Is your music better or worse than this?

[ghettosynth]

Can it be genius when is unintentional?

Could you be sure, how much unintentional it was? Was punk fully intentional?

Sure, but, let's drop the word "sure" because it leads down a rabbit hole of a discussion. Maybe the Shaggs were genius and knew exactly what they were doing. I don't think so. There is ample evidence to the contrary. So if you accept that it was unintentional, then to me, it questions the label of genius. Then again, maybe the word is simply a bad choice because it isn't precise enough.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that it's interesting. I think that even with respect to originality, it isn't, per se, original. I mean that in the following sense. As someone in the youtube comments points out, they wrote songs like that when they were five. Ok, I'm not taking that poster's claim at face value, but, I do think that a lot of children write bad music that is simply lost to history.

This is unique in that the strange ramblings of children is backed by the neurotic delusion and financial resources of a parent. It's certainly not the only time that this has happened, e.g. Rebecca Black and clones, but, it was certainly more challenging to actually make a record from those ramblings in 1969.

Still, it's fascinating and if we suppose that there's some recipe for that kind of originality, can we achieve that without abusing children? That kind of isolation and control can't be healthy.

Anyway, I've rambled too much, I want to hear what other people think about originality, delusion, naivety, and harnessing/channeling those ideas as a more experienced artist?

[Zombie Queen]

Are you into Japanoise at all? Merzbow, Hanatarash?

I used to, since I got tinnitus, I don't need anymore.

Back on topic and to close the circle... Here's another 'classic':

[jancivil]

Best and worst are just opinions.

Absolutely, that's kind of the point of the thread. Let's explore people's opinions about what is good and what is bad and ask people to think about their music judgements with respect to their own music.

It's pretty easy to choose stuff that's really good and say "this is way better than me." But if we ramp down until we get to those things that we think are at the bottom then perhaps we have to be a bit careful before we claim our own music is better? At the very least, we might have to point to specific things. We also have to address why something that is bad might be viewed as good by others and vice versa.

I think "Best and worst are just opinions" can be an interesting point of embarkation founded in this perception of Shaggs music but with an easier-to-suss model decidedly less so.

The kind of rough hip-hop record as similar because of inept timing; well, no, it rather isn't. If you focus on the drums of the Shaggs record (I listened to all of the first song of "Philosophy of the World" today), you'll find a steady beat that more or less meets conventional expectation. What's "wrong" with it is the vocals do not meet the conventional expectation for how it lines up "in time" with that beat.

So, Frank Zappa took a rhetorical posture (not far removed from promoting Larry "Wildman" Fischer on his own Bizarre imprint, and mo' less congruent with promoting Alice Cooper or the GTOs at that time) to rattle yer cages behind. In Kurt Cobain's top 5: "outsider art". Don Vliet's ("Captain Beefheart") music is frequently 'wrong'. So, is there an objective framework available to us for consideration? Beefheart: isn't there an internal logic present? The weird and 'wrong' guitar parts in Trout Mask Replica to "Flavor Bud Living", this music defies pedestrian expectation all over the place but in itself makes sense and as a whole strongly signals style and in the long view we'd consider form. Shaggs seems to present that kind of problem in more relief. What if the timing makes perfect sense to Shaggs? Actually, if it does it may be technically more challenging to suss, because if you chart it out rhythmically per the usual grid there will be challenges beyond average people's ability to deal with.

So, talking point: they were incentivized to work very hard to produce but they knew "not one iota of music" (and it looks like total immersion with zero founding, with no apparent period of copying extant musics). Ok, there is precedent in communities that are set off from the world (in my experience on an island or way back from the road and up in the hills) for arriving at a language that's not used outside it. Now: I have other things on my mind typically, but I have a curiosity towards 'what would alien music be', what paths would form for rhythm outside known (Earth: societal; linguistic; physical) convention? What would I do to shake that tree?

And far short of this particular problem is (Edit: clearly accomplished) music that's not well- (if at all) understood because it was never interested to be held down to conventionality. I've had more than one person here have at my stuff having no basis for understanding (combined with a dull overconfidence) exactly the business they're opinionated about. (Once it was not my music but a ca. 1892 composition by a definite genius) that to this person repped 'freeform' and chaotic when the actual matter is completely formal. I'm not worried. Also, too, I don't know why there's this 'you're at KVR so your music's competence quotient is probably suspect', here, not my issue.) OTOH: there is quite some music here that is objectively poor to my view that is perfectly acceptable because it's so conforming.

[Ridan]

I've always struggled with the concept of originality. Not even sure if it's possible to be completely original when it comes to music. Happy accidents can happen all of the time, but how do we know if it wasn't just some sub-conscious influence/thought/experience disguised as our own. Maybe for the sake of ego, and the desire to be "original", or if we really thought that we were making something that was truly one of a kind.

[ghettosynth]

Best and worst are just opinions.

Absolutely, that's kind of the point of the thread. Let's explore people's opinions about what is good and what is bad and ask people to think about their music judgements with respect to their own music.

It's pretty easy to choose stuff that's really good and say "this is way better than me." But if we ramp down until we get to those things that we think are at the bottom then perhaps we have to be a bit careful before we claim our own music is better? At the very least, we might have to point to specific things. We also have to address why something that is bad might be viewed as good by others and vice versa.

I think "Best and worst are just opinions" can be an interesting point of embarkation founded in this perception of Shaggs music but with an easier-to-suss model decidedly less so.

The kind of rough hip-hop record as similar because of inept timing; well, no, it rather isn't. If you focus on the drums of the Shaggs record (I listened to all of the first song of "Philosophy of the World" today), you'll find a steady beat that more or less meets conventional expectation. What's "wrong" with it is the vocals do not meet the conventional expectation for how it lines up "in time" with that beat.

Sure, I wasn't really trying to suggest that they were the same thing. Only that they serve as examples for discussion. Really, the thread was originally just about the Shaggs, but nobody responded so I bumped the thread with the hip-hop video. In both cases, they demonstrate a lack of a sense of timing in a group setting.

In any case, if you make something too stodgy people won't join in, but if you spread a little entertainment value in there, they will. So, let's have a conversation, and compete to see who can post the worst video all at the same time.

I think that both examples represent delusion. The Shaggs though is more about the father's delusion than the performer's.

BTW: I'm not willing to judge any other member's work in this thread. I'm asking people to express why they believe that their own work is better, or worse, and in what ways. Maybe that won't happen, but can we learn anything by thinking about it?

[sprnva]

When it comes to what constitutes weird or bad music I guess people latch onto different elements. In the case of the video I posted it was the unusual vocal delivery. For others it's timing. I like listening to jazz and you'll sometimes hear the "old" question about whether the band members know what song the rest are playing. It just sounds too chaotic and messy to some. To me it's fine. But play me some super-generic construction kit dance track and it's like the proverbial nails on chalkboard. My brain is trained to seek out the unusual and the new.

As for my own music, I've tried over the years to make something that I felt was original. Obviously influences crept in and I was fine with that, just so long as I didn't feel like I was ripping off song x or band y. What's important to me is that I can identify with what I make. It's no use trying to make something "original" if it ends up sounding like a total mess. I don't see a point in trying to be different just for the sake of it. It has to still come from the heart. Persevere and along the way hope for happy accidents that may show a way you didn't consider and that could lead to finding something a bit unusual.

I'd never heard of The Shaggs until today but what I've heard so far isn't bad. I could understand how it may have seemed bad back in the day when music was still relatively structured. What I've taken away from the story is that no matter what you do, somewhere down the line you'll get recognition for it if people can identify with it. And invariably they will if you're trying to be yourself.

[Zombie Queen]

The dust blows forward and the dust blows back.

[jancivil]

Best and worst are just opinions.

Absolutely, that's kind of the point of the thread. Let's explore people's opinions about what is good and what is bad and ask people to think about their music judgements with respect to their own music.

It's pretty easy to choose stuff that's really good and say "this is way better than me." But if we ramp down until we get to those things that we think are at the bottom then perhaps we have to be a bit careful before we claim our own music is better? At the very least, we might have to point to specific things. We also have to address why something that is bad might be viewed as good by others and vice versa.

I think "Best and worst are just opinions" can be interesting as founded in this perception of Shaggs music but with an easier-to-suss model decidedly less so.

The kind of rough hip-hop record as similar because of inept timing; well, no, it rather isn't.

Sure, I wasn't really trying to suggest that they were the same thing. Only that they serve as examples for discussion.

Yeah, you did 'along these lines', "similar" I said. Both a 'failure' to make it, but the hip hop one is people assuming they had met normal expectations while I don't think The Shaggs had a handle on what that would even be like.

I'm asking people to express why they believe that their own work is better, or worse, and in what ways. Maybe that won't happen, but can we learn anything by thinking about it?

The Shaggs as any metric for what I do: well, in terms of the alien-ness of the vocals relationship with the 4/4 pedestrian rock beat, I'm actually able to conceptualize it in useful terms for me because I've thought about decoupling rhythm - as an object - from certain considerations that would inform the reasons for rhythm (and have certain techniques at hand for it). My music, while people called me avant-garde fr. way back, is 98-99% not weird in this way and the people that find it so tend to be working with insufficient data. So a bit of music from 1892 based in a clear reiteration of the larger figure just transposed can be so unexpected as to represent musical incoherence because of that person's lack of basic information. And they're so comfortable with the usual solid consensus of other fuckwits they are quite confident and ready to display their ass.

[ghettosynth]

I'd never heard of The Shaggs until today but what I've heard so far isn't bad. I could understand how it may have seemed bad back in the day when music was still relatively structured.

I think it's bad, it's weird, but "as pop music", which was the father's intent, it's bad. I don't think that's an unfair criticism. I found it strangely compelling, but more like watching a giant-zit popping video than enjoying a great performance.

I think that what makes it compelling though is the circumstances that surround its creation. However, it's very different from coming at unstructured music with intent. I don't think that you can reasonably argue that the result is what was intended. The members of the group have said that they didn't think that they were ready to perform. They also were able to listen to other pop music of the time, that's talked about in the various articles, and is represented in the song about the radio as companion.

It seems that much of the sense of the outcome is a result of the cycle of feedback between the amateur performers and the delusional "producer." The girls wanted to please their dad, even if only to get a reprieve from his abuse.

[ghettosynth]

Best and worst are just opinions.

Absolutely, that's kind of the point of the thread. Let's explore people's opinions about what is good and what is bad and ask people to think about their music judgements with respect to their own music.

It's pretty easy to choose stuff that's really good and say "this is way better than me." But if we ramp down until we get to those things that we think are at the bottom then perhaps we have to be a bit careful before we claim our own music is better? At the very least, we might have to point to specific things. We also have to address why something that is bad might be viewed as good by others and vice versa.

I think "Best and worst are just opinions" can be interesting as founded in this perception of Shaggs music but with an easier-to-suss model decidedly less so.

The kind of rough hip-hop record as similar because of inept timing; well, no, it rather isn't.

Sure, I wasn't really trying to suggest that they were the same thing. Only that they serve as examples for discussion.

Yeah, you did 'along these lines', "similar" I said.

I think that you're extending my link beyond intention. I think that they both demonstrate musical incompetence that is reflected, in part, in the timing in their performance. I think that both also represent delusion in some sense. That's about the extent of any connection.

But, that's not the point of this so I don't want to get bogged down in this.

Both a 'failure' to make it, but the hip hop one is people assuming they had met normal expectations while I don't think The Shaggs had a handle on what that would even be like.

Well, yes, I agree with the first part, but I think that we can be more precise with the second part. If you read the article then the kids listened to pop music on the radio. I'm not sure the dad did though and so you have this strange relationship where they are trying to achieve something that they had some idea of how it would sound, but not how to get there, while, at the same time being forced to follow the directions of their delusional father.

Also, the girls didn't think that they were ready, this suggests that they had some understanding that they were not up to snuff, even if the father didn't.

I'm asking people to express why they believe that their own work is better, or worse, and in what ways. Maybe that won't happen, but can we learn anything by thinking about it?

The Shaggs as any metric for what I do: well, in terms of the alien-ness of the vocals relationship with the 4/4 pedestrian rock beat, I'm actually able to conceptualize it in useful terms for me because I've thought about decoupling rhythm - as an object - from certain considerations that would inform the reasons for rhythm (and have certain techniques at hand for it).

Well, I can't say anything about my own work that rises to the level of "technique", but I don't necessarily need rhythms to be coupled in a particular way. I do find the rhythm interesting in the Shaggs songs, but, at the same time, it reeks of the performers focusing intellectually on their own parts and not understanding what it means to play together.

However, I don't want to pretend to know precisely what you mean so either you can elaborate or not and just I'll let other people comment further on the rest of your comments.

[ghettosynth]

What about this? There's certainly some skill here...is that enough?

[ghettosynth]

Can you listen to more than three seconds?

[ghettosynth]

Are you hurt, or in awe?

[3ee]

not sure who posted this where.... but not sure it's it's terrible or ... very interesting at some points!

[Ridan]

I think that what makes it compelling though is the circumstances that surround it's creation.

Their story is far more interesting than I had assumed to give it credit for. Still looking into it more, but so far this seems to be a perfect example of being a product of one's own environment. To compare this to someones music being better or worse is an understatement. Not criticizing the thread title btw. Just saying that this runs pretty deep. So, thank you for sharing this story. I wouldn't have heard about The Shaggs otherwise.

In the middle of listening to this BBC Interview -

"if you have heard practically no music and then you are told to create music: what will it sound like?"