Totally agree with you, subtlearts, on all counts. The issue really boils down to not only artistic integrity, but *personal* integrity as well, in my opinion. Frankly, I've never understood any "musician" that disrespects their audience by giving less than their best performance, whatever that may be at the moment. As long as the artist is doing what they sincerely feel, as opposed to pandering shamelessly, it's valid, as far as I'm concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with pandering to audiences from a commercial standpoint. The old "first rule of business" addage, "Give 'em what they want." is very true if one is looking for fame and fortune.

BTW, subtlearts, I laughed out loud when you said "Whoa there tiger." in response to layez. Given your avatar, that's pretty funny. ;>)

Hey, layez, could you elaborate a bit on this statement from your previous post? I'm curious as to exactly what/who you're talking about. Here's the quote: "I also think that a large portion of classical music is overtly intellectual and condescending, not just avant-gard jazz." This is an interesting topic all by itself. I for one, think that some of the "out there" jazz is actually pretty condescending. I mean, there *are* certain aesthetic considerations in all art forms. One really can't go against what seems to be basic human nature and expect to be applauded for it by the masses. Meaning, "artists" who play/compose completely atonal or painfully dissonant music shouldn't expect the general population to like, let alone relate to, their "masterpieces". Subtlearts hit it on the head when he said "by and large I find it pretentious and unfulfilling", above. I'm curious as to which composers of the "classical" genre you consider to be in this classification.

ORIGINAL: layez

Totally agree with you, subtlearts, on all counts. The issue really boils down to not only artistic integrity, but *personal* integrity as well, in my opinion. Frankly, I've never understood any "musician" that disrespects their audience by giving less than their best performance, whatever that may be at the moment. As long as the artist is doing what they sincerely feel, as opposed to pandering shamelessly, it's valid, as far as I'm concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with pandering to audiences from a commercial standpoint. The old "first rule of business" addage, "Give 'em what they want." is very true if one is looking for fame and fortune.

BTW, subtlearts, I laughed out loud when you said "Whoa there tiger." in response to layez. Given your avatar, that's pretty funny. ;>)

Hey, layez, could you elaborate a bit on this statement from your previous post? I'm curious as to exactly what/who you're talking about. Here's the quote: "I also think that a large portion of classical music is overtly intellectual and condescending, not just avant-gard jazz." This is an interesting topic all by itself. I for one, think that some of the "out there" jazz is actually pretty condescending. I mean, there *are* certain aesthetic considerations in all art forms. One really can't go against what seems to be basic human nature and expect to be applauded for it by the masses. Meaning, "artists" who play/compose completely atonal or painfully dissonant music shouldn't expect the general population to like, let alone relate to, their "masterpieces". Subtlearts hit it on the head when he said "by and large I find it pretentious and unfulfilling", above. I'm curious as to which composers of the "classical" genre you consider to be in this classification.

I need to give a disclaimer that these are only my personal opinions, and they only apply to me and dont have to apply to anyone else.

Naturally.

First i must say that i wholeheartedly disagree with this comment >>>"Not that there's anything wrong with pandering to audiences from a commercial standpoint. The old "first rule of business" addage, "Give 'em what they want." is very true if one is looking for fame and fortune".

I suspect you may have taken that comment out of context. Read the previous sentence, which is in full agreement with your statement above. I was merely adding that, in my view, anybody that *wants* to approach their music from a commercial standpoint is fine with me. It's not the choice I'd make for myself, but everyone is different, eh? ;>)

That goes against every principle i stand for as an artist. Not that musicians and artists shouldnt be paid, and perhaps paid very well, but i think it is a total copout to base ones art on crowd response. It might be an economically viable choice, but a testicleless one nonetheless. Id rather work my job and do what i want with my art. I think musicians need to be selfish to a point and put their vision first, if it happens to be commercially accessible then so be it. This doesnt mean that an artist should be intentionally alienating, because that is garbage too. A lot of outjazz and dischordant music is meticulously crafted. However, if their music happens to be inaccessible to the public than so be it; they wont be paid for it but at least they have their integrity. Did the Beatles deserve every penny they made? hell yes, and some. they did what they wanted to and people lapped it up. They were just that good at it and it happened to be extremely accessible.

I agree with all of the above. Perhaps I could have said it more clearly.

>>>Frankly, I've never understood any "musician" that disrespects their audience by giving less than their best performance

And who is to say that an outjazz artist playing for 100 people is playing "less than their best" because the style is not marketable!? thats rediculous!

I never said that. Here's what I said: "The issue really boils down to not only artistic integrity, but *personal* integrity as well, in my opinion. Frankly, I've never understood any "musician" that disrespects their audience by giving less than their best performance, whatever that may be at the moment." What I was trying to say was, whatever one plays, at whatever venue, for however many people, it should be done with the highest standards of both artistic and personal integrity, which I *think* is in agreement with your response. When I said "I've never understood any "musician" that disrespects their audience by giving less than their best performance." I meant it literally. I simply don't have time for the guys that get up on a stage and go through the motions. This has absolutely *nothing* to do with what the style of the music is, whether it's atonal or marketable, whatsoever.

I happen to like some "atonal" music not because it is conceptual or because it is 'hip', i like it for its face value.

Me, too. I certainly never meant to imply that I don't have an appreciation for a great deal of atonal, 12-tone, out-jazz, music concrete, electonic music and just about any other form of music. Good is good, as a famous musician (Dizzy Gillespe?) once said, meaning genre is irrelevant if the music moves you. I was merely asking for your opinion about which *classical* composers you feel were "overtly intellectual and condescending". I think it's an interesting topic of discussion, that's all. I am fairly well schooled in the compositional aspects of music, having gone to music school and gotten my degree in music composition and theory. I've played, studied the scores of, and listened to a great variety of music, from plain chant to electronica and I've composed a lot of music that is lacking any tonal center or melody, relying on texture and color to take their traditional place. So, I have an appreciation of non-traditional music, as well as the "classics".

Plus, i think that within some outjazz and freer music, there is more room for open expressions and one can achieve the largest variety of timbre and color. Traditional classical music is extremely limited within its ability to achieve a variety of timbre as it is confined to bowed instruments, woodwinds, metal winds, and percussion: a total of 5 timbres.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I mean, besides electric/electronic instruments, what is being done in "outjazz and freer" music that can't be done with a traditional symphony orchestra? I'm not being a wise guy, I'm curious to know because I'm not that familiar with "outjazz", etc.. To say that a traditional sypmphony orchestra is limited to five timbres is simply not true. Perhaps we don't have the same definition of "timbre". Sure, there may be five main groups of instruments, but within those groups there are many different instruments, each with their own timbre. In addition, composers combine the various instruments in creative ways to achieve even more timbres. Add to those aspects the fact that composers are always coming up with inventive new ways to play/use symphnonic instruments and the sound pallette is pretty extensive. Obvioulsy, a traditional symphony doesn't include electronic instruments, but it's certainly not unusual to see electronic instruments being used in orchestras today.

This same formula has been beat to death for hundreds of years, how much variety do you think can be achieved there that hasnt been achieved before?

The very fact that music is still being written for the traditional orchestra would seem to imply that there's still some new tricks left in it, at least in the minds of modern composers. Variety from the orchestra, or new sounds, etc., are limited essentially by the minds of composers, not the instruments, themselves. Modern players can do things with those old instruments that players of even the fairly recent past would never have dreamed of.

Most classical music of the past 100 years is overly-intellectual, condescending, garbage to my ears.

Hey, we finally got to the question I originally asked! ;>) So, who are the culprits in your mind? For me, while I can appreciate the intellectual value of guys like, say, Webern and Berg, Stockhausen and others from the same era, I simply don't enjoy listening to their music. It's somehow unapproachable to me, whereas someone like Penderecki absolutely rivets me to my chair. Like you say, it may be just the aesthetic differences that make me like one composer over another.

Outjazz isnt a music i listen to all the time, nor is it a style id dedicate my life to mastering, but there are masters of 'atonal' music nonetheless whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. I still really enjoy pop music, so im not just standing up for painfully dischordant music. I think it has merit, but you certainly are not obliged to agree.

Not sure where the idea came from that I'm opposed to atonal, dischordant, or any other type of music. I sure as heck didn't mean to give that idea. In any case, I'm sure I've cleared that notion up now. ;>)

We could probably find more musical common ground than you think .

Undoubtedly!

Bill

So, who are the culprits in your mind? For me, while I can appreciate the intellectual value of guys like, say, Webern and Berg, Stockhausen and others from the same era, I simply don't enjoy listening to their music. It's somehow unapproachable to me, whereas someone like Penderecki absolutely rivets me to my chair. Like you say, it may be just the aesthetic differences that make me like one composer over another.

ORIGINAL: layez

Yes, conversation through electronic media can very easily be ambiguous.

So, who are the culprits in your mind? For me, while I can appreciate the intellectual value of guys like, say, Webern and Berg, Stockhausen and others from the same era, I simply don't enjoy listening to their music. It's somehow unapproachable to me, whereas someone like Penderecki absolutely rivets me to my chair. Like you say, it may be just the aesthetic differences that make me like one composer over another.

well... i guess we arent going to find common ground here I like these guys as well as Cage, Boulez, Glass, Xenakis, and Bartok.

I am not familiar with the composer that you metion, but perhaps i will check it out.

If you have patience for repetative melodies, you should really give Gavin Bryars 'Sinking of the Titanic' a shot, i think its a masterpiece but it requires an amount of patience not found in most individuals in a contemporary fast paced society. Even i can listen to it only every few months when i can dedicate 60 minutes and be in the right mood, but i find it thoroughly rewarding.

Gotta run. If you have any other suggestions for Eastern european composers, be sure to let me know!

ORIGINAL: skullsession

No....foosball's da Debbil!!!


Autotune is just an easy way to get a fool out of your vocal booth.