The argument that started in vurts song thread thread

[shamann]

"Let's try to hear old sound in a new way." It's as much about listening closer, as much about sound in its physical state, as it is about its humanized form and calculation.

Maybe you could paraphrase this?

Sure. That is a description of what the intent might be behind the vurtstyle. A suggestion on how to listen. There's little insinuation in the statement.

Some music that doesn't focus on certain structural concerns, like for instance tonality and explicit narrative, does so to illustrate the physical qualities of sound. Much like running your hand over a surface and feeling its texture. The manner in which it does this is by becoming microscopic, focusing on the sound to the exclusion of other things in an exxagerated way. The busier anything gets, the more difficult it is to define and illustrate one single point. Sound texture and ambience might be a concern in pop, but isn't its essential point of focus. It has other concerns as well.

[Sicklecell666]

and I think you can find a lot of cars without engines in the cafe...

Care to name a few?

yes, indeed - I care to not name them !

pussy.

[putte]

putty.

.. call me putte, okay?

[putte]

i mean .. is there a thread for drunk people?

[emdot_ambient]

Oh, boy, off on this again are we?

I think the problem is that most people have a misconceived notion of the purpose of any art, be that visual or musical. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the purpose of art is--let's just stick with music for now--some people would say it is to "communicate an emotion", others that it's about making you move your booty, others that it's about expressing spiritual ideas through non-verbal means, others would say it is about displaying the performer's virtuosity, their command of their instrument, yet others would say it is simply arranging musical patterns and textures into some pleasant form. All of those are wrong, and all of those are correct. That is, they are wrong on a universal level, but correct on an individual level.

The truth of the matter is that the act of creating music or any other art is a completely separate act from that of an outside observer approaching the resulting creation.

The act of creation is about the composer or performer coming to terms with something internal--it is a private and self-serving act. The only one who can say whether the creation works on that level is the artist/performer.

Likewise, the act of observing some work of art is about an interaction between the observer and the art. Again, it is purely private and self-serving act. The only one who can say whether the art provokes an aesthetic response is the observer.

Varese said Music is organized sound.
Cage said Music is sound heard.
I'd say that Music is sound heard aesthetically.

Bach vs. Britney? Sorry, but there can be no universal value judgement made, not from a purely aesthetic point of view because that is totally subjective. I'm sure there are plenty of Spears fans that would tell you Bach is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. The only way to apply universal value judgements on a work of art's value is to enforce meaningless quantitative parameters upon which to base the verdict--how many years has a work been reproduced, how many copies have been sold, how many people voted for it . . .

But when it comes right down to it, even our own value judgements are transitory. I used to like the Moody Blues, Emerson Lake & Palmer and Rick Wakeman's solo work. I can't stand any of those anymore. Did the music change? No, the way I hear it did.

In conclusion, if you tell me that the work of so-and-so is music and the work of somebody else's isn't, then you're right. I believe you. For now that is your opinion. Doesn't matter if I think otherwise. I'll just sit here and listen to the hum of these florescent lights making wonderful music and forget all about your opinion.

[shamann]

and b.t.w.: I don't care about the 'structure and Method of making music'. For me it's about 'form and substance'. You can listen to Bach's fugue on my old Nokia and it's still Bach's fugue. That's the substance of it. When it is played and conducted by Harnoncourt and his orchestra there is added form to the substance. Both combined make up for great music.

Hey, whatever floats your boat, but your 'form and substance' is a perfect decription of 'structure and method'. And who said anything about you? My statements have nver been exclusionary, that's the whole point. I'm suggesting as many paths as can be imagined, all of equal value.

Ambient bollox doesn't negate pop.

Or in easier terms, read what Putte has said, exactly the same point. I'm with Putte!

[jens]

"Let's try to hear old sound in a new way." It's as much about listening closer, as much about sound in its physical state, as it is about its humanized form and calculation.

Maybe you could paraphrase this?

Sure. That is a description of what the intent might be behind the vurtstyle. A suggestion on how to listen. There's little insinuation in the statement.

Some music that doesn't focus on certain structural concerns, like for instance tonality and explicit narrative, does so to illustrate the physical qualities of sound. Much like running your hand over a surface and feeling its texture. The manner in which it does this is by becoming microscopic, focusing on the sound to the exclusion of other things in an exxagerated way. The busier anything gets, the more difficult it is to define and illustrate one single point. Sound texture and ambience might be a concern in pop, but isn't its essential point of focus. It has other concerns as well.

o.k. - I understand - thanks for clarifying

the metaphor with the hand & the texture is a very good one b.t.w.

yes, if you speak about this focus it makes it clearer for me - so I don't like much of this stuff then because I'm longing for a different focus - to look at the texture instead of just feeling it so to speak... - makes sense to me!

[putte]

In conclusion, if you tell me that the work of so-and-so is music and the work of somebody else's isn't, then you're right. I believe you. For now that is your opinion. Doesn't matter if I think otherwise. I'll just sit here and listen to the hum of these florescent lights making wonderful music and forget all about your opinion.

putte

[shamann]

And I'm with emdot, too!

[Sicklecell666]

yeah, even my tonitus can at times be pleasant.

[shamann]

makes sense to me!

Excellent.

So everybody, same time next month then?

First we'll need to start a pro vs. amateur thread, an analogue versus digital thread, and a Fruity versus the world thread, then we can get back to this nerd music.

Right, off to the pub then.

[putte]

yeah, even my tonitus can at times be pleasant.

i envy you ..

i second that

putte

[putte]

Right, off to the pub then.

tiptoppest conclusion!

[putte]

i mean, IS there a thread for drunk people???

[Sicklecell666]

i mean, IS there a thread for drunk people???

seems so..