From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #116 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, June 11 2001 Volume 01 : Number 116 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] promo Cotton Mather CD [popanda@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [timv@triad.rr.com] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [timv@triad.rr.com] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [timv@triad.rr.com] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] chat [Jer Fairall ] [loud-fans] CDs for free! ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew We] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew We] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Carolyn Dorsey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:00:57 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears or, as phenomonlogists would have you believe, if you experience it as a peanut butter sandwich, it IS a peanut butter sandwich- that our perceptions are the only reality. >>>>>>>>> I think that you would have to say that we *experience* our perceptions as the only reality, or that our perceptions are the only reality *for us*. And this is true, since none of us have access to the perceptions of others. But, it's not terrifically helpful for attempting to define *music* here, since we've made the assumption that we're attempting to communicate the meaning of the word from one individual to another, and that we want the word to have the same meaning for both individuals. The problem with saying that perceptions are the only reality is that it answers the questions *what is music* on the wrong level. It's as if I asked for directions to the bus stop and you started talking about string theory. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:44:08 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] promo Cotton Mather CD The CD has been claimed. M ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:18:00 -0400 From: timv@triad.rr.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On 10 Jun 2001, at 0:32, jenny grover wrote: > Dana L Paoli wrote: > > > > Eno's definition is ultimately about as helpful as saying that anything > > being appreciated as a peanut butter sandwich by an individual at a > > certain time is a peanut butter sandwich for that person at that moment. > > It confirms that our perceptions are our perceptions, but nothing more. I would say that it's as helpful as it can be without trying to do the impossible. It says as much as you can say about what music or art is--a person having an experience in response to some sensory experience--without trying to make any greater claim that can't be backed up. A peanut butter sandwich actually is an object in the physical world--as is a book, a videotape, a painting, and a compact disc, of course. Literature, cinema, art, or music don't have the same physical existence. > or, as phenomonlogists would have you believe, if you experience it as a > peanut butter sandwich, it IS a peanut butter sandwich- that our > perceptions are the only reality. I think Eno's point was to keep phenomenology in it's place-- mine certainly is anyway! We experience something and we call it music, and everyone else pretty much knows what we're talking about most of the time, as long as their tastes and musical experiences are similar to ours. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't get carried away about what we can and can't say in those terms. There's no set of go/no-go gauges that music will pass through but noise won't. You'll never build a music-o-meter that turns on a green light when it hears music and a red light when it hears noise. We deal with music as if it's something out there, and that's cool if it makes the experience work. But really it's all in here. Daniel Dennett makes pretty much the same point in some of his early books ("Brainstorms" for one) regarding pain, which you and Dana were discussing a couple of days back. The concept of pain is so vaguely and poorly defined as an item of folk psychology that it's of only the most minimal use in medicine. It doesn't correlate to any measureable quantity, yet you won't get anywhere trying to convince a patient that his pains aren't "real." The standard approach is just to accept that a patient is in as much or as little pain as he claims to be. Best wishes, Tim Victor timv@triad.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:08:50 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears At Sunday 6/10/2001 02:18 PM -0400, timv@triad.rr.com wrote: >The concept of pain is so vaguely and poorly defined as an >item of folk psychology that it's of only the most minimal >use in medicine. It doesn't correlate to any measureable >quantity, yet you won't get anywhere trying to convince a >patient that his pains aren't "real." The standard approach >is just to accept that a patient is in as much or as little pain >as he claims to be. This thread is giving me a massive headache. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:36:17 -0400 From: timv@triad.rr.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On 10 Jun 2001, at 0:19, Dana L Paoli wrote: > {quoting me!} > My thought on the original subject, fwiw and mainly cribbed from > Eno: anything being appreciated as music/art/literature by an > individual at a certain time is music/art/literature for that person at > that moment. > >>>>>>>>>> > > This definition doesn't actually say anything other than the fact that a > person is interacting with a thing. The important part, which is the > nature of that interaction, is left undefined via the phrase "being > appreciated as music" which could theoretically mean anything. Also quoting (paraphrasing anyway) Eno: genius can consist of leaving out that which no one has ever thought to leave out before. But maybe I shouldn't have written that without relating Eno's anecdote that sold the point for me: When he was in art school in London in the late '60's, he and his classmates would get together for "happenings," where each person would chant or hum, or drum, or beat two objects together, or play an instrument if he knew how, or try to if he didn't. The result was pretty much cacophony but they were art students and what they were doing was very profound and serious to them. I might be embellishing Eno's story a little here, but the drift of it was that if he'd been a member of the faculty trying to sleep in an adjacent room or even passing in the hall, he'd have just wondered who was making that god-awful racket. If he as his present-day self could return to that scene, he would understand what they were doing but it would probably still sound like a god-awful racket. But to his 18-year-old self, it was as deep and genuine a musical experience as any he's had before or since. So how do you extend a definition beyond mere phenomenology that can reconcile those different viewpoints? Best wishes, Tim Victor timv@triad.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:06:30 -0400 From: timv@triad.rr.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On 10 Jun 2001, at 12:08, Roger Winston wrote: > This thread is giving me a massive headache. I think it's all in your head. Tim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:04:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Roger Winston wrote: > This thread is giving me a massive headache. It's all in your head. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::To be the center of the universe, don't orbit things:: __Scott Miller__ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:06:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 timv@triad.rr.com wrote: > On 10 Jun 2001, at 12:08, Roger Winston wrote: > > This thread is giving me a massive headache. > > I think it's all in your head. Oops - since both Tim and I agree that it's all in your head, it clearly is massive. Anyone else care to cause Roger pain? - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:13:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 timv@triad.rr.com wrote: > There's no set of go/no-go gauges that music will pass > through but noise won't. You'll never build a music-o-meter > that turns on a green light when it hears music and a red > light when it hears noise. We deal with music as if it's > something out there, and that's cool if it makes the > experience work. But really it's all in here. That is, there is (as Wittgenstein said concerning games) a "family resemblance": no one characteristic is common to everything, but there is a network of things that work together to allow us to recognize the resemblance. (Hey! I used "game" and "family" in the same sentence. Bet *that's* never happened on this list before!) The other basic definition of music (aside from the "anything intended or interpreted as music") is simply "organized sound" - which I think works just fine: it specifies the material (sound) but doesn't specify who does the organizing, soundmaker or listener. Damn - it also wouldn't eliminate the guy announcing the stops on the Chicago El, or the weather forecast, or... Okay, maybe "organized non-verbal sound"? But that doesn't work either: someone could obviously *intend* a series of verbal sounds as music (and no, they wouldn't have to be sung). Or maybe we should just allow someone to hear the weather forecast as music? I want to decide who lives and who dies. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Drive ten thousand miles across America and you will know more about ::the country than all the institutes of sociology and political science ::put together. __Jean Baudrillard__ np: rain music, bird music, household work music, washing machine music ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:41:00 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears At Sunday 6/10/2001 03:06 PM -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 timv@triad.rr.com wrote: > > > On 10 Jun 2001, at 12:08, Roger Winston wrote: > > > This thread is giving me a massive headache. > > > > I think it's all in your head. > >Oops - since both Tim and I agree that it's all in your head, it clearly >is massive. Anyone else care to cause Roger pain? How come when I think I'm being Lou Costello, I usually end up as Bud Abbott? Repeat after me: "Sandor 21", Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:59:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: [loud-fans] chat irc.eskimo.com appears to be up and running again after having been down last week. doug and I are in there now, so please drop by! #loudfans, that is. Jer ===== Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:51:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] CDs for free! Up for grabs: 1. RUSH - A Passage To Tucson - live, 11/20/78 SBD 2CDs (http://www.sci.fi/~gzr/rushset/tucson.html) 2. LED ZEPPELIN - Can't Take Your Evil Ways! - live, 2/12/75 AUD 1st CD of a 3 CD set (http://www.cdrboots.com/bootlegs/zeppelin/_75/canttakeyourevilways.html) 3. YES - Live in Hampstead Plus! - 1CD (http://www.joescafe.com/tree/hampsteadtree.htm) First response gets it. One per person, please. PLease include your address so I can send the CDs out Monday. J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:26:39 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears A peanut butter sandwich actually is an object in the physical world--as is a book, a videotape, a painting, and a compact disc, of course. Literature, cinema, art, or music don't have the same physical existence. >>>>>>>>>>> But the taste and the appearance of the sandwich don't have a physical existence. They occupy the same realm that music does. Eno's definition doesn't really give you any means to distinguish between the experience of listening to Mozart and the experience of eating a sandwich. I'm sure that we all agree that the ability to distinguish between the two experiences is useful. So, I don't find that Eno's definition helps us in any way. The concept of pain is so vaguely and poorly defined as an item of folk psychology that it's of only the most minimal use in medicine. >>>>>>>>>>>> At most hospitals (I work in a hospital) they now use a pain gauge of 1-10, which is based on the patient's personal experience of pain, i.e. "1" is the slightest experience of pain and "10" is the worst pain imaginable. Patients in pain are now asked to rate theirs on this scale, and it's been found to be very helpful. Obviously it doesn't rate the pain in any absolute sense, but there's really no need to do that. What matters is that the person's pain level is maintained at a point with which they are comfortable. Even given this, however, you couldn't walk into a hospital emergency room, calmly state that you're in agony (without showing any signs of it), and expect to get Morphine. Even given the absolutely subjective nature of pain, in real life we don't allow for a purely subjective definition. My main problem with Eno's definition is that it doesn't solve a number of real-world problems that come up with reference to music. At the CD shop, there's a section for "noise" and a section for "pop." How do you decide what goes where? The Grammys give awards for best song. How do you decide what counts as a song? Ultimately, as with most word definitions, it comes down to who has the power to define the word. I think that Eno's definition is a little bit utopian, because it assumes that Eno has the power to define the word, when in fact he only has that power to a limited extent. I know that a lot of Eno's thinking comes from Cage, but I wonder if Cage ever really meant to define music at all. I get the impression that his concern was with convincing people to accept that any sound, in any context, could be construed as musical. That's not the same as attempting any definition of music. And clearly, Cage valued some kinds of music over others: he was no fan of Glenn Branca (who claims that Cage ruined his career). I'm not sure what his grounds were for preferring one musical piece to another, but he definitely had them, and he felt justified in spreading his opinions to others. This implies to me that he felt that one's reaction to music is not entirely personal. It seems very hard, though, to find out exactly how he was making distinctions. I also wonder how many of us prefer Eno's early, rock albums to his later work, and whether we listen more to recordings by Cage or by the Beatles. I'm sure that there are some on this list who are exceptions, but I'd guess that the bulk of us prefer early Eno and the Beatles, both of whom were operating within a fairly well defined musical form. If that's so, then why is it that when we discuss music we so readily accept the opinions of people whose actual music is at odds with our personal preferences? - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:05:32 -0700 (PDT) From: mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears At 7:26 PM 6/10/1, Dana L Paoli wrote: >I also wonder how many of us prefer Eno's early, rock albums to his later >work, and whether we listen more to recordings by Cage or by the Beatles. > I'm sure that there are some on this list who are exceptions, but I'd >guess that the bulk of us prefer early Eno and the Beatles, both of whom >were operating within a fairly well defined musical form. If that's so, >then why is it that when we discuss music we so readily accept the >opinions of people whose actual music is at odds with our personal >preferences? Depending on the situation, I could prefer Cage, early Eno, late Eno, or the Beatles. It's not a matter of an absolute preference for one or the other; if I'm in a contemplative mood, I'll reach for ATLAS ECLIPTICALIS or THURSDAY AFTERNOON before TAKING TIGER MOUNTAIN or HELP!. I'm not sure that it's really germane whether Cage's ideas concerning music is at odds with my personal preferences; I mean, Brahms bores me to tears, but I'm not going to argue that he's not a worthwhile composer to be performed & studied (just not by me). Even if you don't think much of his music, Cage's ideas are important, and even if his music could be shown to suck through some kind of (non-existent) objective aesthetic test, it wouldn't have any bearing on his work as a theorist. Matt Representative legislation produces conditions resembling those of patriarchal times. The representatives take the place of the patriarchs and their wealth consists similarly in herds and flocks. But nowadays, these herds are not composed of actual cattle with horns and hoofs, but of cattle, figuratively speaking, who on election days are driven up to the ballot-box to deposit their votes. Max Nordau, _Conventional Lies of Our Civilization_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:09:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > My main problem with Eno's definition is that it doesn't solve a number > of real-world problems that come up with reference to music. At the CD > shop, there's a section for "noise" and a section for "pop." How do you > decide what goes where? Do you really expect any definition of music to solve that problem? I think you *know* how they decide where things are filed in the CD store -- they put things where they expect people will find them. There are all sorts of cultural factors that go into categorization of music, and in the few cases where those factors aren't conclusive, the store just gives up and puts it someplace plausible. When there's ambiguity, some customers will end up looking in two bins, or asking the clerk. They don't need purity. Moreover, every store has a default area, whether they make this explicit or not. At Newbury Comics (and most stores I've been to) things go in the 'Rock/Pop' bin that aren't exactly rock or pop, but for which there's no better bin. Moreover, some things end up there which DO fit in another bin, like Folk, but which the employees don't recognize. Doubly moreover, some records go there just because they're so popular that they'd lose sales if they put them in the genre bins, because some people wouldn't think of looking there. > The Grammys give awards for best song. How do you decide what counts > as a song? An even weirder question -- do you think there's any chance of a Grammy going to something about which there would be any controversy as to whether it was a song? > I'm sure that there are some on this list who are exceptions, but I'd > guess that the bulk of us prefer early Eno and the Beatles, both of > whom were operating within a fairly well defined musical form. If > that's so, then why is it that when we discuss music we so readily > accept the opinions of people whose actual music is at odds with our > personal preferences? Hm. Haven't seen the "Eno: Seducer Of The Innocent" argument before. I don't like Eno's ambient records, but I fail to see how this invalidates his ideas. Those ambient works are still music. You seem to be arguing that if I like Game Theory more than Destiny's Child, then GT is more definitely music than DC is, or worse, that Scott's ideas about art in general are more valid than Beyonce's. (I'm suddenly reminded of something Chris Hornbostel posted a while ago: "Iran beating the US in the World Cup is like the Shaggs beating the Supremes at backgammon.") This debate seems to break down pretty cleanly so far along the line between people who feel inconvenienced by calling too many things music, and people who don't. I've really never had a problem with the word 'music' being overgeneralized. Friend: "Want to listen to this?" Me: "Well, I don't know..." Friend: "It's *music*." Me: "Oh, in that case, I will." Me: "This is terrible!" See, that never happens. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:32:57 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears > "Iran beating the US in the World Cup is like the Shaggs beating the > Supremes at backgammon." I can't possibly resist the temptation to exacerbate this digression. Iran beating the US in the World Cup is meaningless. Iran *playing* the US in the World Cup, however, is part of the slow process of rendering the planet safe for human habitation, in which soccer has what might arguably be an even more central role than McDonald's. glenn (who over the course of this average weekend has played in one soccer game, attended another, watched three on television, and micro-scrutinized the results of six more that were not broadcast, and that only counts the three leagues in which I have a personal stake as a player or season-ticket holder) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:30:28 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears Dana L Paoli wrote: > > It's as if I > asked for directions to the bus stop and you started talking about string > theory. it's as if you took my phenomenology post way too seriously. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:45:49 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 timv@triad.rr.com wrote: > (Hey! I used "game" and "family" in the same sentence. Bet > *that's* never happened on this list before!) and we've got some pretty loud theories going on on the list now, too! Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:51:46 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears Do you really expect any definition of music to solve that problem? I think you *know* how they decide where things are filed in the CD store - -- they put things where they expect people will find them. There are all sorts of cultural factors that go into categorization of music, and in the few cases where those factors aren't conclusive, the store just gives up and puts it someplace plausible. When there's ambiguity, some customers will end up looking in two bins, or asking the clerk. They don't need purity. >>>>>>>>> Well, this whole conversation started, way back when, with people attempting to decide if aube's product qualified as music. I don't particularly expect a definition to solve that problem, but I don't not expect it *not to* either. I'm just curious to hear people's answers to that problem (and your reference to cultural matters is a valid example) but so often when a subject like this comes up, people retreat to philosophy 101, prove that the world doesn't exist, and then expect that the subject is closed. If cultural matters decide that aube is/is not noise, then what are they? I don't like Eno's ambient records, but I fail to see how this invalidates his ideas. Those ambient works are still music. You seem to be arguing that if I like Game Theory more than Destiny's Child, then GT is more definitely music than DC is, or worse, that Scott's ideas about art in general are more valid than Beyonce's. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't say that it invalidates his ideas, but it certainly ought to make us question them. We have two of the "great musical theorists" of the 20th century, and yet it's safe to say that even within a group like loud-fans, where we assume that we know a thing or two about music, we prefer their more traditional work. I wouldn't make the jump to say that Eno and Cage are wrong, but doesn't that indicate that there might be a problem? Usually we get suspicious of philosophies that, over a long period of time, run counter to our experience. We don't discard them, but we do start to question them. In my own experience, many people defer to the Cage/Eno view of music simply because it's backed up by a number of pithy quotes, an aura of intimidating academia, and because it's difficult to argue with several of its philisophical underpinnings. Not because they like the resulting music. I hope that we'll all admit that that's a strange situation. On a personal level, I find it disturbing that Cage was violently opposed to Branca, given that the bulk of the music that I've enjoyed the most over the past twenty years was inspired directly or indirectly by the latter. An even weirder question -- do you think there's any chance of a Grammy going to something about which there would be any controversy as to whether it was a song? >>>>>>>>>>> Has a rap song ever won a Grammy? Is it possible that a rap song might win a Grammy in the future. If the answer to either question is "yes" then yes I do. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:55:47 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears Dana L Paoli wrote: > > Even given this, however, you couldn't walk > into a hospital emergency room, calmly state that you're in agony > (without showing any signs of it), and expect to get Morphine. darn! there go my plans for the rest of the weekend. > then why is it that when we discuss music we so readily accept the > opinions of people whose actual music is at odds with our personal > preferences? i can appreciate the value of a lot of things that may not be my personal preference, particularly in artistic venues. i do know a lot about art, and i still know what i like. that doesn't mean that what i don't care to look at or listen to on an everyday basis isn't important or valid, or that the philosophies behind it's creation aren't valid and can't extend to things that i prefer. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:14:14 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears Dana L Paoli wrote: > > We have two of the "great musical theorists" of > the 20th century, and yet it's safe to say that even within a group like > loud-fans, where we assume that we know a thing or two about music, we > prefer their more traditional work. I wouldn't make the jump to say that > Eno and Cage are wrong, but doesn't that indicate that there might be a > problem? you are assuming you know what the taste of the list is. just for the record, i like eno's ambient work at least as much as his earlier, more pop/rock work. i haven't listened to enough of cage to really know where i stand with him, but i remember being quite captivated by a documentary i saw about him years back. whether or not it sounded pleasant to me, i found what he was doing or attempting to be rather refreshing and interesting. so, is there a problem? not for me, there isn't. > Usually we get suspicious of philosophies that, over a long period of > time, run counter to our experience. We don't discard them, but we do > start to question them. In my own experience, many people defer to the > Cage/Eno view of music simply because it's backed up by a number of pithy > quotes, an aura of intimidating academia, and because it's difficult to > argue with several of its philisophical underpinnings. Not because they > like the resulting music. I hope that we'll all admit that that's a > strange situation. i question all philosophies and my own philosophies are continually evolving. pithy quotes and academia don't impress me, and in fact tend to make me more suspicious. but if there is something of use or believability, or something inspiring in those philosphies, i'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. and if i do like the resulting music, then all the better. i might think this was a strange situation if i actually believed your assertion to be the situation. > Has a rap song ever won a Grammy? Is it possible that a rap song might > win a Grammy in the future. If the answer to either question is "yes" > then yes I do. yet, you said "rap song", implying that you recognize it on some level as a song, whether you want to or not. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:25:36 -0700 (PDT) From: mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears At 9:51 PM 6/10/1, Dana L Paoli wrote: >On a personal level, I find it disturbing that Cage was violently opposed >to Branca, given that the bulk of the music that I've enjoyed the most >over the past twenty years was inspired directly or indirectly by the >latter. Cage referred to a Branca piece as "fascistic," if I remember correctly. Not surprising considering Cage's proclivities and viewpoints (though I'm amused that Branca would zero in on that comment as the reason he didn't Make It Big--I'd say it has more to do with the fact that Branca's work sounds disappointingly one-dimensional on record, though they say that live there were all sorts of interesting acoustical phenomena going on). I don't think, though, that Cage ever said that Branca's work wasn't music: and in any case, Cage can be wrong on a minor point, and even on several major ones, and still be an important theorist. As far as Cage & Eno being "great musical theorists"--I'd back off from that a bit. I think both are important and interesting, but both also occupy positions rather far removed from the mainstream of 20th-c. music theory. Most of the people I know who are into Cage are artists or critical-theory types, in fact. Matt Representative legislation produces conditions resembling those of patriarchal times. The representatives take the place of the patriarchs and their wealth consists similarly in herds and flocks. But nowadays, these herds are not composed of actual cattle with horns and hoofs, but of cattle, figuratively speaking, who on election days are driven up to the ballot-box to deposit their votes. Max Nordau, _Conventional Lies of Our Civilization_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:46:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > I don't like Eno's ambient records, but I fail to see how this > invalidates his ideas. Those ambient works are still music. You seem to > be arguing that if I like Game Theory more than Destiny's Child, then GT > is more definitely music than DC is, or worse, that Scott's ideas about > art in general are more valid than Beyonce's. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn't say that it invalidates his ideas, but it certainly ought to > make us question them. We have two of the "great musical theorists" of > the 20th century, and yet it's safe to say that even within a group like > loud-fans, where we assume that we know a thing or two about music, we > prefer their more traditional work. I wouldn't make the jump to say that > Eno and Cage are wrong, but doesn't that indicate that there might be a > problem? Who do you mean "we," Kemo Sabe? Curiously, over on the Wire list, we've been having a debate about Radiohead's _Amnesiac_, and the opinions of one side of that issue seem to boil down to "Radiohead is too boring and normal for me"; instead, they're proferring lists of names of very obscure people doing even more obscure music, which to probably 99% of the world would sound like one's refrigerator exploding, or one's refrigerator working properly, only a bit louder. I would say that folks in that crowd - if they deigned to regard Eno as anything but a sellout, of course - would probably claim his ambient works are way better than his "rock" works. But really, all this is sort of a silly way of answering the question. Of course it shouldn't matter if people in general don't like the music of music's theorists: we don't expect television repairers to be able to make a good TV show, we expect only that they know how the machine works. (And we probably don't expect TV critics to make good shows either - even if some of them might have very interesting theories on why good shows are good.) Finally, the argument about Eno's "power" or lack thereof, and the argument about where things are filed in the record stores, seem pretty irrelevant to the discussion as it started. Fortunately, there's no Central Scrutinizer coming around my place to tell me which recordings in my collection are and are not music - I'm free to regard any of them as whatever I please. And similarly, I can rant and rave at the record store all I want about how Kenny G is anything but jazz and is properly filed in the dumpsters out back - but that will probably make zero difference to the fact that, as far as the stores that sell his records are concerned, he goes in the "jazz" bins. Again, I'm free to regard his music as anything but jazz - no one's going to force me to think otherwise. Now it is true that if more and more people think of Kenny G when they hear the word "jazz," the term's going to sound increasingly strange as applied to Thelonious Monk - and at some point, maybe we'll have to invent a new word for what Monk et al. did - but that's sort of a populist version of language, and the way the original question was phrased (by doug, no?) was more or less in a philosophical, ontological vein. That is, the "jazz" example is about the definition of a word - the discussion doug had begun is about the definition of an idea. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::it's not your meat:: __Mr. Toad__ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:49:12 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears > Has a rap song ever won a Grammy? Is it possible that a rap song might > win a Grammy in the future. If the answer to either question is "yes" > then yes I do. yet, you said "rap song", implying that you recognize it on some level as a song, whether you want to or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> Jenny, I'm going to quote the original question again: "An even weirder question -- do you think there's any chance of a Grammy going to something about which there would be any controversy as to whether it was a song?" The question didn't involve whether I recognize rap as a song. It asked if there might be a controversy over whether a Grammy winner was a song. Currently a significant number of people deny that rap constitutes music. Therefore, if a rap song wins a Grammy, there would be controversy over whether it is a song. I can't quite understand what you think my opinions have to do with that. you are assuming you know what the taste of the list is. just for the record, i like eno's ambient work at least as much as his earlier, more pop/rock work. >>>>>>>>>>> We have these nutty things called top ten lists that get posted yearly. A number of folks also list their top albums of all time on the web. Oddly enough, John Cage and later Eno are not an overwhelming presence. Now, of course, it's possible that everyone is hiding their great love for Cage and Eno from me, out of pure spite so I'll look stupid when I post about them... I think that Roger would be the first to admit that I've had the opportunity to make my point and have taken full advantage. Thank you to all and good night. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:04:58 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears Dana L Paoli wrote: > > We have these nutty things called top ten lists that get posted yearly. > A number of folks also list their top albums of all time on the web. > Oddly enough, John Cage and later Eno are not an overwhelming presence. first off, the top ten lists i've seen posted on here were primarily for new releases. have eno or cage released anything lately? second- how many people are on this list, and how many of them actually post these lists? third- top ten certainly can't include much! considering the volume of music that i, and many people on this list listen to, i wonder that anyone can decide on a top ten anything beyond, say, top ten albums i'm listening to this week. i would be hard pressed to present you with an honest and inclusive top ten bands, much less reduce it down to albums. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:20:48 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears At Sunday 6/10/2001 10:49 PM -0400, Dana L Paoli wrote: >I think that Roger would be the first to admit that I've had the >opportunity to make my point and have taken full advantage. Thank you to >all and good night. Maybe... but I'm still trying to figure if you didn't know there was a Grammy category for Best Rap Song (Album, etc.), or if you just were only trying to make a point... At Sunday 6/10/2001 09:46 PM -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >we don't expect television repairers to be able to make >a good TV show, we expect only that they know how the machine works. The guy who repaired my refrigerator last month had a mullet. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:24:29 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears actually, isn't there a grammy for spoken word performance? so, apparently they do hand out grammy's for things they don't think of as "songs". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:49:16 -0700 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears