Follower or Leader?

[vespers75]

3)People who wanted to excel in the established musical conventions but failed, then looked to unconventional genres that seems to be a lot less demanding in terms of necessary knowledge of music theory, instrument performance, compositional skills...etc. When there are no established rules, you can't really fail/suck at it, right? Anyone can proclaim genius and originality, and there's no yardstick to assess whether anything they do is any good. Unfortunately, the soundscape/noise/ambient arena is full of people who would be considered bad in any established conventions of music, and the only time they don't suck is when they work in a style where quality is difficult to assess.

Really excellent post. Very good insights, and a lot of truth that doesn't get discussed largely because it's not exactly politically correct.

I've listened to the "music" of some who are so disdainful of pop, commercial success and the music business, and my curiosity was rewarded with a variety of noise that is rigorously defended as being music. It was original, but not very interesting or even pleasant. The genre of ambient has been trashed by this stuff. It didn't occur to me that this was their escape from the constraints of music convention, which requires skill and talent, but that does make sense.

So in the end, to me, whether someone is highly original or not is not the main issue; I only care if they are any good according to my personal standard for excellence.

In other words, being a follower and/or leader isn't really an issue in terms of perceived music quality and enjoyment. I do think those who are bored with much of what they hear would be more likely to be constantly seeking music that is outside not only the mainstream but even the more recent genres, which themselves are only a decade or so old. For them, true originality is all that sparks their interest, for whatever reason. Maybe it's about not being part of the crowd, sheep, lemmings or...

Damn, so much hot air bullshit based on personal tastes and opinions.

I guess those of us that can fluently play several instruments and write songs yet still also make some 'experimental ambient' as well don't quite fit into this shit theory.

[dirty oscillators]

apparently the hot air comes out before the diarrhea kicks in, although i think it's been back and forth pretty much since the weekend.

[Cordelia]

my favorite episode of The Love Boat is the one with Charo...

Well how can you not love Charo? Now, there's an original.
Not a bad guitar player.

[eduardo_b]

I guess those of us that can fluently play several instruments and write songs yet still also make some 'experimental ambient' as well don't quite fit into this shit theory.

Which theory are you referring to? It will make it easier to keep score.

[dirty oscillators]

I guess those of us that can fluently play several instruments and write songs yet still also make some 'experimental ambient' as well don't quite fit into this shit theory.

Which theory are you referring to? It will make it easier to keep score.

keep workin' it man, you're almost there.

[vespers75]

I guess those of us that can fluently play several instruments and write songs yet still also make some 'experimental ambient' as well don't quite fit into this shit theory.

Which theory are you referring to? It will make it easier to keep score.

In particular...regarding experimental/ambient artists as those who failed/lack skills at playing instruments and/or more 'conventional' forms of music. That is generalized shit...I'm sure there are those who do that kind of music but don't know how to play any instruments or know how to write any songs (not that there is anything wrong with that..they can express themselves how they like). But there are plenty of others who can do both...they just choose to express themselves in a different way at times, and respond to some sounds...*gasp*...differently than you do.

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither, yet type paragraph after paragraph and have alot to say about it all anyhow.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

I guess those of us that can fluently play several instruments and write songs yet still also make some 'experimental ambient' as well don't quite fit into this shit theory.

Which theory are you referring to? It will make it easier to keep score.

In particular...regarding experimental/ambient artists as those who failed/lack skills at playing instruments and/or more 'conventional' forms of music. That is generalized shit...I'm sure there are those who do that kind of music but don't know how to play any instruments or know how to write any songs (not that there is anything wrong with that..they can express themselves how they like). But there are plenty of others who can do both...they just choose to express themselves in a different way at times, and respond to some sounds...*gasp*...differently than you do.

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither, yet type paragraph after paragraph and have alot to say about it all anyhow.

[eduardo_b]

I guess those of us that can fluently play several instruments and write songs yet still also make some 'experimental ambient' as well don't quite fit into this shit theory.

Which theory are you referring to? It will make it easier to keep score.

In particular...regarding experimental/ambient artists as those who failed/lack skills at playing instruments and/or more 'conventional' forms of music. That is generalized shit...I'm sure there are those who do that kind of music but don't know how to play any instruments or know how to write any songs (not that there is anything wrong with that..they can express themselves how they like). But there are plenty of others who can do both...they just choose to express themselves in a different way at times, and respond to some sounds...*gasp*...differently than you do.

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither, yet type paragraph after paragraph and have alot to say about it all anyhow.

I don't think you type that much.

I believe the context of the remarks noted above, which we're calling the shite theory, is originality. Not easy to come by, rarely can be created on purpose and be done well, and isn't really all that important relative to other aspects of music that really do matter.

The experimental stuff is self-defining and thus well off the beaten path of music. It's originality is probably higher, but not necessarily appealing to most listeners.

Is that better?

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Originality is overrated.

you are an idiot...

Why? Does original always means "better?" I know of some "original" art-work both within music and film that does not fit my taste at all.

that's fine, because it's your taste...and you aren't writing post after post as the champion of the lowest common denominator...

Good Luck!

you too!

[eduardo_b]

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither,

By the way, this is a short road to nowhere. One doesn't have to be a musician to be a music critic, be a filmmaker to review films or be an artist to critique art and art history.

Just saying.

[Cordelia]

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither,

By the way, this is a short road to nowhere. One doesn't have to be a musician to be a music critic, be a filmmaker to review films or be an artist to critique art and art history.

Just saying.

Not aimed at you, eduardo_b, but what good do critics do? I find most music criticism to be laughable at best.
I remember a Dave Marsh piece about a Rosanne Cash record. He was in awe of her ability so sing so quietly, so restrained even while the drums were blasting. He was in awe because he didn't understand the concept of overdubs. So, no you don't have to be a musician to be a critic, but why not do something positive instead?

"the razor thin line between theory and art is a lie, it's a point on a plane
where the need to express gets confused with the need to explain"

I wrote that once upon a time.

I'm not a fan of art criticism.

[vespers75]

I believe the context of the remarks noted above, which we're calling the shite theory, is originality. Not easy to come by, rarely can be created on purpose and be done well, and isn't really all that important relative to other aspects of music that really do matter.

The experimental stuff is self-defining and thus well off the beaten path of music. It's originality is probably higher, but not necessarily appealing to most listeners.

Is that better?

No, its not. You're still trying to belittle some people's chosen methods of expression simply because it doesn't fit with your tastes and pass off opinion as definite truth. Rarely created on purpose or done well??? Not important relative to other aspects of music that do matter???

And I didn't say 'originality' is the shit theory, so don't say we're...those are your words, and you're twisting shit around (as always) just suit your argument. The theory that experimental and/or ambient artists are failed musicians is what I'm calling the shit theory.

[justin3am]

I'm a follower big time. Every step I take requires a nod to those that came before me.

I'm having difficulty putting into words how I feel about the discussion that has grown from this topic. I'm of the mind that originality cannot be overrated. Potential for innovation cannot be ignored. Period. At the same time, everything must be looked at with healthy skepticism.

Everything must be challenged. Everything.

[vespers75]

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither,

By the way, this is a short road to nowhere. One doesn't have to be a musician to be a music critic, be a filmmaker to review films or be an artist to critique art and art history.

Just saying.

The short road to nowhere is a critic's opinion. You say such musics are rarely created on purpose even...that alone shows how much you don't know about some things you purport to understand. You're right though, one doesn't have to be a musician or film-maker to be a critic...just an opinionated asshole, it seems.

Critics get their little column in a magazine, as they think everyone gives two f**ks about their opinion as if its more valid than any others. When in truth, one should just rip that page out and wipe their ass with it.

[eduardo_b]

Not aimed at you, eduardo_b, but what good do critics do? I find most music criticism to be laughable at best.
I remember a Dave Marsh piece about a Rosanne Cash record.

Dave Marsh. I do remember him. It was either he or Timothy White (may he RIP) who did an interview with Carly Simon that was focused a lot on her...he obviously had a thing for her. Glad to know it wasn't for me...I like it better when we're just discussin' stuff.

"the razor thin line between theory and art is a lie, it's a point on a plane where the need to express gets confused with the need to explain"

I wrote that once upon a time.

I'll agree there's a broad range of quality among critics. Some are amazingly interesting and insightful, but others don't seem to know which side of the CD goes up. Same for film critics. The good ones make for good reading, but some seem bitchy about most stuff that doesn't have subtitles.

I'm not a fan of art criticism.

I'll keep that in mind. Although you might find A.O. Scott's stuff in the NYT entertaining.

Not sure the role of critics is well-defined or consistent. At their best, they raise and discuss issues relevant to the art itself and where it sits in the larger culture. As you might suspect, I really like this kind of stuff. But I've read some critics who simply like nothing, and what they do like is almost an affectation -- weird shite that few will want to see despite all the virtues extolled by the reviewer. In the best sense, critics bring a detailed but comprehensive view that most others don't have. They make us think more critically. They don't expect everyone to like what they do.