Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Music - a commodity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity [message #62801 is a reply to message #62798] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 14:17   |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm shocked, shocked! that you would choose to ignore the clear
effects of technology and commoditization upon the arts!
heh heh
Now, play some Alban Berg, or heck, some Morton Lauridsen or even
Barber before your next show and notice a few folks asking you
"what was that cool music?" afterwards.
I've done it, and you have to ask how anything other than
commodity-music gets any exposure today?
Know anyone that had a required music-appreciation course in
college who is under 40?
Even Adorno wasn't wrong about everything.
DC
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Blah blah blah. Fatigue of the machine age, the emptiness of modernity,
blah
>blah blah. I'm reading a book about the building of the trans-continental
>railway in the US. I'm sure the indentured Chinese laborers had a much "deeper
>emotional involvement with music" blah blah blah. Theodor Adorno wrote "The
>Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in freaking 1936, so
blah
>blah blah can't we just go find music we like and listen to it however we
>want to?
>
>"DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>>
>>I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
>>new and challenging music is being made.
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D - a Commodity (reply 2) [message #62826 is a reply to message #62794] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 20:51 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D rendered
version of Popeye. 3D commercial everythings. 3D knobs on VSTis. 3D desktops.
3D CGI effects everywhere.
Kids nowadays don't even have to read books and imagine for a second what
a real 3D world would be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion
fries!
Oh wait. We're in a real 3D world. I forgot.
**start again**
You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
car in your driveway. 3D stores and businesses, staffed with 3D people. Real
3D instruments, that make real noises. 3D desks. The entire world, once you
know what to look for (from studying modern 3D CGI effects) is in 3D!
Kids nowadays don't even have to look at 3D video games (much less red and
green lensed 3D glasses!) and imagine for a second what a real 3D world would
be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion fries!
This commodification of the 3D world is just cheapening the experience.
It's getting as bad as real stereo sound. I can remember when that 3D Stereophonic
Demonstration record was new - the one with the locomotive on it. Soon thereafter,
if a person happened to be next to a real train, the first thing they'd think
is, hey, that's almost as good a stereo effect as that locomotive on the
Stereo Demo Record!
Now, with everyone plugged into their iPods, stereo sound is just a cheapened
commodity!
But, seriously, the world of Simulated Reality has so infiltrated Authentic
Experience that few even notice it anymore.
It's curious that that article relates back to the 1800s, before Edison,
since that was when things were either Real or imagined through Reading.
The claims it makes for iPods strike me as bogus, since virtually the same
claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
-steve the artguy
yes, I have a cold. That is my excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D - a Commodity (reply 2) [message #62830 is a reply to message #62826] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 21:10 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnartichokespittle.net> wrote:
>virtually the same
>claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
>television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
That would be true, and I'd suggest that each of those steps did, in fact,
cheapen the experience, hence those claims were all actually valid, as is
this one. The steps were each small, but I'd suggest that prior to radio
and recorded music, hearing music in any form would have been a much more
treasured experience.
In any case, prior to this technology, music was a tribal/social event. Nowadays,
with an IPod, it's an isolating event.
News was once news. Now it's largely infotainment. It all got cheaper along
the way. It was a gradual process, but it's been happenning...
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62834 is a reply to message #62824] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 21:44 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
have suspected:
That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
pretty much everyone did it.
Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
with most of us, it does.
Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
Hence; bad music.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62836 is a reply to message #62834] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 22:43 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Very interesting stuff. It does make sense that with nothing else to do people
would learn an instrument.
And one sense, the instruments WERE the MP3 players of the day. No doubt
there were voices back then complaining that "with all this new fandangled
musical instrument technology we're losing the art of conversation"...
and they may have been correct also. At least playing exercised the mind
and promoted self discipline though...
....as opposed to promoting a generation of "give me more and give me now"...
Cheers,
Kim.
"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>
>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>
>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>have suspected:
>
>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>
>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>
>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>pretty much everyone did it.
>
>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>with most of us, it does.
>
>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>
>Hence; bad music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D - a Commodity (reply 2) [message #62855 is a reply to message #62853] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 04:54 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>are you telling me that i don't really need to know??? i remember
>when the news weather and sports took 15 minutes.
Here in Oz, on one of the major three commercial channels as well as the
(generally better IMO) government world channel, the late news and weather
take 1/2 hour and sport then gets it's own 1/2 hour. Of course in the commercial
network by the time you take out the weather, the finance report, the Hollywood
story, and the cat stuck up a tree, you probably get about 3 proper news
stories...
....of course it is, and always has been, far more important that we know
the in depth on the upcoming tennis tournament than, say, an upcoming election
or war...
<rant off>
A Sheez.... new I should have gone to bed straight after posting on Don's
blog... ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D - a Commodity (reply 2) [message #62858 is a reply to message #62826] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 08:22 |
emarenot
Messages: 345
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I seem to recall that there was a bit of a row when "the novel" became
popular :-)
MR
"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnartichokespittle.net> wrote in message
news:43c480c0$1@linux...
>
> You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
rendered
> version of Popeye. 3D commercial everythings. 3D knobs on VSTis. 3D
desktops.
> 3D CGI effects everywhere.
>
> Kids nowadays don't even have to read books and imagine for a second what
> a real 3D world would be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of
onion
> fries!
>
> Oh wait. We're in a real 3D world. I forgot.
>
> **start again**
>
> You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
> car in your driveway. 3D stores and businesses, staffed with 3D people.
Real
> 3D instruments, that make real noises. 3D desks. The entire world, once
you
> know what to look for (from studying modern 3D CGI effects) is in 3D!
>
> Kids nowadays don't even have to look at 3D video games (much less red and
> green lensed 3D glasses!) and imagine for a second what a real 3D world
would
> be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion fries!
>
> This commodification of the 3D world is just cheapening the experience.
>
> It's getting as bad as real stereo sound. I can remember when that 3D
Stereophonic
> Demonstration record was new - the one with the locomotive on it. Soon
thereafter,
> if a person happened to be next to a real train, the first thing they'd
think
> is, hey, that's almost as good a stereo effect as that locomotive on the
> Stereo Demo Record!
>
> Now, with everyone plugged into their iPods, stereo sound is just a
cheapened
> commodity!
>
> But, seriously, the world of Simulated Reality has so infiltrated
Authentic
> Experience that few even notice it anymore.
>
> It's curious that that article relates back to the 1800s, before Edison,
> since that was when things were either Real or imagined through Reading.
> The claims it makes for iPods strike me as bogus, since virtually the same
> claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
> television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
>
> -steve the artguy
>
> yes, I have a cold. That is my excuse.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D - a Commodity (reply 2) [message #62859 is a reply to message #62826] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 07:19 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Damn right, Steve. And don't forget, we used to get along JUST FINE without
all this 3D crap lying around. Sure, it made getting the pasta and boiling
water into the colandar a little tricker, but after a few bouts with third
degree burns you'd learn to put the pot in in the same place and check the
damn thing to be sure both handles were visible from the front BEFORE boiling
the water. These days, I mean, kids just walk up to the stove, check the
pasta to see if it's done (do you believe that? they actually get a fork
out and pull out a strand to be sure it's done, no fear of buring themselves)
and then absentmindedly grab the pot and drain the pasta! All because of
all of this 3D stuff.
And if you think it's all great, this 3D crap? The other day I was hanging
out with my grandfather and we were talking. Kids can't even freaking SEE
these days. By the time he was nine he could have run a factory with one
eye closed and two prosthetic limbs. It just doesn't MEAN anything these
days.
TCB
"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnartichokespittle.net> wrote:
>
>You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
rendered
>version of Popeye. 3D commercial everythings. 3D knobs on VSTis. 3D desktops.
>3D CGI effects everywhere.
>
>Kids nowadays don't even have to read books and imagine for a second what
>a real 3D world would be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of
onion
>fries!
>
>Oh wait. We're in a real 3D world. I forgot.
>
>**start again**
>
>You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
>car in your driveway. 3D stores and businesses, staffed with 3D people.
Real
>3D instruments, that make real noises. 3D desks. The entire world, once
you
>know what to look for (from studying modern 3D CGI effects) is in 3D!
>
>Kids nowadays don't even have to look at 3D video games (much less red and
>green lensed 3D glasses!) and imagine for a second what a real 3D world
would
>be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion fries!
>
>This commodification of the 3D world is just cheapening the experience.
>
>It's getting as bad as real stereo sound. I can remember when that 3D Stereophonic
>Demonstration record was new - the one with the locomotive on it. Soon thereafter,
>if a person happened to be next to a real train, the first thing they'd
think
>is, hey, that's almost as good a stereo effect as that locomotive on the
>Stereo Demo Record!
>
>Now, with everyone plugged into their iPods, stereo sound is just a cheapened
>commodity!
>
>But, seriously, the world of Simulated Reality has so infiltrated Authentic
>Experience that few even notice it anymore.
>
>It's curious that that article relates back to the 1800s, before Edison,
>since that was when things were either Real or imagined through Reading.
>The claims it makes for iPods strike me as bogus, since virtually the same
>claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
>television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
>
>-steve the artguy
>
>yes, I have a cold. That is my excuse.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62860 is a reply to message #62834] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 07:33 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OF COURSE the level of AVERAGE musicianship among orchestral musicians of
the 19th century would have been higher than today. There were more opportunities
for those type of musicians to work then, and training for classical musicians
has not changed dramtically since then. So, more jobs * same average talent
* similar training = better average musicians. No great mystery there.
Your original post referred to an article that claimed *listeners* have changed.
That's true, of course, people are differnet today than they were 150 years
ago, but I find it hard to believe that people with a vastly greater array
of music choices would find music less meaningful. Me, I like modernity.
If I want Thai food I walk two blocks from my house and order some. In the
gorgeous 19th century I'd have had to get on a steam (or even sailing) ship
and travel 'round South America to a French colony called Siam just for some
chicken pad-see-u. Does this mean that food *means* less to me?
TCB
"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>
>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>
>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>have suspected:
>
>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>
>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>
>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>pretty much everyone did it.
>
>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>with most of us, it does.
>
>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>
>Hence; bad music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62891 is a reply to message #62860] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 13:07 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>OF COURSE the level of AVERAGE musicianship among orchestral musicians of
>the 19th century would have been higher than today. There were more opportunities
>for those type of musicians to work then, and training for classical musicians
>has not changed dramtically since then. So, more jobs * same average talent
>* similar training = better average musicians. No great mystery there.
Where did they come from? Average homes where they sang
non-classical songs and played non-classical tunes, and learned
to listen to music. This has an effect far outside of the orchestral
world as you should know.
At any rate, there are millions more classical musicians, many more
good schools, and orchestras, and many new ways of teaching
today, but all that is really irrelevant.
>Your original post referred to an article that claimed *listeners* have
changed.
>That's true, of course, people are differnet today than they were 150 years
>ago, but I find it hard to believe that people with a vastly greater array
>of music choices would find music less meaningful.
Did you read the article? I don't think "choices" was causal...
The very *idea* of meaning is laughable to many musicians today
so what should the public do? Well they listen to tired oldies don't
they, and some search for great new stuff and sometimes find it,
while many embrace a postmodern world so as not to lose any self respect
as a sophisticated person.
>Me, I like modernity.
But that is a period style too! Nothing new there. Even "shocking
the bourgoisie" is boring.
>If I want Thai food I walk two blocks from my house and order some. In the
>gorgeous 19th century
Just a minute, **straw man alert**
The concept here is improving musicianship and the appreciation
of music in our time. Try to stay on-topic...
>I'd have had to get on a steam (or even sailing) ship
>and travel 'round South America to a French colony called Siam just for
some
>chicken pad-see-u. Does this mean that food *means* less to me?
Of course it does. The trip would have elevated the food to a near
religious experience.
Go to your local church, sing a cute song or two. Now take a boat
to Borobudur. Now climb the site slowly, and you cannot go further
until you understand each scene in front of you. Above lies
enlightenment. 10 years later, you reach the summit...
Which experience (regardless of you personal beliefs) is likely to be
more intense and meangingful? (assuming of course that you
could find it within yourself to give Borobudur that much of your
time, and do so sincerely)
No one is suggesting that we return to any other time, nor make
things arbitrarily more difficult.
I would suggest that there are lessons to be learned however.
Just a thought...
DC
>
>TCB
>
>"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>>
>>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>>
>>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>>have suspected:
>>
>>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>>
>>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>>
>>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
>>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>>pretty much everyone did it.
>>
>>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>>with most of us, it does.
>>
>>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>>
>>Hence; bad music.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62914 is a reply to message #62891] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 19:29 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spamyermama.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>OF COURSE the level of AVERAGE musicianship among orchestral musicians
of
>>the 19th century would have been higher than today. There were more opportunities
>>for those type of musicians to work then, and training for classical musicians
>>has not changed dramtically since then. So, more jobs * same average talent
>>* similar training = better average musicians. No great mystery there.
>
>
>Where did they come from? Average homes where they sang
>non-classical songs and played non-classical tunes, and learned
>to listen to music. This has an effect far outside of the orchestral
>world as you should know.
Ah yes, those average nineteenth century homes, where the music rang to the
rafters as the four generations ranged 'round the dinner table. After a day
avoiding cholera and working in the fish gutting shacks of the Lower East
Side who WASN'T inspired to song?
>At any rate, there are millions more classical musicians, many more
>good schools, and orchestras, and many new ways of teaching
>today, but all that is really irrelevant.
There are more musicians, for sure, but has the teaching changed all that
much? I mean, when my golf pro works with my swing we have fast motion video
and a host of other technology tools that have changed the way people learn
to swing a golf club. Sam Snead and Ben Hogan had no such tools. But is learning
to play classical fiddle reall all THAT different than it was in 1900?
>
>>Your original post referred to an article that claimed *listeners* have
>changed.
>>That's true, of course, people are differnet today than they were 150 years
>>ago, but I find it hard to believe that people with a vastly greater array
>>of music choices would find music less meaningful.
>
>
>Did you read the article? I don't think "choices" was causal...
>
>The very *idea* of meaning is laughable to many musicians today
>so what should the public do? Well they listen to tired oldies don't
>they, and some search for great new stuff and sometimes find it,
>while many embrace a postmodern world so as not to lose any self respect
>as a sophisticated person.
>
Why is the idea of meaning lacking in musicians now? You're losing me here.
>
>>Me, I like modernity.
>
>But that is a period style too! Nothing new there. Even "shocking
>the bourgoisie" is boring.
I meant not a particular style but the general state of the modern world,
where I can listen to music from across the planet and drive to work and
fly to Japan and so on. And as far as "shocking the bourgoisie" I work 60
hour weeks for an organization that manages $15 billion. To be more establishment
I'd need to make partner at Goldman Sachs.
>
>>If I want Thai food I walk two blocks from my house and order some. In
the
>>gorgeous 19th century
>
>Just a minute, **straw man alert**
>
>The concept here is improving musicianship and the appreciation
>of music in our time. Try to stay on-topic...
No, the question was whether "nobody *cares* anymore" about music, and whether
there was some previous era in which people did. I use the example of food
because it's a great example of how modernity allows us to become *more*
passionate and interested in things. Had I lived in the time you talk about
my musical and culinary horizon would have been severely limited to what
I could find within a few miles of myself. Instead, today I can enjoy the
dub of Jamaica and the electronica of Berlin and the hip hop of Oakland all
in the same day.
>
>>I'd have had to get on a steam (or even sailing) ship
>>and travel 'round South America to a French colony called Siam just for
>some
>>chicken pad-see-u. Does this mean that food *means* less to me?
>
>Of course it does. The trip would have elevated the food to a near
>religious experience.
>
>Go to your local church, sing a cute song or two. Now take a boat
>to Borobudur. Now climb the site slowly, and you cannot go further
>until you understand each scene in front of you. Above lies
>enlightenment. 10 years later, you reach the summit...
>
>Which experience (regardless of you personal beliefs) is likely to be
>more intense and meangingful? (assuming of course that you
>could find it within yourself to give Borobudur that much of your
>time, and do so sincerely)
Glad you made that point so I don't have to. Had I the means and time in
1850 to dedicate three years to getting Thai food I could have had some and
it would have registered as more exotic, though not necessarily more meaningful.
As far as the stuff about what's meaningful, and that only difficult things
can be so, I think that's bunk. I've had lots of incredibly unmeaningful
experiences that were crushing hard work and some enourmously meaningful
experiences that were easy like Sunday morning.
But if you'll excuse me, I have to restring two guitars right now so I can
play a show tomorrow tonight. Which I probably shouldn't bother doing since
nobody really cares about music anymore.
TCB
>No one is suggesting that we return to any other time, nor make
>things arbitrarily more difficult.
>
>I would suggest that there are lessons to be learned however.
>
>Just a thought...
>
>DC
>
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>>>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>>>
>>>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>>>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>>>have suspected:
>>>
>>>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>>>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>>>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>>>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>>>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>>>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>>>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>>>
>>>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>>>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>>>
>>>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>>>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music
than
>>>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>>>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>>>pretty much everyone did it.
>>>
>>>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>>>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>>>with most of us, it does.
>>>
>>>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>>>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>>>
>>>Hence; bad music.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62928 is a reply to message #62914] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 23:02 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>Ah yes, those average nineteenth century homes, where the music rang to
the
>rafters as the four generations ranged 'round the dinner table. After a
day
>avoiding cholera and working in the fish gutting shacks of the Lower East
>Side who WASN'T inspired to song?
Is there a point here?
>There are more musicians, for sure, but has the teaching changed all that
>much? I mean, when my golf pro works with my swing we have fast motion video
>and a host of other technology tools that have changed the way people learn
>to swing a golf club. Sam Snead and Ben Hogan had no such tools. But is
learning
>to play classical fiddle reall all THAT different than it was in 1900?
I used to teach recording in a university music dept. Oh yeah, things
have changed. Apple donated a whole slew of DAW's and notation
apps and lots of other stuff. Even trumpet players have to learn
how to use them.
Things have changed quite a bit, but some things remain the same.
It was most interesting though to see Claude bringing back
techniques that had been mostly lost, so sometimes things can
come from unexpected directions as well.
>Why is the idea of meaning lacking in musicians now? You're losing me here.
Well, I think you are aware of the absurdist bent in many
contemporary bands. As a matter of fact, I think you actually
participate in it, don't you?
Nothing wrong with it, we had Captain Beefheart years ago too,
but the very idea of music being a positive social force is pretty
laughable to most of us now, wouldn't you agree?
Certainly there are many musicians with a strong message, but
it is getting harder and harder to get the message through the
merchandizing. Sometimes, to paraphrase McLuhan, the celebrity
is the message. Or the boobs, or the booty, or the gangster image,
or the naughty bits, or even the cynical humor.
>>>Me, I like modernity.
>>But that is a period style too! Nothing new there. Even "shocking
>>the bourgoisie" is boring.
>I meant not a particular style but the general state of the modern world,
>where I can listen to music from across the planet and drive to work and
>fly to Japan and so on. And as far as "shocking the bourgoisie" I work 60
>hour weeks for an organization that manages $15 billion. To be more establishment
>I'd need to make partner at Goldman Sachs.
Well, I painted with too broad a brush, but you must admit that
modernity too, may have run its course. I hope not, since I too
am very glad I live in our age. One of the beauties of this freedom
we have today is the freedom to reject the ideology of the new,
and the belief of constant revolutionary changes. Sometimes an
old, buggy POS orphan DAW makes a hit record, fer instance.
There you go.
To be truly modern, IMO, is to be able to synthesize the best from
all eras, without rejecting something because it is not of our
generation. My kid trains with an old Japanese karate
teacher. There will never be anything like him again, because the
world that created him is forever gone. But we can write books
and tell stories, and integrate some of him into our world. Doing so
makes it much richer and better.
It is the ideology of the new and obsolesence that I reject, not
modernity. Modernity beats sharia every time.
>No, the question was whether "nobody *cares* anymore" about music, and whether
>there was some previous era in which people did. I use the example of food
>because it's a great example of how modernity allows us to become *more*
>passionate and interested in things. Had I lived in the time you talk about
>my musical and culinary horizon would have been severely limited to what
>I could find within a few miles of myself. Instead, today I can enjoy the
>dub of Jamaica and the electronica of Berlin and the hip hop of Oakland
all
>in the same day.
And understand none of it.
Well, you would understand it, but many others will not even hear it
and you do not explain how they ever will nor what educational
process will expose them to it.
>Glad you made that point so I don't have to. Had I the means and time in
>1850 to dedicate three years to getting Thai food I could have had some
and
>it would have registered as more exotic, though not necessarily more meaningful.
I think the commitment required to experience it would have made it
nearly mystical to you.
There is a difference between listening to the Saint-Saens 3rd
Symphony, never having heard it before, in a great hall with a
monster pipe organ, and listening to it on a download from an
iPod.
There is. You know there is. With the first, there is an assent to
the work made by you, just by going to the event, dressing up,
paying good money for a ticket, hearing it with many other people,
and the real acoustics of the room. With an iPod, you can
listen in your underwear, while watching Hulk Hogan.
This is analogous to Neil Postman's point that it is hard to take
the TV preacher seriously when you know that there are detectives
on the next channel and wrestling on the other.
The preacher is merely another entertainment option.
With my Media Tech classes, I call this "The Hulk Hogan effect".
Now you can make the point that we lose something, yet gain
something from every shift in technology, but I will always respond
that unless we are *aware* of what we are losing, we may not gain
as much as we could have.
Hence the article.
>As far as the stuff about what's meaningful, and that only difficult things
>can be so, I think that's bunk. I've had lots of incredibly unmeaningful
>experiences that were crushing hard work and some enourmously meaningful
>experiences that were easy like Sunday morning.
I did not make that point. Some very worthwhile things are very
difficult, yet I love "Surfin' Bird too.
Ooh Mah mah, papa ohh ma ma ma...
It is a shock to find that those backwards folks from the 19th
century were better at some stuff, and there are lessons to be
learned there.
BTW, I did not find those pieces that almost no one could play today
to be particularly interesting. My point is that the ideology of
constant progress and newness can blind as well as enlighten.
>But if you'll excuse me, I have to restring two guitars right now so I can
>play a show tomorrow tonight. Which I probably shouldn't bother doing since
>nobody really cares about music anymore.
Whew! Another straw man! Terrific. Hey, the article is *evidence*
that people care about music, and so is your audience. Nonetheless
I think they are on to something.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62935 is a reply to message #62928] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 06:55 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, I have it now. For music to have "meaning" it has to have a social agenda
and be "positive" and make the world better and so on. And the increasingcommodification/globaization/star-systemization
of music means that is less possible, etc etc. Using those presuppositions
(which I don't) you're right, so it's clear now.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>>Ah yes, those average nineteenth century homes, where the music rang to
>the
>>rafters as the four generations ranged 'round the dinner table. After a
>day
>>avoiding cholera and working in the fish gutting shacks of the Lower East
>>Side who WASN'T inspired to song?
>
>Is there a point here?
>
>
>>There are more musicians, for sure, but has the teaching changed all that
>>much? I mean, when my golf pro works with my swing we have fast motion
video
>>and a host of other technology tools that have changed the way people learn
>>to swing a golf club. Sam Snead and Ben Hogan had no such tools. But is
>learning
>>to play classical fiddle reall all THAT different than it was in 1900?
>
>
>I used to teach recording in a university music dept. Oh yeah, things
>have changed. Apple donated a whole slew of DAW's and notation
>apps and lots of other stuff. Even trumpet players have to learn
>how to use them.
>
>Things have changed quite a bit, but some things remain the same.
>
>It was most interesting though to see Claude bringing back
>techniques that had been mostly lost, so sometimes things can
>come from unexpected directions as well.
>
>
>>Why is the idea of meaning lacking in musicians now? You're losing me here.
>
>Well, I think you are aware of the absurdist bent in many
>contemporary bands. As a matter of fact, I think you actually
>participate in it, don't you?
>
>Nothing wrong with it, we had Captain Beefheart years ago too,
>but the very idea of music being a positive social force is pretty
>laughable to most of us now, wouldn't you agree?
>
>Certainly there are many musicians with a strong message, but
>it is getting harder and harder to get the message through the
>merchandizing. Sometimes, to paraphrase McLuhan, the celebrity
>is the message. Or the boobs, or the booty, or the gangster image,
>or the naughty bits, or even the cynical humor.
>
>
>>>>Me, I like modernity.
>
>>>But that is a period style too! Nothing new there. Even "shocking
>>>the bourgoisie" is boring.
>
>>I meant not a particular style but the general state of the modern world,
>>where I can listen to music from across the planet and drive to work and
>>fly to Japan and so on. And as far as "shocking the bourgoisie" I work
60
>>hour weeks for an organization that manages $15 billion. To be more establishment
>>I'd need to make partner at Goldman Sachs.
>
>Well, I painted with too broad a brush, but you must admit that
>modernity too, may have run its course. I hope not, since I too
>am very glad I live in our age. One of the beauties of this freedom
>we have today is the freedom to reject the ideology of the new,
>and the belief of constant revolutionary changes. Sometimes an
>old, buggy POS orphan DAW makes a hit record, fer instance.
>
>There you go.
>
>To be truly modern, IMO, is to be able to synthesize the best from
>all eras, without rejecting something because it is not of our
>generation. My kid trains with an old Japanese karate
>teacher. There will never be anything like him again, because the
>world that created him is forever gone. But we can write books
>and tell stories, and integrate some of him into our world. Doing so
>makes it much richer and better.
>
>It is the ideology of the new and obsolesence that I reject, not
>modernity. Modernity beats sharia every time.
>
>
>
>>No, the question was whether "nobody *cares* anymore" about music, and
whether
>>there was some previous era in which people did. I use the example of food
>>because it's a great example of how modernity allows us to become *more*
>>passionate and interested in things. Had I lived in the time you talk about
>>my musical and culinary horizon would have been severely limited to what
>>I could find within a few miles of myself. Instead, today I can enjoy the
>>dub of Jamaica and the electronica of Berlin and the hip hop of Oakland
>all
>>in the same day.
>
>
>And understand none of it.
>
>Well, you would understand it, but many others will not even hear it
>and you do not explain how they ever will nor what educational
>process will expose them to it.
>
>
>
>>Glad you made that point so I don't have to. Had I the means and time in
>>1850 to dedicate three years to getting Thai food I could have had some
>and
>>it would have registered as more exotic, though not necessarily more meaningful.
>
>
>I think the commitment required to experience it would have made it
>nearly mystical to you.
>
>There is a difference between listening to the Saint-Saens 3rd
>Symphony, never having heard it before, in a great hall with a
>monster pipe organ, and listening to it on a download from an
>iPod.
>
>There is. You know there is. With the first, there is an assent to
>the work made by you, just by going to the event, dressing up,
>paying good money for a ticket, hearing it with many other people,
>and the real acoustics of the room. With an iPod, you can
>listen in your underwear, while watching Hulk Hogan.
>
>This is analogous to Neil Postman's point that it is hard to take
>the TV preacher seriously when you know that there are detectives
>on the next channel and wrestling on the other.
>
>The preacher is merely another entertainment option.
>
>With my Media Tech classes, I call this "The Hulk Hogan effect".
>
>Now you can make the point that we lose something, yet gain
>something from every shift in technology, but I will always respond
>that unless we are *aware* of what we are losing, we may not gain
>as much as we could have.
>
>Hence the article.
>
>
>>As far as the stuff about what's meaningful, and that only difficult things
>>can be so, I think that's bunk. I've had lots of incredibly unmeaningful
>>experiences that were crushing hard work and some enourmously meaningful
>>experiences that were easy like Sunday morning.
>
>I did not make that point. Some very worthwhile things are very
>difficult, yet I love "Surfin' Bird too.
>
>Ooh Mah mah, papa ohh ma ma ma...
>
>It is a shock to find that those backwards folks from the 19th
>century were better at some stuff, and there are lessons to be
>learned there.
>
>BTW, I did not find those pieces that almost no one could play today
>to be particularly interesting. My point is that the ideology of
>constant progress and newness can blind as well as enlighten.
>
>
>>But if you'll excuse me, I have to restring two guitars right now so I
can
>>play a show tomorrow tonight. Which I probably shouldn't bother doing since
>>nobody really cares about music anymore.
>
>Whew! Another straw man! Terrific. Hey, the article is *evidence*
>that people care about music, and so is your audience. Nonetheless
>I think they are on to something.
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Music - a commodity (reply 1) [message #62942 is a reply to message #62935] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 08:25 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, I for one am glad you got that off your chest.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>OK, I have it now. For music to have "meaning" it has to have a social agenda
>and be "positive" and make the world better and so on. And the increasingcommodification/globaization/star-systemization
>of music means that is less possible, etc etc. Using those presuppositions
>(which I don't) you're right, so it's clear now.
>
>TCB
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 11 11:07:56 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03445 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
