The argument that started in vurts song thread thread

[Borogove]

Would that not eventually lead us into a corner in which a really, really stupid pop song sung by Brittney Spears and Bach's "Art of Fugue" are 'neither better nor worse than the other, just different'?

Is it too obvious a point that one is clearly better than the other at stimulating teenage libidos and encourage one to shake one's booty, while the other is clearly better at lasting for the ages?

[herodotus]

a piece of recorded music is just an artefact

no ...
it's a palimpset ...

Is a palimpsest not an artifact?

never mess with the father of history ...

Yeah!!! Darius did and look at him now. Not enough left to feed to the dogs (assumes badass pose).

[cron]

Different people speak different languages.

Herodotus compares Bach and Britney, but why not Bach and Stockhausen? Or if we're talking guitarists, we could compare Fripp and the guy from Creed, but how about Jimi Hendrix and David Bailey?

This sort of cross genre comparison, no matter how self-evidently technically accomplished the music obviously is, is entirely fruitless unless you're fluent in both languages. I certainly couldn't tell you why I'm A Slave 4U is better than Oops I Did It Again.

[herodotus]

Would that not eventually lead us into a corner in which a really, really stupid pop song sung by Brittney Spears and Bach's "Art of Fugue" are 'neither better nor worse than the other, just different'?

Is it too obvious a point that one is clearly better than the other at stimulating teenage libidos and encourage one to shake one's booty, while the other is clearly better at lasting for the ages?

Nothing is too obvious (other than the fact that I have a really boring job that I am, at present, neglecting).

What I do wonder is why the latter still lives for so many people while most of his contemporaries are now mere footnotes. Is it just PR? I know that Telemann was much more prolific and popular when they were alive, but today he is generally regarded as being pretty.....well....boring. I personally lose interest in Telemann after about 5 minutes. But old Johann just floors me every time I hear one of his major works.

And, just for the record, I have never known anyone whose booty shakes when they hear Brittney. Of course I don't know very many teenagers....

[mayan]

and then there's the whole other question of someone being extraordinarily pyrotechnically and theoretically proficient but still not quite as "musical" as someone else.

Of course, this is all so subjective as to be reductio ad absurdam but for example -for me- take Oscar Peterson who is an amazing piano player but whose "musicality" ultimately leaves me cold as compared with Thelonious Monk who some folks considered to be a Cro-magnon on the piano but -in my mind- is an Immortal of the Highest Pantheon.

I've often wondered how two people can play the same note on a piano -just one note, at about the same velocity/force - and have it sound completely different.

Oh well...this is probably apropos of approximately nothing in the prior messages but low blood sugar will do that.

[shamann]

But all that having been said, I have to say that some musicians do seem to be special. Without thinking for a second that western cultural values should dominate the world, is there really nothing special about the guitar playing of Robert Fripp as opposed to the playing of say, the guitarist who used to be in Creed?

Nope.

There are ways of sussing out value, of course, but it's all based on what your value system prioritizes. A lot of pronouncements on music seem to ignore all but one value system, as though there were some universal truths. But, of course, there are universal truths, it's all just a matter of who you ask.

Is there something more special about Robert Fripp than Creed's guitarist? Likely not to the president of the Creed fan club. What gives your view authority over theirs? It certainly isn't empirical, as for any set of criteria you lay down to justify your position, they could easily do the same with a completely separate set.

Fripp has developed a new technique of working with music, and has shown virtuosic control over this technique.

Creed look nice in tight pants, have sold millions of records, make better music videos, and that singer sure can belt out those emotive tunes.

To counter the argument you might say that one achievement has more value than another, but again on whose scale? Those debates are won not on the surface details of the matter at hand but through years of power politics. The dichotomy between performer and audience was not ever thus, the hierarchy isn't obvious to every one, but we take it as de facto because somebody along the line won a war.

Consider this: the rise of copyright law coincides perfectly with the rise of capitalism. Why? Because scarcity mechanisms result in capital opportunity. Out of copyright, authorial identity becomes a dominant concern.

What's the difference between an original work of art and a perfect forgery? It sure isn't to be found in the physical details of the work, as they are identical. But one becomes valued and the other becomes pariah, because there are social constructs that have developed over time that dictate one is authentic, is special, and the other is a violation. But that has nothing to do with artwork.

Respect is never a bad thing, but I don't think respect hinges on a scale. Should you not respect the guitarist from Creed, even if it's perhaps for different reasons?

As for the term music, it is a convenient shorthand for sonic art. Most people wouldn't get the idea of art made from sound that wasn't called music. But it's all just art, only different materials used.

And who is this shamann arse for starting this anyway.

[donkey tugger]

It's still stoned c**ts f**king about with sinethesiser though!

[mayan]

shamann...I hear ya and almost kinda agree with ya but...

I am someone who has stared with fascination for long periods of time at the static on the TV (well, I used to be able to) and have found ecstasy in the spaces between radio stations...my sense of sound and music have almost totally disappeared in some ways...

Yet, on the other hand, I don't know if I can bring myself to embrace what I consider to be "product" over what I consider to be "art". (I realize that the operative word in the last sentence is "I" and that "I" is not really sure whether Brittany actually exists or whether she is a hologram created by Madison Avenue).

Maybe history, to some degree is the final arbiter...I mean people still flock to hear Mozart whereas Master Andouhil Frappocini of Naples has been long forgotten. Time the Arbiter is also assisted by Popular Influences - I don't know if Fripp will be remembered but he has certainly launched a number of Fripporites - I don't know if the same will be said of Creed's guitarist (whose name I don't know). Will Frippertronics be as dominant in 75 years as Mozart has been for 300 years, I don't know but if I were gonna place bets, it would be on him rather than Creed-onymous.

That doesn't mean that one has more or less value - I guess...maybe more "gravitas." I certainly get pissed off when someone listens to music and says "this is stupid...this stinks" and try to refrain from same.

OK - I guess this is shamelessly incomprehensible. Been a long day at the office.

[jens]

It's still stoned c**ts f**king about with sinethesiser though!

now that you dare to say it...

[herodotus]

Consider this: the rise of copyright law coincides perfectly with the rise of capitalism. Why? Because scarcity mechanisms result in capital opportunity. Out of copyright, authorial identity becomes a dominant concern.

Actually, authorial identity is as old as literature. The ancient greeks weren't even sure who Homer was, but they still credited him with a unique talent. Everyone knew who Aeschylus and Sophocles were, even though the whole art of drama was a state funded operation where the main reward given to playrights was applause.

But I am not trying to assign "value" to anything, so much as I am trying to establish accurate descriptions of things. There are major, instantly identifiable differences between the work of the two aforementioned musicians. If our ways of discussing them don't take these qualitative differences into account, is this not a shortcoming? I realize that the simple "This is good, this is amateurish crap" dichotomy is no longer good enough (if it ever was). But it seems to me that the "its all equally good" aesthetic could use some tweaking as well.

[jens]

normally I keep out of such discussions but I must say that I find it a bit amusing that some of you seem to assume that people like e.g. me who make pop care less about sound & the ambience of their tracks than e.g. Vurt...

I always care very much about it and put much work into getting it right but I don't stop there... for me this would be like designing a beautyful car but leaving out the engine...

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

[intel]

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

hey! leave me out of this!

[herodotus]

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

hey! leave me out of this!

(Said in a hillbilly accent)
Nope. You wanted a flame war, and goddamit yer gonna GIT a flame war.

Now what was I going to say?????

[shamann]

I find it a bit amusing that some of you seem to assume that people like e.g. me who make pop care less about sound & the ambience of their tracks than e.g. Vurt...

Who said that exactly? And your later statement suggests that those who do what vurt does ignore the structure and method of making music.

[scuzzphut]

so - is vurt's music any good, then ?