Loved by fellow musicians - hated by critics and "hipsters"

More "Let's talk about" than C/D, S/D, really.

But anyway, you know, Toto, Chicago, lots of prog and "fusion". What is it about this thing, and why do musicians' tastes vary so much from other "experts" that are not musicians themselves. I mean, what musicians do have in common with critics and hipsters is a huge interest in music and some kind of "expertise" over music that the man on the street doesn't possess in the same way. But why do they disagree so much over these acts?

I don't think that hipsters have any interest in music, it's simply a convenient means for them to be seen as "hip".

art vs. craft

Well, the musicians you're talking about are more interested in playing music than listening to it. So they get a kick out of more technical things - like, I dunno, ultra-fast hammer-ons, complex harmonies, or funk played in a rock way (or vice versa) - that are either unnoticeable if you're taking the track as a whole, or are just plain miserable to listen to. Critics are looking for something else - excitement or novelty or whatever - which doesn't necessarily correspond to the technical merits of the playing, and which Toto or Chicago do not possess. (Many people on ILM may like music for similar reasons, Geir, which may go some way to explaining why they sometimes hold a different opinion to you). Does that answer your question?

or what treblekicker said

Just last night I was thinking that I tend to be interested in different music as a *guitar player* than I do as a *muso* or whatever the fuck I am, and it got me thinking. In my *critical mode* I think of a band less as a collection of musicians playing instruments (like technicians) and more as the source of an aesthetic or sound (ie artists).

I realize this is a completely bullshit dichotomy as there is no art without technique/non-technique-as-technique, but the fact that I switch back and forth between the conceptual channels was interesting to me: I usually listen to death metal thinking "damn that is an incredible riff," I usually listen to (say) Fleet Foxes thinking "that hits in the chest!"

deezhoos

Yes, all musicians like prog, Toto, Chicago.
Good base assumption, Geir A+ would read again.

But anyway, you know, Toto, Chicago, lots of prog and "fusion". What is it about this thing, and why do musicians' tastes vary so much from other "experts" that are not musicians themselves. I mean, what musicians do have in common with critics and hipsters is a huge interest in music and some kind of "expertise" over music that the man on the street doesn't possess in the same way. But why do they disagree so much over these acts?

none of this is true

what about musicians who are also critics?

how about hipster musicians? what about hipster critics?

or HIPSTER-MUSICIAN-CRITICS

which describes like 60% of ILM

max comes to wreck

Musicians who are also critics tend to be liked by critics who are not musicians but not by critics who are musicians because they can tell their music is rather critic-y, right?

everyone's a critic

yeah Geir the dudes that come into my guitar shop are always talking about how much they love Toto and fucking Chicago.

you are completely insane

ILM is mostly comprised of HIPSTERS-HOLDING-FISH

Great thread.

hipsters and critics hate prog because they want you to suffer.

i thought everyone liked toto

people who say they like toto don't have any interest in music, it's simply a convenient means for them to be seen as "prog".

Chicago were approved by Critics and Hipsters until they stopped being a marginally above average jazz-rock-soul band and started doing gloopy Cetera-led ballads.

the dune soundtrack is tite

pa-na-nah-nah-naaaaaaaaaaah-pah-PAH

Sid Vicious was into Chicago, I believe

Chicago were approved by Critics and Hipsters until they stopped being a marginally above average jazz-rock-soul band and started doing gloopy Cetera-led ballads.

This happened gradually, you know. Already on their second album, there were some of those ballads. And generally, only the debut has found some place in the critical canon.

which would prove his point

ok geir what's your theory about this alarming conflict

And yes, of course there are various types of musicians, but in this case, when I say musicians, I mean people who are some kind of "musos". Either with musical education or sort, or with long experience as musicians within different styles, maybe as session players etc. They are the ones who tend to read mags for professional musicians, and more than other musicians, the one who will identify themselves as "musicians".

They are obviously about average technically (or composition-wise) themselves, and often tends to admire stuff that is technically even better than their playing, or composition-wise even more sophisticated with more complicated chords etc.

So far, so good. But why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

Their credibility was shot to pieces after Terry Kath.

I mean, surely, they will often be united over Steely Dan, but even in the case of Steely Dan, critics tend to ignore their technical perfection and get into them more because of their bizzare sense of humour, the "dark" quality of the music and lyrics, and stuff like that.

So far, so good. But why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

Because you can't here them on the record?

Their credibility was shot to pieces after Terry Kath.

I think even most professional musicians will agree with you about that. I mean, it isn't like they go on about how "You're The Inspiration" and "Hard To Say I'm Sorry" are such fantastic musical masterpieces. :)

So far, so good. But why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

Because you can't HEAR them on the record?

There's so much painfully immaculate technical perfection on later Dan records like Gaucho that they sound almost like proto-electronica.

"Hold Me Now," the DJ Kaos Happy Hardcore remix of "Hard To Say I'm Sorry," is one of my favourite singles of all time.

man all this thread needs now are some suicide jokes! o wait

In short:

You can appreciate a well made table, but you would love a table that reflects your personality.

Alternatively, it's the differential between postman and poet.

why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

There's the rub. Why do you think it is, Geir?

What people who aren't music musos themselves are often unable to understand is that the personality and the emotions is in the music itself. See also classical music.

Wait, what?

xxp to marcello. yes thank you, I have claimed before that Glamour Profession sounds like Luomo but to poor response,

like those emotional double-hammer-ons in The Final Countdown

blah blah blah tone melody and harmony blah blah blah Genesis blah blah yadda yadda 12 tone the Beatles "Penny Lane" middle eight etc etc etc

You see, what we are trying to say is:....

(sings)
"A chair is still a chair, even when there's no-one there..
But a chair is not a house, and a house is not a home, when there's ..
no-one there...."

I've never cried as much as when I listened to Good Enough by Dodgy

You guys are pedantic.

Dream Theater is probably the best example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Last_Songs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahler_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Valkyries

please please please stop talking out of your ass

there's no point disputing with geir, because he knows less than nothing about classical music, but i didn't think it was possible another poster could appear who could spout equally ignorant bollocks on the same subject. thanks vision.

KILL DA WABBIT

Please enlighten us and elaborate on your erudite observations about what I said about classical music Shacknasty. So far, you namecalling only reveals your stupidity.

"Geir is correct in pointing that the 20th century, while it has many experiments, does not realy have lasting, canonical classical music on the same level of previous centuries."

you got a time machine in the garage or something?

scott no, I've this thing called common sense and historical perspective, try it some day.

i am 99% sure you are a sock.

your common sense tells you what people will be listening to and what will be canonical from the 20th century in a hundred or two hundred years?

"Most people are not really likely to listen to Stockhausen in the near future."

see, common sense tells ME that, if anything, MORE people will listen to Stockhausen in the future. his stock will only rise higher as his grave grows colder. i predict church of stockhausen by 3030.

I find scott's opinions fascinating and would like to subscribe to his newsletter

why, I have already listened to Stockhausen MORE in the last 2 years than in the previous 33 put together!

20th Century pieces that have reached canonical status:

Puccini - Madama Butterfly (1904)
Gershwin - Porgy and Bess (1935)
Mahler - Symphony 8 (1907)
Britten - take yr pick, actually, either Peter Grimes (1945) or War Requiem (1962)
Stravinsky - Rite of Spring (1913)
Copland - again, take yr pick, way too many to list
Williams - once again, take yr pick; probably easier to list his scores that DIDN'T strike a chord with people

This is by no means intended to be a definitive list; just pointing out that the idea that there are no canonical 20th Century classical/symphonic pieces is blatantly wrong.

schoenberg - verklate nacht, erwartung, variations for orch. op.31, gurrelieder, a survivor from warsaw, the 2nd chamber symphony

Rhapsody in Blue bitchez

scott, my common sense tells me there are basic, mathematical standards of beauty inherent to people's perceptions: symmetry, harmony, ratio etc. These are the elements people look for in music, they haven't changed in the last millennia. 20th century classical music is lacking in those elements. Outcasts and underachievers keep hoping time will bring a different,upside down perspective that could make their own shortcomings seem normal, but human nature stays the same.

bartok - bluebeard's castle, the str.qts, concerto for orch., the miraculous mandarin, music for strings, percussion and celesta, the piano oncertos

(srsly though, how many ppl know the themes from "Star Wars", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Close Encounters...", "Jaws", "Superman", etc etc etc? John Williams is probably the most widely-recognized living American composer.)

critical appeals to "human nature" are always bullshit. sorry.

but Dan OTM otherwise

uh, I am sure you know I didn't make any human nature arguments and yr followup post is very misleading in that way but FOR THE RECORD I think Vision is also talking out of his ass

Shakey, human nature is rubbish only for those who still haven't attained human status themselves.

there are basic, mathematical standards of beauty inherent to people's perceptions: symmetry, harmony, ratio etc.

I mean this is so bald-facedly wrong - all you have to do is compare different cultures' musical traditions. Middle eastern music, western music, Indian music, gamelan, african music, etc all operate on radically different standards.

(yes I know Dan, I was just making a clumsy attempt to differentiate between the two different arguments going on concurrently here)

Black, you 're just namedropping. Shrillness betrays ignorance.

lolololol

lolriffic Vision keep it up

basically vision, you're wrong. it's that simple. 20c classical music (and how on earth can that be considered as an entity? it's as ridiculous as saying 20c popular music) has literally thousands of canonical pieces, and dozens of 20c composers are listened to with pleasure by millions, as well as taught at a basic level. you've lost the argument already.

but you know this cos you're a sock.

I mean I'm happy to take issue with Dan about a lot of things but classical music and music theory is not one of them

x-post

BTW, hysterical laughter also often betrays ignorance...

Shacknasty, "thousands" of canonical pieces? You don't say! Please tell me more!

do you want to see Dan's CV or something?

I'm not the definitive word on classical music! I just happen to be around a lot of it.

oh hey, if we've moved to the unrepentant bragging portion of the thread, I'm going to link reviews of the last opera chorus gig I did

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2008/10/18/opera_boston_takes_aim_at_webers_der_freischutz/

http://bostonist.com/2008/10/21/opera_bostons_der_freischutz.php

"20th century classical music is lacking in those elements"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61OO2dvCFaL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jEAyhAOuL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=music&sc2=reviews&sc3=performance&id=81090

(there's an incredibly savage blog review out there that I can't find)

i take it this was your idea:

"A pre-Freudian interpretation of the hero’s shooting problems as sexual impotence may explain the erotic gesturing, and Max’s pants being pulled down to his ankles during the Wolf Glen scene."

i can't wait for the hovhaness boom of 2080. god i love his stuff so much.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2000/feb00/hovhaness11.jpg

scott, RE Barber et al: exceptions do not justify the rule.

Exceptions are the only ones people remember.

arvo and gorecki get all the ink, but hovhaness can stand up with those dudes easily.

no i agree with you vision, i hate the barber. this is more in line with your requirements:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y8X2BBE6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

the messaien quartet is fab though.

and hovhaness's stuff is, like, totally TONAL and melodic and all that. so rich and creative. the 20th century had no short supply of AMAZING music. but it feels silly to even write that. doesn't everyone know that?

people who try to define what kind of pop music classical musicians listen to are naively taking their own social experience for the whole truth.

And how exactly was it that my post put sand in your genital area, sir?

I mean, Christ, yes, of course there are loads of musicians out there who get their groove on to "Thela Hun Ginjeet" or whatever. But in my experience, most orchestral players who aren't contemporary music specialists either (a) listen mostly to classical music, or (b) listen mostly to the same stuff everyone else in their demographic does. It's the Guitar Center kids that go in search of the note-y stuff, not the third chair violinists.

20th century classical music is lacking in those elements. Outcasts and underachievers keep hoping time will bring a different,upside down perspective that could make their own shortcomings seem normal, but human nature stays the same.

Not that I need to bother with anyone who'd post this kind of sub-Harold Schonberg crap. Projecting your own small-minded tastes as some kind of absolute truth is far, far worse a crime than talking a bit loosely about the musical tastes of trad classical musicians.

(Also, anyone who thinks that 20th century contemporary classical stylings have had no lasting influence or resonance has apparently never gone to the movies!)

I mean this is so bald-facedly wrong - all you have to do is compare different cultures' musical traditions. Middle eastern music, western music, Indian music, gamelan, african music, etc all operate on radically different standards.

OTM

aw, i like the barber.

but i love the xenakis too.

i reckon hohvaness is better than both part and gorecki.

So Black Seinfeld, by that very rationale, only the exceptions from the 20th century (Williams, Barber et al) will be remembered. All the dodecaphonic/cacophonous fraudsters will be deservedly assigned footnote status.

Well, apart from "Also sprach Zarazustra"

small caveat for one of the most famous/instantly recognized and overused classical pieces in Western culture

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:55 PM (Yesterday)

agreed. after 2001 it should have been off-limits.

you mean after Being There

nothing against Being There, but 2001 came first!

They're like Voltron imo: Loved by good, feared by evil.