativity of those before him or her when he/she only has amateur works to look at. I don't necessarily mind derivative work, but I do mind derivative work that takes only from mediocrity. The pop structure is soooo stale. (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus) And it's hardly being questioned. Perhaps the worst part about it is that any small amount of deviation from the model is considered (temporarily) a genius work of art (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-verse-chorus), while truly creative structures (intro-verse-prechorus-chorus-postchorus-preverse-verse-chorus-interlude-bridge-solo-outro) are considered incomprehensible. This is especially frustrating because, if people would simply pay attention... We have already gone over this! Romanticism was the questioning of form. Before Beethoven, the symphony, and the various form types had been firmly established, especially by composers like Haydn. No one was to go against them, as that would be informal. Then Beethoven came along. Beethoven disliked, and possibly even despised, Haydn. He adopted Haydn's formal design structures at first, but his whole body of work questioned form and structure. There was less repetition, parts that were "incomprehensible" at them time. (He added parts to the Sonata form for emotional contrast.) As Romanticism progressed, structure became more and more free, until "anything" was allowed. But keep in mind, the composers who adopted new form types were doing so with a knowledge of why form existed. You can't just smash any two musical ideas together and expect the results to be particularly pleasing. It takes study, time, practice, and taste to create a coherent work with a creative structure. Yet today, we are back to the problem of Classical music. Having a few forms to choose from is a terrible idea--it's predictable... It eliminates creative possibilities! Anyways... There's my rant on structure... One of my absolute biggest problems with popular music. [li]Disagreement about how much the music you listen to affects the music you make yourself. I don't have the perspective of a musician, but my opinion is it doesn't matter if the musicians I like listen to music I consider vapid. [/li] [/quote] In case it was still in question at this point, I don't care either, at all... So long as the artist continues to put out work of the similar, or (hopefully) better quality. My opinion: Takk… (4th album) is the most accessible and Valtari (6th album) is the least accessible. Með… (5th album) sounds the most generic. Kveikur (7th album) is more accessible than Ágætis Byrjun (2nd album), but I feel Kveikur isn't sacrificing quality or becoming generic—it's a surprisingly huge shift after Valtari, and I've never heard this sound before, not even from Sigur Rós. "Starálfur" is more accessible than every track on Kveikur, and the last two tracks on Kveikur are less accessible than every track on Ágætis Byrjun (splitting hairs here). I believe we just have a disagreement here. I think Valtari is much more accessible than Von. I don't like either album at all though. I also didn't even bother with their latest album because I found the single to be really generic sounding, and I would have despised Jonsi's solo album if it weren't for Nico Muhly's touch. Sigur Ros isn't a perfect example anyways. Here is how I would rate the Sigur Ros albums... Worth Listening To: 1. Ágætis byrjun 2. Með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust Maybe Worth Listening To: 3. () Not Worth Listening To: 4. Takk... 5. Von, Valtari, Kveikur They are actually a good example of less accessible music being worse than more accessible music. I haven't listened to those albums, but the singles from Stadium Arcadium really irritate me, and they are like the most accessible songs conceivable. I thought they already became more accessible in the 90s. It's difficult for me to speak from a former perspective of mine, who once viewed Stadium Arcadium as the greatest album in existence. Today I recognize its many faults, but I still do believe that Stadium Arcadium, as an album, is one of the most structurally creative/successful pop-rock albums I am aware of. Here's the structure for Charlie: intro 2-part verse instrumental break chorus 3-part verse instrumental break (guitar solo) chorus interlude instrumental break 1-part verse instrumental break (guitar solo) chorus interlude outro Also note that any time a section is repeated, John Frusciante adds something new to create more interest (something way too many bands overlook). I believe that John Frusciante is the very reason Stadium Arcadium is worth listening to. Also, his solo work is garbage. If that includes Has a Good Home, it was written to be accessible to the Vinyl Cafe crowd ("selling out"), so all the approaches after it is also more "genuine". I think Has a Good Home has the most accessible songs and is more accessible than He Poos Clouds. I think that selling out means sacrificing a significant amount of your artistic integrity, and interest, in the pursuit of creating a sound specifically geared toward making as much money as possible. I don't think that Owen does that, or ever has. It is perfectly acceptable to make financially sound decisions, and for money to influence your decision making though. Great composers of the past operated in this way. It's unclear to me whether the orchestral instrumentation of Heartland is more broadly appealing than the violin of Has a Good Home. I imagine lots of people find either more appealing, and I don't know that Heartland wins out by a big margin. Perhaps not. Recording wise, I definitely feel that Has a Good Home is not up to par, and would lose a lot of people there. I don't know if an uninformed listener would be more likely prefer complex orchestral textures or sparse violin textures. A key advantage Heartland has is more use of synthesizers, though they aren't extremely prevalent. I also have to mention that both Lewis Takes Off His Shirt and Lewis Takes Action are particularly appealing to non-Owen Pallett fans. Sorry, I can't answer this question yet... I didn't even read further than that quote. I won't be listening to any new music of Owen's until the album is out. My first post here was blind. You guys know what happens in the tracks that are out right now. The only things that seem to be the case are that the music is more synth based, and Owen said the album will be repetitive. Hopefully you can see why that might raise concern in my mind. I think Julia Holter's albums are a good example of higher quality with higher accessibility, and MGMT's albums are a good example of high accessibility/popularity intentionally followed by less accessibility. I haven't heard of Julia Holter, but I'm not much of an MGMT fan. I wasn't aware of their approach though. I might need to check them out, though my bandmate, who has very similar taste to me, does not recommend them (aside from one track). I know he has heard more than me. Let's consider Kishi Bashi's newest single (without making any comparisons to Owen, to avoid drama). I listened to it for the first time today, and it struck me as having immediately accessible elements from the way it sounds. Then I find out it started out as a commercial, so that makes sense. I think this fact doesn't change the quality of the song; the song stands by its own merits. It sounds accessible, and it happens to turn out it was written to be accessible for a different purpose. I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.. Are you using an example to show that accessibility does not necessarily correlate with quality? If that is what you are saying, I completely agree... I love Tchaikovsky after all! He is often despised for how accessible his melodies are. Some critics are truly against anything mainstream. I am not. I just have an idea of what I like to see in music, and I have noticed time and time again that very popular music seeks to eliminate those things. As an extremely pervasive example... Dynamics. Dynamics are a huge part of music. Compression is directly against dynamics. The purpose of compression is to bring the dynamic high and low points of a track closer together. Minimal compression is a good thing. But the trend in popular music is to compress the living crap out of a song so that the volume can be jacked up to the highest point possible. Dynamics are eliminated, and with it goes a huge level of interest that the music would have had otherwise. I don't know anything about country. Is that country pop then? Are there comparatively less people writing non-pop country, are they just less popular, or are the other country genres sounding more like pop? I can't speak on the behalf of all country music as I have absolutely no interest in it. In the very least I can say that the progression of the music playing on country music stations has become closer and closer to the "pop" genre. The two genres have more in common now than ever before. Often on the first few listens, it's hard for me to tell whether or how much I'm enjoying a piece of music. I listen a few more times and then maybe have to think about whether/how much I enjoy it because it's not obvious, which is counterintuitive. Then my mind can change again later on. My listening experience is a bit different. I often listen to 20-40 songs at a time from bands I have never heard of. I do this by listening very critically to the first 20-30 seconds, skipping through to see where the song goes, and making a judgement on how superficially appealing it is to me. With most songs I don't even get 10 seconds in before I skip it. If the intro is an obvious 4-chord progression, I skip it, if the beginning accompaniment has a predictable melody and the vocals start by doubling that melody, I skip it. If the song starts with a guitar strumming a full chord with a common rhythm, and changes on every down beat, it gets a skip. If I go through a 5+ minute song, and hear the same melody every time I skip around, I immediately switch to a different band. Etc. But every once in a while I'll come to something that I DON'T immediately understand. That I don't immediately have a strong opinion on either way. That means that at the very least, SOMETHING, is going on that is interesting. That's when I start listening more and determine for certain how I feel about something. That's how I found out about Owen Pallett, Sigur Ros, Wilco, Sufjan Stevens, Les Mouches, Anathallo, and anything else I listen to. And that's also how I decided not to continue to listen to some other music. Most atonal music, John Frusciante's solo stuff, Grizzly Bear, Lost in the Trees, St. Vincent, etc. Right now I'm in that phase with The Luyas. There are some decisions they make that I don't really like... They tend to have 2-part song structures, their climaxes can be weak, and they tend to keep ostinatos going for too long... But there is still some really musical stuff going on. They have often have beautiful key changes, appealing synthesizer sound-design (I'm a sucker for that), unique instrumentation, and well thought out melodies. And I'm perpetually in that phase with the music of the masters. |
|
|
|
Post by unarmedwalrus on Apr 27, 2014 23:37:18 GMT -5
I think Valtari is much more accessible than Von. I don't like either album at all though. Hey, hi. Sorry to butt in on this conversation (I've been lurking), but I can't help but ask you why you don't like Valtari. I absolutely adore the record, and as a huge Sigur Ros fan, it's among my favourite things the band has ever done. I'm not terribly well versed in music theory or anything (woohoo RCM grade 8 violin performance!) but I'm very curious to hear an explanation as to why you rank it so low in the band's discography. |
|
|
|
Post by haydendavenport on May 1, 2014 11:39:45 GMT -5
Hey, hi. Sorry to butt in on this conversation (I've been lurking), but I can't help but ask you why you don't like Valtari. I absolutely adore the record, and as a huge Sigur Ros fan, it's among my favourite things the band has ever done. I'm not terribly well versed in music theory or anything (woohoo RCM grade 8 violin performance!) but I'm very curious to hear an explanation as to why you rank it so low in the band's discography. Hi! No worries, you aren't butting in at all. In fact, welcome to the conversation!  Anyone is welcome to join in if they have anything to say.. It's a forum, after all! And I'm sure you weren't the only one that has been lurking.  Here are some definitions: Synchrony - a state in which things happen, move, or exist at the same timeDiachrony - change extending through time Sigur Ros has always produced fairly repetitive music. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Especially because, in past albums, Sigur Ros paid great attention to the climaxes of their songs. The story arc is an important thing. All of the best films, all of the best musical pieces, and all of the best novels have them. Valtari, the album, does not. This is from Wikipedia: The track "Valtari" has been described as "a layered, gorgeous nothing, lush with nuanced drift and harmonic sweetness." I think this quote is a lot of fluff. I don't think "lush with nuanced drift and harmonic sweetness" means anything at all. However, I do want to focus on this: "gorgeous nothing". This is pretty close to how I would describe Valtari as a whole. I think there is a reason this person chose to describe Valtari as nothing. There is little regard for Diachrony. Valtari is entirely focused on Synchrony. The most important parts of music are the beginning, the climax, and the end (rising action, falling action, resolution). In Valtari, the beginning, the climax, and the end are all the same. This means that these divisions of the music AREN'T the most important parts because everything is of equal importance. 1/3 of the way into the track is of equal importance as 2/3rds of the way into the track. It's monotonous. Another flaw I see in the album are the ideas. I'm just going to give one example for the sake of time. Fjögur píanó's foundation is a loop. Each of the four members of the band were to go into the recording studio and play whatever the felt like playing, then pass it off to the next guy. None of the 4 members knew what the other had played, they just went in, played their part, and left. It creates multiple problems. Once again, we have the issue of Diachrony, but also, there are 4 piano parts that exist as segments with no regard toward one another. Since music exists over time, the beginning of a piece of music is expected to influence later parts of the music. It has to. Composers have tried to eliminate this. There are pieces of music that take hours to unfold in an attempt to remove the relationships between musical events. It doesn't work, even stretched across long periods of time. When a piece of music has 4 chopped up segments that weren't planned to be together, the results are unorganized. They have to be. Beyond that, the execution aspect is lackluster as well. These guys aren't exactly award winning pianists. But all of this is a long winded explanation as to why I feel how I feel when I listen to Valtari. But how do I feel when I listen to it? Bored. When I listen to music... I listen to it. I don't do homework, talk with friends, or do other things. When I listen to Valtari, I start to fall asleep, or start thinking about other things. And at that point, Valtari is only a distraction--I would rather just have it off so that I can think more efficiently. |
|
Anyone is welcome to join in if they have anything to say.. It's a forum, after all! And I'm sure you weren't the only one that has been lurking. 