steve wrote:What I suspect is that you like music that surprises you.
Steve, This is the crux of my entire poorly thought out and even more poorly written arguement (if anyone could even call it that).
Music, being the entirely subjective and taste driven medium that it is remains a poor subject to attempt to make the arguement that I made, but one of the greatest criteria that drives my listening is that I be surprised by what I hear and that it hopefully remain surprising (and retain the excitement that such surprise elicits) through many listenings.
I will not dispute that the arguements I presented in my previous rant were poorly thought out. I had a hell of a time just trying to write them. A morning of being subjected to commercial radio and the boredom of my workday certainly fostered the frustration I so clumsily attempted to express.
I perhaps should have stated my frustration is not so much with rock as a broad style or genre so much as its most popular or commercialized forms. Indeed there is equally as much commercialized or just plain bad classical and jazz music that I find unsurprising or inspiring as bad rock, or any other genre for that matter.
My frustration might be better said to be directed at the current state of mass-market, mass-media, where I suppose few of us would care to argue that mediocrity is not the rule. I try to avoid it when and where I can. It induces anger when it becomes impossible to ignore or avoid.
steve wrote:If the function of lyrics and singing were merely to dictate text for transcription/ assimilation, then you would be correct. I don't find that to be the function of vocalization in music, and I feel sorry for anyone who does. Some of my favorite vocalizations, if taken as literature, would be trivial.
Thankfully, they are not. Subject matter and literal meaning are just two of many variable functions that can shade the place, emphasis and effect of vocalization, but they are no more important than the tonal or emotional functions. I cannot criticize the vocalization of (to give one example) Will Oldham, even when he is singing pure gibberish. The "text" value of such singing is nil, and you would be foolish to think his listeners are taking it as literature.
There are other vocalists whose texts are indecipherable, yet who convey the emotional arc of their music. In the classical tradition, opera is sung in the compositional tongue, even to audiences who cannot understand it, and in a stylized form that is meant to serve an almost purely tonal role. Your willful ignorance of the utility of vocalization is telling.
I may have been unclear, but my criticism was aimed squarely at word lyrics where the message is more or less clear and literal. I find vocalization to be an invigorating and exciting part of the musical tonal pallette, as the voice is indeed one of the most flexible and expressive of instruments. One of my favorite vocalizations is the "Sirens" part of Debussy's Trois Nocturnes, or Ligeti's "Lux Aeterna". I do find, however, that I enjoy opera better if I do not follow the libretto or know the language being sung - as the meaning of the words can seem rather trite in comparison to the sheer visceral impact of the vocalizations.
My criticism of popular song structure reflects my desire to be surprised. When I can (with my limited 'armchair-quarterback' understanding of music theory) consistently predict the next chord change or key modulation. When I know exactly what is coming next, without any familiarity with the artist or their work, that is a situaltion where I am quickly bored and need to move on. This is why I seldom listen to Haydan, Handel, or Big Band/Swing.
My dismay at the ubiquity of rock music exists largely as a reaction to those who posit that rock is still a universally fresh, rebellious, form of cultural expression. There are indeed pockets of music, rock and otherwise, that thwart convention and keep the style interesting. On the other hand, I often find myself chuckling that something like "punk" as a style or cultural phenomenon often continues to perpetuate itself as being the same thing it was in 1979 rather than the anachronism that I feel is has largely become.
My criticism of the apparent motivation of rock musicians being money and sex is not so much a stab at you, your friends (or my friends for that matter), or the current state of the art as much as it was a half-assed stab at the primitive popular roots of the music. Here, I believe, is proof against my own arguement that rock has indeed evolved in many ways and grown leaps and bounds in complexity. Again - mass-media in my face as opposed to the reality of many who work in relative obscurity to satisfy the impulse of their artistic needs.
steve wrote:*Your postulate that rock musicians are naiive, unschooled, artless and proud of it
This is what comes across to me, again, in what I percieve to be broad based "mass-media" musicians and musics.
However, I do not hold that belief to all rock musicians and groups, as there are numerous musicians in the genre with exceptional skills and background that I enjoy (many I don't). Many are mentioned on this forum regularly.
steve wrote:*Your embrace of postmodern 20th century academic music as an alternative
I don't know that I was positing this music so much as an alternative as much as that it does exist, introduced many innovations and useful concepts, and goes largely ignored and unnoticed by most everyone except for the academics and moneyed elite. My challange to others would be how to bring this music to wider audiences and appreciation; If only to prevent it from being relagated to the stacks of a music library to collect dust (an apt exagerration).
I've given some thought to what it is I enjoy about jazz as an idiom, and came to the conclusion that, with the styles and performers I enjoy - that listening to musicians play for what seems to be solely their own enjoyment - not mine - does something for me. I'm amused by the noodling or selfish expression of a few musicians playing for what seems to be the sake of their own self expression (or indulgence). Otherwise, the orchestration of much jazz surprises or excites me in ways that electric guitars playing straight rock often don't.
steve wrote:You are bored because you think you have grasped rock music in-toto. Because you think you understand it, you think there is nothing more to it. You are wrong. Your "understanding" of rock music is based on misconceptions, misunderstanding, ignorance...
Indeed... I cannot argue with that. One of the reasons I come to this forum (other than my interest in accurate and natural sounding recording methods/techniques (back to classical, jazz, etc...)) is that I am indeed aware that there is much, much more out there. I have limited time and resources to find the things that might interest me (I don't work in a record store, club, or studio) and do indeed value the suggestions and opinions of those who may share similar interests and backgrounds. I realize that there is much I will never discover or be exposed to - just as there are many great bands and composers who will never be properly recorded or performed. This is what, on a bad day, will drive me to rail so vehemently against what I percieve to be mass-appeal mindless drivel. My apologies if I happen to clumsily lump it under the broadest label of "rock".
