formulaic, (un)original, and other shallow words..

[munchkin]

Formulaic = rock, classical, country, blues, choral, jazz, soul, rnb, big band, trance, atonal, serial, yadda yadda.

Inspirational = rock, classical, country, blues, choral, jazz, soul, rnb, big band, trance, atonal, serial, yadda yadda.

Music fullfills both descriptive categories and loads more. Take your pick.

[no_signal]

The lesson here is that if you love making trance, rather than just copy others, why not learn from them, and push the art further. Trance fans seem to need some form of communal acceptance. Well if so, bring the people to you, don't just assume they are already there.

Cheers,
Steve

I wish you sayed that in my trance thread...
I agree, learn from them, and push the art further.

[eternia]

Now don't start that trance war again if you don't want this thread closed.

I did put an emoticon with my comment, so that makes it okay .

If you like, you can laugh at me instead...I play gothic music, but not even popular gothic - I do old school 80s "we're not into that anymore"-style gothic.

D

[opiadream]

When reading music related discussions, terms like originality (more like "unoriginal", actually) and formulaic often pop up, especially when slating dance or slightly more popular music (yes, it has to do with recent trance flames, but also some other flames on other discussion groups that I participate in).

I suppose, with dance music, it often has to do with people not understanding how the dance scene works. Most dance music is published only on 12" and, more or less, as a DJ tool. Therefore it's "formulaic" due simply to the narrow purpose it has -- to be mixed by a DJ and allow seamless flow from other tracks by other authors within the genre.

Under these preset circumstances it's a real challenge to sound different and interesting, while still remaining within the form, yet some authors are being really good at it. You can see this clearly if you compare dance LPs with authors' 12" work. On LPs you'll usually find a broad spectre of genres and production styles combined, and much more musically exciting and braver music, with only a couple of tracks being 12"-friendly.

Another thing is, dance music has reinvented itself about 50 times in last 15 years, rock music was pretty much sounding the same during decade-long periods. Hower you almost never hear about 70s white euro rock and it's loudest 80s successor -- heavy metal, being slated as unoriginal and formulaic, unless you're masochistically after a verbally violent backclash from the followers (well, at least here where I live).

Finally, all music IS and always will be inevitably formulaic (just think about hundreds of years of classical music). On the other hand, beleiving in such things as absolute originality in any artform is about as naive as one can get (frankly, i think existance of Santa Claus ha better fidelity).

So really, I don't get it, you slate genres you dislike with words that sound nasty and derrogating, but are, if we are REALLY honest to ourselves, something that easily fits the music in general. Sure, one into some sort of music will hear minute differences, movements and artistic achievements within the genre, while outsiders will measure the music with merits that are relevant to what they are into, and it will all sound the same to them.

It's kinda like, well, we all know that Chinese people all look the same, right? I mean, they're all the same aren't they?

agreed
times 2

(btw my remark in the 'define good music' thread
about trance fans was just a joke!)

[no_signal]

Now don't start that trance war again if you don't want this thread closed.

I did put an emoticon with my comment, so that makes it okay .

If you like, you can laugh at me instead...I play gothic music, but not even popular gothic - I do old school 80s "we're not into that anymore"-style gothic.

D

Hey, that wasn't adressed to you!
Like I sayed, all my respects!

[munchkin]

When you've got David Bowie doing the Hero's symphony with Phillip Glass and a remix of Hero's by Aphex Twin haven't we got past categorising music? There is no good or bad music. Just stuff you do and don't like.

Once we start categorising any form of culture into good/bad/useful/artistic/moronic we're getting into elitism which can ultimately echo Nazi/Stalinist ideology.

Classical music is cyclical - so is trance. Modernist music uses montage - so does trance.

I really don't think people who try to hold up one form of music above another understand the history of music. It's like trying to claim that music from Polynesia is somehow inferior to 18th century classical. Elitist nonsense based on cultural bias. But keep on slaggin' off trance if it makes you feel superior.

[peejunk]

You say art as though it's a dirty word . I do vaguely understand where you're coming from with regard to some forms of atonal music.

No, I just tried to note that I understand many people do split music in artistic and popular, but personally find that division stupid. It's pretty much about that. It has nothing to do with any specific style.

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention in class, but I believe that this view is consistent with that of the people who were teaching me. I think your comments on academia are more a consequence of the snobbery virus that some academic types contract (regardless of what they are studying/teaching) rather than a rule of thumb for classical musicians (knowledge is power...or soething like that!).

I don't have a generalized opinion like that, but in my expirience, a lot of people that get high education in arts do tend to become like that. Well you must take in account that I live in a place where a lot of things work this way.

I do beleive that knowledge is power, I intend to keep expanding mine.

Another point you make is that classical forms existed for such a long period of time, and (correct me if I am wrong) you assume that meant that classical music was somewhat stagnant and formulaic.

No, I meant two things. One is that there weren't large revolutions in a very long period of time and there is, despite that, some great music that worked miniature miracles within that "smaller space". Other is that IMO inovation is not an essential condition for music to be good. While total lack of inovation is boring, I don't think one needs to be revolutionary different to be good (otherwyse, if we were to coldly measure inovation and set some hard treshold for what goes, not much music would be left in the "good music" box). Truth is somewhere inbetween, dare I say further away from the inovation side of things, and closer to whatever that uncatchable essence of what we like is.

Finally, I still think some of these contemporary tendencies in art have become purposeless, and that we now live in a pretty confused world when it comes to understanding and evaluating art (well I'm not crazy about the overall idea of evaluating art at all but..).

[eternia]

I don't have a generalized opinion like that, but in my expirience, a lot of people that get high education in arts do tend to become like that. Well you must take in account that I live in a place where a lot of things work this way.

I think we agree here - if you take "in arts" out of the above quoted paragraph. My point was just that academic snobbery is a more general thing - I used to work closely with academics in the health field - oy vey!

While total lack of inovation is boring, I don't think one needs to be revolutionary different to be good...and...Finally, I still think some of these contemporary tendencies in art have become purposeless, and that we now live in a pretty confused world when it comes to understanding and evaluating art.

Hence my comment about our ever shortening attention spans. It used to be the case that ideas could be given time to ferment - now it all has to be cooked, bagged and sold within 15 minutes or it's in the bin.

I think it is good that there are people who go too far - even though they themselves produce art which is not accessible to the time they live in, it helps give others a perspective/boundary/ideas/etc. Even the tastes of the great unwashed will develop and change over time to eventually accept some of what today is considered too avant-garde. That's exactly what Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was in it's own time - amazing to listen to that now and think that the audience at the premiere found it so atonal and alien that they rioted and trashed the joint - or maybe they were just English football fans .



no_signal Hey, that wasn't adressed to you!
I suspected it wasn't - I just felt like having a paraniod clarification moment - I'm okay now


David

[munchkin]

The fundamental element underlying music since the begining of Modernism has been montage - people's attention spans aren't the cause - modernist culture is the cause of this phenomenon.

Accademics in music and art are fully aware of the influence of modernism on our culture. That's why the ICA in London will hold hip hop nights and the Tate Modern has been opened. If anything there is an inverse snobbery where popular culture is appropriated by artists and musicians.

Culture in the 20th and 21st centuries has developed through the interaction of ideas from all spheres of society. It's driven by the use of montage which is completely different to the way art and music was created pre 20th century.

[whyterabbyt]

I dont like the Montage. I'd rather drive a Dilemma. Nice car the Dilemma.

[CypherOne]

I dont like the Montage. I'd rather drive a Dilemma. Nice car the Dilemma.

I prefer the Paradigm...

[eternia]

The fundamental element underlying music since the begining of Modernism has been montage - people's attention spans aren't the cause - modernist culture is the cause of this phenomenon.

Accademics in music and art are fully aware of the influence of modernism on our culture. That's why the ICA in London will hold hip hop nights and the Tate Modern has been opened. If anything there is an inverse snobbery where popular culture is appropriated by artists and musicians.

Culture in the 20th and 21st centuries has developed through the interaction of ideas from all spheres of society. It's driven by the use of montage which is completely different to the way art and music was created pre 20th century.

Yes, you are right - montage is a common technique in use in modern art and music. But my original comments about attention span were aimed at explaining *part* of the reason why classical music appeared to develop so slowly in comparison to how quickly trends come and go today. I see these two issues as related.

Montage is a perfectly legitimate way to try and come up with new forms (not suggesting that you were saying it wasn't legitimate, btw)- eg Debussy and the influence of gamalan music on his composition - isn't that just a form of "influence montage"?

I also agree that artists have appropriated popular culture - but the question is how "modern" are these artists, and do they represent the avant-garde, or just the acceptable commercial face of modern art. I consider people like Tracey Emit, Damian Hirst, etc to be commercial artists.

Also, how modern is the art in Tate Modern? Don't you think that it is going to predominantly reflect the modern edge of what is currently publicly acceptable? Hasn't popular culture always controlled and influenced the art of the day?

D

[munchkin]

Modernism invented montage and visa versa. All art and music is now based on montage. There was no going back once Modernism was invented. Montage didn't feature in art/music before what has become defined as the advent of Modernism.

Popular culture - is just culture that is popular. It is no less intrinsically valuable than so-called 'high art'. An episode of East Enders is no less important than The Crucible. The difference is that East Enders has a different conceptual basis than Arthur Millers play.

Certain sections of society value Millers play over East Enders. Does that make it more or less important? Personally I'd rather watch Millers play than watch East Enders. East Enders is based on melodrama so it doesn't reflect social interaction nor does it offer an emotional resonance that Millers play has achieved.

But East Enders is shown 3 times a week, is written in a day, is highly popular and serves the purpose for which it is made. As does Millers play. I think the same principle applies to different types of music.

Damian Hirst is one of the greatest artists of the late 20th century. He stands in the same tradition as Picasso, Warhol etc. etc. He is an innovator and moved our ability to conceptualise in a new direction.

[aMUSEd]

Popular culture - is just culture that is popular. It is no less intrinsically valuable than so-called 'high art'. An episode of East Enders is no less important than The Crucible. The difference is that East Enders has a different conceptual basis than Arthur Millers play.

Certain sections of society value Millers play over East Enders. Does that make it more or less important? Personally I'd rather watch Millers play than watch East Enders. East Enders is based on melodrama so it doesn't reflect social interaction nor does it offer an emotional resonance that Millers play has achieved.

But East Enders is shown 3 times a week, is written in a day, is highly popular and serves the purpose for which it is made. As does Millers play. I think the same principle applies to different types of music.

Damian Hirst is one of the greatest artists of the late 20th century. He stands in the same tradition as Picasso, Warhol etc. etc. He is an innovator and moved our ability to conceptualise in a new direction.

I disagree. Miller was dealing with complex human themes, not churning out shallow rubbish designed to stop people thinking beyond the immediate. So called popular culture contain many trends - from people trying to deal with real issues to people who patronise the masses by treating them as if they are a bunch of idiots who can only understand issues if they spelt out in the language of the soap opera. It also includes charlatans like Hirst who's inflated opinion of himself is only exceeded by the inflated price of his works. I think you are in danger of being too relativistic in your assessment - great art does exist in reality - not just in the minds and opinions of the beholder. It is great because it goes beyond superficial appearances and teaches us to see the world with new eyes. Those who produce Soap opera, and many of the current wave of BritPop artists understandably much loved by Thatcherites like Saatchi, share an inability to see much further than their own noses and a patronising and cynical attitude towards their consumers and towards art and culture in general.

[munchkin]

Popular culture - is just culture that is popular. It is no less intrinsically valuable than so-called 'high art'. An episode of East Enders is no less important than The Crucible. The difference is that East Enders has a different conceptual basis than Arthur Millers play.

Certain sections of society value Millers play over East Enders. Does that make it more or less important? Personally I'd rather watch Millers play than watch East Enders. East Enders is based on melodrama so it doesn't reflect social interaction nor does it offer an emotional resonance that Millers play has achieved.

But East Enders is shown 3 times a week, is written in a day, is highly popular and serves the purpose for which it is made. As does Millers play. I think the same principle applies to different types of music.

Damian Hirst is one of the greatest artists of the late 20th century. He stands in the same tradition as Picasso, Warhol etc. etc. He is an innovator and moved our ability to conceptualise in a new direction.

I disagree. Miller was dealing with complex human themes, not churning out shallow rubbish designed to stop people thinking beyond the immediate. So called popular culture contain many trends - from people trying to deal with real issues to people who patronise the masses by treating them as if they are a bunch of idiots who can only understand issues if they spelt out in the language of the soap opera. It also includes charlatans like Hirst who's inflated opinion of himself is only exceeded by the inflated price of his works. I think you are in danger of being too relativistic in your assessment - great art does exist in reality - not just in the minds and opinions of the beholder. It is great because it goes beyond superficial appearances and teaches us to see the world with new eyes. Those who produce Soap opera, and many of the current wave of BritPop artists understandably much loved by Thatcherites like Saatchi, share an inability to see much further than their own noses and a patronising and cynical attitude towards their consumers and towards art and culture in general.

The contrast you make between the Crucible and East Enders is valid and one that I highlighted but that doesn't mean that one is more valid than the other or has more right to exist. Which I think is the subtext to this discussion about the merits of certain types of music.

As you claim, in the field of art, certain art is elevated beyond those of others. Your assessment of Hirst is based more upon prejudice towards his benefactors than an objective analysis of his art IMO.

I agree that we must use our critical faculties to evaluate any form of culture but when the discussion turns towards denegrating one form of culture while elevating another I think that it veers dangerously towards elitism.

Brecht is a great example of how to incorporate popular forms of performance and using those forms to present a political and meaningful debate on stage. Sometimes simplicity/popularism can reach and affect greater numbers of people. I don't believe in the concepts of capitalist art/culture or socialist art/culture, good art or bad art. There is just art and culture. Some of it is better at revealing the contradictions in society than others.